Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 07:27, 26 November 2006

Welcome!

Hello, Doc Tropics, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Timrem 18:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Glad to see you

Gald to see your back Æon _EA! 18:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Aeon! I've got a lot of catching up to do :) --Doc Tropics 19:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh I second that! Hope the family's OK now! SBJohnny2 21:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks SB...I knew someone would be logging in to claim that edit, I just wasn't sure who :) --Doc Tropics 21:12, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm having password issues :-(. I'll log back in this evening when it lets me retrieve it again. Have you had time to browse around the wikibooks garden stuff (A Wikimanual of Gardening)? I'll be working on that today (raining cats and dogs here.) ----SB_Johnny | 10:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikification

Hiya, thanks for asking. Overall, Disease theory of alcoholism seems to be coming along nicely. In order to tweak it a little cleaner, I'd recommend reviewing the Misplaced Pages:Manual of style, and reorganizing the article a bit. For example, put a bolded title in the top line, and make sure that the sections are properly ordered and titled (External links at the bottom, References right above it). I'd also move the elements from the "cited papers" section into references, either directly, or via in-line citations. See WP:CITE for formatting. And if you have any other questions, please don't hesitate to let me know.  :) --Elonka 04:54, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Wikimanual...

Yeah, the whole thing needs to be indexed, I'll be working on that the next few days. You'll see the rest of the pages using b:Special:Allpages/A Wikimanual of Gardening. I've been the only one working on it for a while, though someone else just started contributing to it a few days ago. If you'd like something imported to work on, let me know (or just list it on b:WB:RFI).

Do you have an account on wikibooks yet, by the way?

There's a LOT of dewikifying to do, not just in that book. We just got the import tool a few weeks ago, so I've been pretty busy chipping away at Category:Copy to Wikibooks and Category:Articles containing how-to sections. If you find dewikifying to be a zen experience (or a "forbidden fruit" experience, since you also wikify here), all the new imports are listed on b:Wikibooks:Transwiki. --SB_Johnny||_books 13:05, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Witness tampering

Your recent edit to Witness tampering (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Misplaced Pages articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 19:32, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you remove it? This is clearly a bot mistake. Michaelas10 (T|C) 19:29, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I meant to add the following explanation so that other editors might learn from my mistake:

• I received this warning after removing a large block of text from the article (90% of the article was simply a copy-and-paste of U.S. legal codes). However, in the process I also inadvertently removed a few lines of legitimate text. Even though my initial edit was well-intentioned, it's probably better to take small bites :) --Doc Tropics 19:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

hey

So how bad is the situation? If he's just started acting this way, I was thinking about leaving this message: Before the situation worsens, I'll do as the above user did and remind you that we are not censored. The facts, regardless of how obscene, will be part of Misplaced Pages. It has also come to my attention that you have been "reminding" people of the law regarding child pornography or something of that sort. This may be construed as a a legal threat, and most certainly as a case of incivility given the way in which you've voiced your opinions. So, before this gets worse (maybe resulting in a penalty, I'd ask you to contact me or any other editor in good standing for a way to resolve the issue, rather than continuing in the same manner. Think it would be appropriate? AdamBiswanger1 03:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

*That* MFD

No, I intend to leave the original MFD, but, though it would be a lot neater and tidier, and I am tempted to set up a new MFD, I think it is only fair to leave it on the existing page with comments intact. I feel I have made such a muddle of this by vacillating. --Zeraeph 03:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Doc, Zeraeph. Don't blame yourself. It was already a done deal by the time I got online, so had no chance to say "Don't do it!!" .. But I am kicking myself that I didn't say something anyway. KICK KICK KICK. --A green Kiwi in learning mode 04:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Careful there, Kiwis bruise easily. Besides, they say that Misplaced Pages is a process, and they're right. It's a learning process. Fortunately, most things can be fixed. The worst-case scenario is that the closing Admin will get a migraine and you'll need to lie low for a while :) --Doc Tropics 04:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Not half as much as I am kicking me...I am a GROWN UP, I KNOW perfectly well not to "people please" but that didn't stop me. I guess I have effectively "blown it" on this one now. I think I'll take your advice Doc and just let it run it's course. But NEVER AGAIN. "Lie Low?" I suspect it would be safer to just decamp to Mars! --Zeraeph 04:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah Doc, you are sweetie.. and you are funny to boot.. A winning combination. You can take my blood pressure anytime (even if you aren't an MD - I'll teach you how. (giggles)

And Zeraeph, it's a funny thing. I can see these things as they develop. And I can help others. But I can't help myself from blowing. It is like I am programmed to be a lamb led to slaughter. I just got taken for a bundle yesterday, so save me a spot on the shuttle to Mars. --A green Kiwi in learning mode 04:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict) LOL about Mars! And "people pleasing" is easy to slip into in an environment that values consensus. No one will ever fault you for lack of AGF anyway...--Doc Tropics 04:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

And another LOL for Kiwi. It's a good thing I'm not trying to do serious work here, I'm getting a little slap-happy. --Doc Tropics 04:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I think A Kiwi was VERY decent about this too...and I feel guilty now because of all the truly great editing on another article A Kiwi would have been doing if I could just keep my foot in my mouth and my head under the bedclothes...it all started with me noticing that page and idly wondering "what's wrong with this picture?"...if only I hadn't wondered out loud...way past Euro bedtime...--Zeraeph 04:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

NOW I get it about the strikeout...it's 4:40am here...head stopped working, THANKS. --Zeraeph 04:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh gosh, I hope you don't have to wake up and go to work soon, but I understand the addiction-factor of WP very well. I'm glad you didn't mind me changing the strikeout; I didn't want to step on your toes, but I did want to make it as clear as possible. I also tried to leave a clear Edit Summary so that no one else will object. --Doc Tropics 04:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Thought I'd better "overedit" myself, just to MAKE SURE nobody else objected...nah it's a holiday here in the morning...'night.--Zeraeph 04:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks good, now get some sleep. --Doc Tropics 04:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZ--Zeraeph 05:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Taking offers at face value

Regarding your recent edit to my user watchlist — no forgiveness necessary. The offer was made at face value, and I'm perfectly happy with your edit. I just don't understand why one of the two people who took the greatest issue with that phrasing didn't do this ages ago. After all, the official Misplaced Pages:User page#Removal policy makes it perfectly clear that other users can remove content from one's user page, and that listing a user page for deletion should be reserved for "excessive" cases. To my mind one disputed word in a whole page is not "excessive". —Psychonaut 05:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you didn't mind. I've seen these Watchlist MfDs get so out of hand that good editors on both sides quit (or at least took long breaks), and I don't want us to go there again. The whole project suffers. I think all three of you have my page Watchlisted right now, so I'll repeat myself here: Can we call a truce, shake hands, and move on? I can tell there is some turbulent history between you, but each of you is a good editor and worthy of the others' respect. --Doc Tropics 05:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Conversation with Xchanter

Your aggression is unwarranted. You desire the world's children to see pornography? What?! I fail to understand your anger at me. Xchanter 06:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)Xchanter

Well Xchanter, you've got me figured out. No one else realized I was here trying to peddle pornography to the world's children, but you saw right through me didn't you? If you promise not to turn me in, I'll cut you in for a piece of the action from my Drugs and Guns sales. How about 10%? You won't get a better offer anywhere else. --Doc Tropics 06:20, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Essay

Hi Doc, thanks for your message. I only have time for a quick reply right now. I didn't create an Essay as such, but I did post to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sexology_and_sexuality/WIP-image-guidelines#Discussion_on_.22Multi-media_behind_a_link.22. It's hard to tell if that proposed quideline is going anywhere or not. The neew image on the Pearl Necklace article is interesting. It is a little more "clinical" in that (a) it shows no nudity (b) it shows no one's face. I'll put some time into thinking about this new image and about your idea of creating an essay in one place about this. Meanwhile, you may want to make a comment at that proposed guideline page. Johntex\ 18:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

RFM

I'm so sorry...I thought you would like to participate, but if not, would it be ok for me to remove your name do you think? --Zeraeph 03:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Doc, left a message for you on Zeraeph's talk page.. --A green Kiwi in learning mode 03:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I did weird stuff didn't I?

When you tweaked the RfM all the sigs in "Agree to Mediation" were lost. I'm not sure what the intent of your edit was, but I'm pretty sure that wasn't it, so I reverted to the signed version. If I'm mistaken and you meant to remove the sigs, just restore your latest edit. Sorry for any confusion. --Doc Tropics 18:10, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea why...I THOUGHT all I did was delete an RCF example link I had left in by accident...I have struck it out now... I think MAYBE it had something to do with editing a section not whole page--Zeraeph 18:22, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

That might be it Z. When I was reviewing the edit I couldn't see how it happened...it just happened. I didn't even notice it until after I had corrected the typos, so I ended up reverting myself too. It look like you, Kiwi, and I might make a good comedy team :) --Doc Tropics 18:27, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

But it is so much more FUN to post dialogue in many places ;o)

--Zeraeph 18:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Mousey qualities

Thank you. I'm glad when someone appreciates my sense of humor. AnonEMouse 22:47, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

My edits to Roswell, Georgia

Hi Doc, thanks for your insight regarding the Misplaced Pages:Profanity guideline with respect to quoting in the Roswell, Georgia article; however, paraphrasing the quote without using the expletive (and assuming the paraphrase does not cause the article to be "less informative, relevant, or accurate") causes the part about "rendering a quote as it was originally spoken/written" as moot IMHO (as the paraphrase would be an "equally suitable" alternative).

In the case of the David Cross quote, IMO "whitest" is "whitest" no matter what adjectives are used to modify it. So there would appear to be no need to use the exact quote with the profanity when paraphrasing it will still imply "whitest" (i.e. accurately state "white to the greatest degree") and also abide by Misplaced Pages:Profanity's "if and only if" statement.

As I've just run across the profanity guideline, I'm interested in how other people interpret it. Thanks. --Roswell native 03:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

My interpretation is that if we're going to actually place quotation marks around a phrase and attribute to a specific individual, then it is absolutely necessary to use their exact words; I really don't think there is any "wiggle room" on that point. Interestingly though, I agree that in this case the quote doesn't belong in the article at all, and shouldn't have been included in the first place. I more-or-less said as much on the Talkpage. If you're interested in canvassing for a variety of opinions, you might try posting to The Village Pump (misc.). If you do, it always helps to provide a link for people to follow. Happy editing :) --Doc Tropics 05:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

YES! Editing together sounds delightful

Editing a totally non-controversial article seems like just the medicine I need. I will take you up on your challenge and add your contributions page to my links ... and follow you about. Be prepared to have me pop up! :o)) --A green Kiwi in learning mode 05:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll be delighted myself Kiwi, especially if your spelling is better than mine... --Doc Tropics 05:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I am sooo LMAO! Man of Danger? Of course, now I feel obligated to get back to work on articles, just so that list will look impressive :) --Doc Tropics 07:50, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

W D Attempts to Misuse Mediation Request Page

W D's gave lengthy "testimony", then immediately declared himself "recused" (rather than stating that he was refusing to mediate). I deleted both and have asked Zeraeph how to go about having his testimony deleted from page history. I have posted to this Talk page explaining that the stated rules on that page do not provide for anything but acceptance or refusal and that comments, in any case, are not allowed.

• The entire point of mediation, of course, it to MEDIATE, not to have the same opportunities he had already enjoyed on public Wiki spaces and pages - of making unfounded accusations and then repeatedly refusing to be held accountable for those unfounded accusations. --A green Kiwi in learning mode 05:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I brought this up on Z's Talkpage. I suspect this will lead to the Request being rejected. It might be best to replace WDragon's comments since this is an "official" process; what's been done will need to stay in the record. Nothing's ever easy is it? --Doc Tropics 05:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Doc. It's funny how people say that AOL IPs change with every page load. They don't. And sometimes, they stay the same for a long time, even if you sign and back on .. or even if you change the city your are dialing into... so I have been unable to post for some time because some nitwit has been vandalizing.

No, what he posted has absolutely zero influence on what happens at this time. But what he posted had to come down and stay down. You see, he was trying to offer up testimony, then slip out the back door, leaving a note for the judge that, "so sorry, won't be able to be here afterall"

• First of all, the ONLY two responses are Agree or Disagree, with time stamps (ie, to be involved in the mediation). NO OTHER RESPONSE is allowed. So anything other than that must be removed.
• Second, NO COMMENTS are allowed by responders. Not by Zereaph, not by me, not by any of us. This is a REQUEST for a mediation, not the PROCESS of mediation and testimony or evidence has no place on this application form. So anything like that has to be removed.

The reason Zeraeph had to request a mediation was because the other parties refused to mediate with us when we were on our own. Zeraeph and I both were repeatedly charged with misconduct and threatened with official censure and blocking, but were repeatedly stone-walled when we requested to know what it was to which they were responding. Before that, there was an endless chain of relentless stone-walling, refusing to proceed in a proper fashion in defense of AfD. Ad hominem attacks were substituted when we didn't shut up and go away.

• You see, sometimes people fight dirty. And the only way out of it is to ask for oversight. That is when the people who don't have any valid basis for what they have been doing head for the hills. I sincerely doubt if either of them will Agree to mediation. For that matter, I strongly suspect neither of them will even respond with Disagree. Some people don't like having that down in the official record, you see. --A green Kiwi in learning mode 08:01, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

AOL user, eh? you have my sympathies...

I've come to see the necessity of formal mediation in this situation, and I have to admit that WD didn't really handle it properly. I'm pretty sure the Request was invalidated as soon as he made his entry. It might be reversible if he were to re-post with either a straightforward "Accept" or "Reject", but otherwise this Request is DOA. I'm starting to think Zeraeph should scrap it and start over. My head is starting to hurt :) --Doc Tropics 08:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I LOVE AOL - browser speed can even beat broadband. And ALL my shortcuts AND my addressbook are saved online so I can access them anywhere at all in the world. And I have a terrific free McAfee firewall, av and spyware detector. all for $10/mo. AND I get CallerID pop-ups when someone calls when I'm online, and I can select how to handle the call. So I'm awful happy with it.

Don't worry about the RfM. W D didn't ruin anything at all. It had to be removed, but it didn't ruin anything. Nope, it will be up there for the entire 7 days, and only if neither of them (doesn't have to be both of them) accept mediation will the request die. Just because Zeraeph was the one to request a mediation doesn't give any sort of an "edge" to one side or another. And the point is not to have a winner or loser. The point is to have a mediation committee help the aggrived parties on both sides (as you see, you aren't a party) come to see the same side of things - and that is often a totally new side neither party had seen before. Til later --A green Kiwi in learning mode 08:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I ask you to assume good faith. I replied to the page assuming that it followed the same discourse as at the Arbitration Committee. This was incorrect, and I would have removed it myself if you had simply brought it to my attention instead of posting comments behind my back. Please, if you want to come this to come to a positive resolution, start having some respect, as well as assume good faith. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Misplaced Pages) 01:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Yikes! I think you've misunderstood my posts WD. Let me assure you that I never lacked for good faith; I was simply concerned that your response and the RV's that followed would "void" the Request, necessitating a re-do. Whether or not you choose to particpate is certainly your decision and I wouldn't criticize you either way. It's misunderstandings like this that make AGF an important thing for all of us to remember. Believe me, all I want from this procees is a "positive resolution"; I don't have hard feelings towards anyone involved in this unfortunate situation...I'm the one who's trying to keep things from escalating! --Doc Tropics 01:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

My post was meant to be in reply to the original talk comment posted by A Kiwi, I'm sorry if this was unclear (as it probably was). -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Misplaced Pages) 01:36, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Since you posted to my Talkpage, I naturally assumed it was directed to me. Needless to say, I was a little distressed. Perhaps if you want to address your concerns to Kiwi it would be best to post this to her Talkpage. Anyway, thanks for clarifying. --Doc Tropics 01:40, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I replied here since this is where the discussion seems to be taking place, and I'm sure Kiwi will check here. I did extend Kiwi a few helpful tips for editing on his talk page, though. -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Misplaced Pages) 01:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough, WD. I'm usually pretty easy to get along with unless you're actually vandalizing one of "my" articles. And we both know you're not a vandal ; ) --Doc Tropics 01:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

If I were a vandal, I'd shoot myself out of spite :) I've grown to despise blatant vandals :) -- Wizardry Dragon (Talk to Me) (Support Neutrality on Misplaced Pages) 01:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

LOL, tell me about it! I spent part of the day on RC Patrol. Believe me, if I could crawl through the monitor to give someone a good smack...there would be some very sore noggins out there. :) --Doc Tropics 02:02, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

hey!

I use Vandal Proof which is easy to use and I havae it on IP mode lol to find the anon vandals. Æon _EA! 17:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I know, That one is a hot one......Æon _EA! 17:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I know! they are really good about that. Æon _EA! 21:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Re:Protection

Hehe, well I was at school. Anyway, I'm going home in an hour, so I might as well edit my status. Thanks for letting me know. Nishkid64 20:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Userbox help

Hey, thanks! It's odd... I initially had the same thing and they were all over the place. Whatever you did worked. Also, thanks for the swift and speedy assist. *thumbs up* Alcarillo 23:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I'm glad I could help. I'm not that good with wiki-markup yet so it was mostly luck :) --Doc Tropics 23:12, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

What exactly did you do? Because I've tried rearranging the order of the boxes and it's messing up the layout again (??) Alcarillo 23:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm honestly not sure why it worked when I did it. I just changed the order to what you see now and...it worked. If problems continue, maybe replace your "Helpme" request and hope for someone more experienced than I. If you want to ask someone else directly, I know that Æon _EA! is good with these things, and willing to help if he has time. --Doc Tropics 23:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It seems as if the userboxes have to be grouped a certain way, but I can't seem to figure it out. I'll ask the user you mentioned. Thanks again. Alcarillo 23:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Shoot on Sight

Thanks much, I'm glad I'm on the right track. How the heck did you make it dissapear so fast though? A "Speedy" tag doesn't do that...--Doc Tropics 04:08, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Here's another one: Cartooncartoon. I don't mean to be harrassing you with all this, but you stuck your neck out and answered me :) Seriously, if you can tell me how to Delete this, I'd love to...or does one need a mop-and-bucket to do things like that? If so, would you please nuke it yourself? Thanks for your time, I really appreciate it! --Doc Tropics 05:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Update: It's gone; nothing left but a smoking crater...you Admins are really on the ball :) Thanks anyway and happy editing. --Doc Tropics 05:46, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Doc! Yes, to delete pages you need to be an administrator. When you add a speedy tag, it goes into Category:Candidates for speedy deletion, which admins are constantly clearing out, so the article should be deleted soon after the tag is added. :-) —Mets501 (talk) 12:06, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Three cheers for our glorious Admins! Hip-hip-hooray! WP would certainly collapse under the sheer weight of total nonsense without such dedicated and hard-working contributors. --Doc Tropics 20:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

BRILLIANT

Self noms works for me too...after all...as we are supposed to be anonymous, who else is likely to know? --Zeraeph 04:23, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

The Pagemaster Checks in

Hey I will take a look in a bit, working on a project of my own that is eatting up a lot of time (Off wiki lol, new forum) Æon _EA! 20:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yep it is about 50% done. I have had a look but I'm not sure what to do (Most boxes are being migrated over to the user space so any edits might be undone) Æon _EA! 21:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

AFD keep/merge/etc.

No, you're correct. I'm sorry if there's any confusion, but my further comments have been addressing people who've claimed that the article shouldn't even be moved to another title. Bearcat 21:03, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

fine by me

I'd be fine with getting more opinions. That suggested sentence keeps it simple. -- Kendrick7 00:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Continued from the Village Pump

If I stay as active as I've been the past week, it won't be long at all before I'm fired from my job!! ;)

Really, though, my biggest issue is that I don't do a lot of content creation -- more content cleanup. Not sure if the RfA folks will see that as a positive or negative. --Wolf530 07:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

LOL...don't get fired! I'm lucky, I work from a home-office. I have a similar background WP though: some "content" contributions, some Anti-Vandal work, but mostly lots of Wikignome stuff. I do want to pursue Durova's suggestion for converting some of these young heathens into good little Wikipedians, that would seem to be a double-win since it reduces vandalism and increases useful contributors. --Doc Tropics 08:08, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I actually did that once. I contacted a school admin to tell them about vandalism. It was way back in the day, and I have no idea what the outcome was. They just thanked me for notifying them, and that was the end of it :) I suppose for it to be useful you need to follow up and ask that they teach their students good etiquette and so-on.

I'm definitely on a roll for the last week, though. We'll see if it keeps up. Wikignome... hehe. --Wolf530 08:34, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Yer welcome

Yeah, it's just been bothering me. If you look at my contribs, probably 1/2 of it is vandalism reverts. I'm always struggling on wikibooks to have less policy, not more, because policies have loopholes. Better to just give administrators the freedom to use their better judgement, and desysop admins who don't have trustworthy judgement. --SB_Johnny||_books 13:02, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

uh-huh...

:D --SB_Johnny||_books 20:33, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

snipe hunting

You're welcome! It's an easy box to overlook. I was seriously thinking of proposing to the developers that a handy link to dnsstuff.com would be a very helpful thing to put on anon IP talk pages, when I noticed that it was already there. Cheers, FreplySpang 22:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA

Hi I think you put a colon after the hash, and it will indent it for you. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 02:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Christmas

Yeah! I totally agree with you that Christmas is a mess and needs some heavy editing. This is the time to get to it! Part of the problem is, it is such a mess that I am not sure where to start. I am going to just have to pick a section and dig in.

One thing I really wish would happen is if the dates were put chronologically. As it is now, in History of Christmas, it starts with the Nativity then works backwords to older festivals like Yule and Saturnalia, then jumps forward again to more modern times. It makes for hard reading. MightyAtom 08:34, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for reverting that bit of vandalism to my user subpage. SWAdair 10:33, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

No worries. :) --Doc Tropics 17:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for reverting the vandalism/blanking in the Langston Hughes page. Thank you so much.TonyCrew 22:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Just doing routine RC Patrol, but happy to help :) --Doc Tropics 22:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Oak Hill Baptist Church

I was actually the last one to remove the speedy tag. I would, however, encourage you to run it through WP:AfD. Its not really a speedy, since the article does attempt to express notability. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 02:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Oops! How did I miss that? Sorry! The article was much improved in a short time and I really only wanted to make sure that the process was followed correctly. I really didn't think it merited a Speedy Delete after the improvement either. It probably does warrant an AfD debate, but I don't wabt to bite an editor who's making such good faith efforts. Maybe we should just keep an eye on it for a while? Anyway, thanks for the time you took reviewing this. --Doc Tropics 02:14, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You are handling the situation very well. Sounds like a plan. youngamerican (ahoy hoy) 02:21, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! --Doc Tropics 02:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey

Thanks for that. Yep, wrote the edit summary and then forgot to do the action! Been a while. How's everything? Glad to see someone I said howdy to early on actually stuck around.--Fuhghettaboutit

I'm glad you remember me, you're my favorite "cookie dealer"! I had that article Watchlisted from previous editing, and your Edit Summary was...succint. I'm back after a lengthy break for family stuff. I was doing RC Patrol today and it seems ironic that I just inserted a word I've spent all day reverting. :) --Doc Tropics 04:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Ha! Want to see a great edit summary? Look at this one I was going out all prepared to revert and warn the user about abusive edit summaries :-)--Fuhghettaboutit 05:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

LMAO!!! I had to scan through it a couple times to be sure what you meant...oh my. --Doc Tropics 05:36, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

User notice: temporary 3RR block

Regarding reversions made on November 7 2006 to George Allen_(U.S. politician)

re dinosaur talk page entry

Thanks for backing me up on that one, the guy who made the original edit got a bit offended by my revert and deleted my entry from the talk page! I really didn't think it was that major a problem, i don't get offended when someone changes my edits as long as they have a valid reason but still-good to know i have some backing at least!Greebo cat 11:52, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

User conduct rfc

Hi Doc. I invite you to comment on User:Fix Bayonets! user conduct rfc, which I started yesterday. Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Fix Bayonets!. Thanks for any input you have. · j e r s y k o talk · 14:47, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

And on a completely unrelated noted, thanks for the laugh :) · j e r s y k o talk · 19:02, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks

RfA First Support Thanks!

Doc, thank you ever so much for your efforts in my behalf, for your encouragement, and your advice when things looked rough. I could have sworn we hadn't interacted before, much, if at all. I never expected that just showing a bit of a sense of humour would get this much support. It's good to know that there's still a doctor around who makes mouse calls. (No, sorry, you can't go back and change your vote to an oppose based on that bad pun. It's too late!)

Well, my Request for Adminship is over, successfully, and it's not least due to your words, support, and help. I hope to make it have been worth while. If there is any admin thing I can do to make your life easier, please ask, and I will do as best I can. I will try to start the admin thing slowly, and not delete the Main Page for at least five minutes. If I mess up, make sure to come to my talk page and give me a good yell. Email also works, and is more private, but talk page will often get a more immediate response. If even that doesn't work, I am, of course, in Category:Administrators open to recall, though I would hope you give the yell route a try first. AnonEMouse 22:27, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Design from User:Phaedriel/Rfa thanks, which amazed me when I got it. GFDL.

That vandal

Thanks for letting me know; I was away doing something else for a while. I blocked him and left a notice. Appreciate your anti-vandalism work! Antandrus (talk) 04:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh yes, I've always liked Heinlein, and there just wasn't a word in English that means the same thing! LOL. Happy editing, Antandrus (talk) 05:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Here comes the edit wars!

Hey, good job tackling Christmas! However, I fear this is the first of many edit wars that I see in our future. Hold the line! And thanks for all the good work! MightyAtom 23:37, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I think my next target on length is to knock out the nativity section, because that already has a full article, but I expect some resistance. Probably best to deal with our particular new troll before doing something that drastic. MightyAtom 23:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Cherry Grove, Oregon

Hi Doc Tropics, since you helped me work with the editor at Klamath Falls, Oregon, after my request at the Village Pump, I'm wondering if you could take a look at this talk page. This is the interaction that prompted my subsequent caution with K Falls. You're very good at being tactful, so if you have any suggestions on how that interaction could have gone better, I'd appreciate it. (I think that particular editor is gone, and that it's not entirely my fault, but I hate to see a potentially valuable editor storm off in a huff.) Thanks! Katr67 17:02, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Heh, thanks for the compliment. I reviewed the article's entire edit history step-by-step since it wasn't very long. Needless to say, your contributions were right on the mark; you're a good wikignome. The same goes for the Talkpage itself. In fact, your posts on the Talkpage were a near-perfect example of How Things Should Work. It's a shame the other editor didn't seem to understand the process (even after you explained), since he had done good work on the article. Hopefully he'll come back one day and make more contributions.

There is only one area where I might suggest a different approach, and this isn't based on policy or guidelines, just personal experience. When I notice a new page I take a look with only one immediate concern in mind: Is this a reasonable article, or does it need a Speedy Delete tag? (I end up tagging a number of articles every day for being self-promotional or spam entries). If it doesn't merit a Speedy, I'll put it on my Watchlist and give the original author a day or two to add to it and polish their entry. Then I revisit it with an eye towards further improvements and general wiki-gnoming. I understand your point about "encyclopedic entries", but I tend to think that an article like this wouldn't get too many hits the first 48 hours, so it's a minimal issue. An alternative for a brand new article might be to start the Talkpage with some suggestions rather than doing it yourself. There's always the urge to just jump right into the article and make it better, but newbies tend to be very sensitive about their work (as you noticed).

In short, you did everything right; the only difference I'd suggest is a bit more patience for new articles. I hope this helps. Good luck and happy editing :) --Doc Tropics 18:28, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the sanity check! I've definitely been more cautious since then. Most newbies are pretty grateful for my meddling, but it seems like once a month or so I get involved in a "situation" in my zealousness to spruce things up. I'll definitely be using your suggestions in the future. Katr67 19:19, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Rebecca Cummings

Thank you for your input (and doing it in a nice way) on Rebecca's article. When I searched for Access in Northeast Iowa on Google I had to put quotes around it to get it to the top page. Thanks again. --HeartThrobs 20:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how useful it actually was, but I'm happy to help. --Doc Tropics 20:53, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Because of your comment I had to do some research and learn how to correctly cite articles. --HeartThrobs 21:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

LOL, that's exactly how I learned. Since I still have a bit of trouble with format and markup of cites I didn't try to assist your directly, but I'm glad you figured it out. WP is a learning process :) --Doc Tropics 21:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

You may find this tool helpful. Warning: it caches! so don't go back, enter new info, and expect to see a new ref. You have to bookmark it, reload it from the bookmark. This may not be true for all browers. KillerChihuahua 00:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Bah

Ahh, that was quite a spree at Virtuti Militari. I almost feel bad all the edits got deleted, heh. Appreciate the thought -- I keep seeing your name show up, too, and it's nice to see another username that inspires the sort of "Oh, he's here, everything will be fine" confidence. Which probably doesn't make sense at all, but I can't figure a less obtuse way to describe it. *nod* Luna Santin 23:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Abortion

I don't mean to be confrontational, and, I'm sorry if I've come across that way. A lot of editors put a lot of time into sourcing, writing, and tweaking those sections. It was my mistake to suggest in my first edit summary that there had been no discussion on the matter (Abortion appeared before Talk:Abortion on my watchlist). However, the content you removed altered the flow of the article substantially. I think, in light of the long history of these sections, and the fact that they have been co-written by multiple editors in an effort to balance different points of view, it's rather hasty to remove content after only a few hours of discussion. Please don't be discouraged from contributing to the article. I've already suggested that copyediting might be an alternative method to trimming it down if you still feel that this is an important goal. My only desire is to attempt to accommodate the suggestions of other editors, and, by restoring the article content, I hoped to uphold past consensus. Please understand. Thanks. -Severa (!!!) 05:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It's my fault. I didn't realize that top-tier articles are an exception to the article length guidelines or I wouldn't have touched it in the first place. I just had a blood-pressure spike due to the blanket reversion of my work. I'm aware of the contentious nature of the topic and my anti-vandal activites included removing unsourced POV assertions which obviously compromised the article's integrity. I only tried to edit the article itself when I noticed it was 64kb and I didn't know the exception. Thanks for your explanation, and I'm sorry if I was less cordial than normal. It's the first time anyone but a vandal has mass reverted something I did, and I hope that in light of that, you can overlook if I was uncivil. Thanks again. --Doc Tropics 05:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:SIZE also notes that footnotes, references, "See also" sections, "External links" sections, and mark-up are not considered "readable prose" and thus do not contribute to the actual measure of article size. I would estimate that there are likely 15K of references at Abortion. I do think that the article could use a little pruning, but, all in all, I think most of the overage can be accounted for by the above.

I'm sorry that I was a litte hasty in response to your edits. I probably should have checked the Talk page and made a post there before I reverted. I've taken things the wrong way before, too, so I completely understand. It's no problem. I certainly appreciate your vandal-counteracting efforts on Abortion. -Severa (!!!) 06:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad you're watching this page; I've been trying to figure out how to add a nifty "Peace dove" image to your page, but I couldn't get it right. So here's my Olive Branch: I'll keep watching the page for vandalism, keep my hands off other people's hard work, and if I can do anything else for you, just let me know :) --Doc Tropics 06:04, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I really appreciate the lovely dove! Very seasonal, too. By the standards of some of the conflicts I've witnessed or been involved in on Abortion, ours was very minor, and I'm really glad that we both managed to resolve it and reach an understanding. Of course, WP:OWN means no one owns an article, so there's no basis for "keep hands off other people's hard work." I never meant to suggest that the article shouldn't be trimmed down or that you shouldn't (or couldn't) be the one to do it. WP:BOLD, after all! Only that it needed to be done a little more carefully for NPOV reasons — so I've added it to the To-do list on Talk:Abortion. But, you know what they say about trying to please everyone. Looks like we've got our work cut out for us! :-) -Severa (!!!) 09:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

RfA thanks!

My RfA done I hope to wield my mop well (Her name is Vera) I appreciate The support you have shown me (I hope I don't suck) Anyway, I just wanted to drop you a line (damn, haikus are hard)

EVula // talk // ☯ // 17:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Re:Christmas

Thanks for your supportive comments. I'm only glad to help and even though our views are somewhat different, I know that we both want to make the Christmas article as factual, tidy, and neutral as possible. Christmas is a touchy subject. Thanks again.— OLP 1999 19:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

MIxed Nuts

Hmmm, our semi-vitriolic disagreement is now edging into a love-fest. I had assumed the feminine form of Severa indicated gender, but added my caveat just in case. As for the pup, well, she's an inspiration to us all...but you can definitely expect to see "Mr. Chihuahua" turn up again in the near future (I simply can't resist a good BEAN). I'm pleased to add another name (Severa) to the "White Hats" list. Don't even ask about my "other" list; AGF prevents me from discussing the Black Hats, and I try to avoid interacting with them (although, in fairness to the Black Hats, I've learned a lot from them too...how not to wiki). I actually considered merging the lists and adding it into my Userspace with the title "Mixed Nuts". As amusing as it sounds though, it feels far too much like making a point to actually do it. Thanks to both of you for positive input, useful criticism, and some much needed comic relief. --Doc Tropics 00:35, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I'm a White Hat in your book? That's good to know! My user-namesake is definitely a Black Hat in someone else's book (well, maybe). It's a shame to consider the fact that we all maintain our own "nice" and "naughty" lists inside of heads; but, although AGF can regulate conduct between users, it can't obviate human nature. But, that's the reason Resolving disputes exists. Of course, if you hang around somewhere controversial, like Abortion or Evolution, you can expect to lock horns rather often. Understanding that many users are ideologically-motivated and honestly believe that they are improving an article when they make non-neutral edits helps. A lot of people who "disrupt" Misplaced Pages don't mean to be disruptive. And most Wikipedians have negative traits as editors. I've been involved in a number of edit conflicts, but, usually, the solution has been to take a Wikibreak. We're all here on a volunteer basis (so far as I know, at least) and so it's no good if we succumb to our frustration. I just wish all user disputes could go as smoothly as ours — but, again, human nature won't be hemmed in by NPA, CIVIL, and AGF. -Severa (!!!) 10:08, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm posting this here rather than spam individual editors on their talkpages. I think that Christmas, and especially its talkpage, might benefit from some objective and neutral comments. Since the topic touches lightly upon my own "belief system" (or as close as I come to one) I'm afraid my own edits and comments need to be reviewed for neutrality, as well as those of other editors. This is not a call for "back up", but a request for some dispassionate input on a somewhat thorny topic. --Doc Tropics 19:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll put Christmas on my watchlist. If I'm going to comment, though, it'll take me a while, because I'll have to go through recent dicussion on Talk and the recent edit history of the article to appraise myself of the situation. Currently involved in a dispute with an anonymous IP over recent non-NPOV edits to Religion and abortion. I've tried laying the case for NPOV. However, I think it's getting close to tit-for-tat given the user's defensive and retaliatory response to my own policy reminders, which I've tried to make mindful. Perhaps more heads and their novel perspectives will help resolve this situation. Thanks. -Severa (!!!) 22:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

(Reset indent) My advice: know your weaknesses as a Wikipedian and try to work around them. I'm not a terribly patient Wikipedian; I've lost my cool a number of times. Contention comes with the territory when you frequent Abortion-related articles, but, that doesn't remove my responsibility to keep a cool head. Check the edit history of my user page to see how many times I've considered leaving Misplaced Pages. Sometimes it's better to force yourself to break away from it entirely than to continue with tit-for-tat disputes and all-consuming edit wars. Come back when and if your level of frustration drops. Whether this takes a few hours or a few months totally depends on you. Don't burn yourself out.

Don't be afraid to press "Show preview" a thousand times before posting; I know it must contribute to server strain, but it's better that you be completely prepared, than post something that you'll later regret or that could have been phrased better. Try to keep criticism passive and impersonal. Don't be afraid to speak your mind, just say it in a way that addresses the edits and not the editor, e.g. "Stop wasting our time!" is better substituted with "We have already discussed this and going over it again is keeping us from other areas of the article which still need to be addressed."

Also don't be afraid to request outside opinions when things get hot. This has usually always worked for me; at least, it's never made things worse. :-) -Severa (!!!) 02:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

That's not just "food for thought", it's a veritable feast. I'm going to make sure I keep that advice on this page, so I can come back to it as the need arises. Thanks Severa. --Doc Tropics 02:49, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Greek Mythology

I am not really sure why you removed the sentence from the GM page. It was the summary statement for the paragraph, which was a quote from a scholarly work on the topic. Yes, it used a word you do not see very often, and it also had a spelling error (allusiins should have been allusions) but I think the sentence should be restored. That said, I am not going to restore it until giving you the chance to do so. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 01:52, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for such a polite note. I changed it back and opened talkpage discussion. --Doc Tropics 02:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

100% Original research

I nominated Christian left to be deleted because the article is 100% original research. 75.3.28.188 23:19, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Severa

No offense to Severa, but he did not offer me any good advice. He is very ignorant on the facts regarding the Catholic church. I attempted to explain to him how membership in the Catholic church works. My explaination was very good, but he still seems to have a hard time understanding it. However, the facts are on my side, but the non-neutral POV of the article is on his side. 75.3.28.188 23:22, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll put Christmas on my watchlist. If I'm going to comment, though, it'll take me a while, because I'll have to go through recent dicussion on Talk and the recent edit history of the article to appraise myself of the situation. Currently involved in a dispute with an anonymous IP over recent non-NPOV edits to Religion and abortion. I've tried laying the case for NPOV. However, I think it's getting close to tit-for-tat given the user's defensive and retaliatory response to my own policy reminders, which I've tried to make mindful. Perhaps more heads and their novel perspectives will help resolve this situation. Thanks. -Severa (!!!) 22:25, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Severa, no offense to you, but your edits are the ones with the POV. I have more knowledge on this subject than you, I recomend you just read what I have said on your talk page. If you are unable to figure it out after that, then I will offer one more attempt to explain how it works to you. If after that you still don't understand, then I ask that you refrain from making any edits to the Religion and abortion page. 75.3.28.188 23:46, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Please do not just personally attack me. Respond to the issue at hand.

Severa is claiming that those people are Catholics.

Even though they have been excommunicated from the Catholic church.

Which means they are no longer Catholics.

The Catholic church is an organization, and they are claiming to be members of an organization that they no longer belong to.

There are qualifications to be Catholic. A person must baptised to be considered a Catholic. A person that is ecommunicated is no longer considered a Catholic.

People do not just declare themselves Catholic. Even if a person believes in all the Catholic doctrine, that does not make them Catholic. They have to join the Catholic Church. If they formally leave the church or are are kicked out, then they are no longer Catholics.

If an American citizen has there citizenship revoked and is deported, they are no longer considered an American citizen.

If a person works for Microsoft, but is fired, they are no longer considered a Microsoft employee.

If a person is a member of the NAACP, but is kicked out or leaves the organization, they can no longer claim to be a member.

If an organization of former American citizens created a group and identified themselves as American citizens, but the U.S. government stated that they were not American citizens anymore, would wikipedia claim that they are American citizens still? 75.3.28.188 00:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your input

Thank you for taking part in my RfA. The RfA was not successful, mostly because I did a pretty bad job of presenting myself. I'll run again sometime in the next few months, in the hopes that some will reconsider.

In the meantime, one of the projects I'm working on is A Wikimedia Administrator's Handbook. This is a wikibook how-to guide intended to help new administrators learn the ropes, as well as to simply "demystify" what adminship entails. If you are an administrator, please help out with writing it, particularly on the technical aspects of the tools. Both administrators and non-administrators are welcome to help link in and sort all of the various policies regarding the use of these tools on wikipedia in particular (as well as other projects: for example, I have almost no experience with how things work on wiktionary or wikinews). Users who are neither familiar with policy or the sysop tools could be of great help by asking questions about anything that's unclear. The goal is to get everything together in one place, with a narrative form designed to anticipate the reader's next question.

A second project, related but not entailed, is a book on wikimedia in general, with a history of how various policies evolved over time, interesting trivia (e.g., what the heck was "wikimoney" about?), and a history of how the wikimedia foundation itself came about and the larger issues that occurred during its history (such as the infamous "Spanish Fork").

Again, thanks for your input on the RfA, and thanks in advance for any help you might be able to provide for the handbook. --SB_Johnny||_books 12:56, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, support greatly appreciated, but that RfA wasn't necesarily played to win! I think I want to get that book in good shape first, at least so far as linking in and providing a synopsis of the wikipedia-specific policies. If that's done, I won't likely be accused of not understanding policies ;-).

Tell ya what: go ahead and renominate me when ever you get the urge... just wait at least a month or so :).

In the meantime: are there any garden plants you have some growing experience with? I really want to get some more things going on in the wikimanual! Just go ahead and pick your 10 favorite plants, and add them to b:WB:RFI. I'll walk you through the templates, though we actually need more of those... the only really-well-developed templates at this point are those dealing with weeds, because I love writing about weeds. --SB_Johnny||_books 15:00, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

LOL... my pleasure to add a rational voice to your wild-n-crazy world :). Maybe we should get working on poinsettia care for the christmas article?

Ignorance is painful, at least in the sense of (a) being painful to listen to, and (b) those who ardently defend POVs rooted in ignorance almost certainly feel downtrodden, otherwise they wouldn't be so pushy. --SB_Johnny||_books 15:39, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

A dumbass?

Is that what you think I am, a dumbass? At least I'm smart enough to know that alcohol is nothing but evil and the people who make it and drink it are the most corrupt people on Earth! Go fuck yourself!!!--71.162.18.226 17:50, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

LMAO! You got bored vandalizing the article and came to my page? Thanks for a good laugh :-) --Doc Tropics 17:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

NOTE: My Edit Summary refered to the IP71's edit as "dumbass vandalism" (due to the repititous and somewhat unimaginative posts), but since the Anon chose to self-identify that way I'm not going to argue...Doc Tropics 21:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

No Response

Why haven't I gotten any response to any of my reasons for why CFFC does not belong on the page as a link? Why can't you or Severa admitt that I am more knowledgable on the topic and that I am right and make the change. Neither of you have presented a good argument to counter mine and have decided instead to just ignore the situation since you were wrong. 75.3.28.188 02:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

For one thing, your assertion that excommunication is automatic is absurd. Nothing in the RCC is automatic. There are specific steps required to have someone excommunicated, and I doubt the vatican would ever attempt the public relations nightmare of excommunicating every Catholic that has ever had an abortion, or helped someone get one, or ever supported a woman's right to choose. It may say so in Canon Law, but what the law says and how the law is administered are often two very different things. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 04:46, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

IP75, I have no interest in either the debate or your opinions on it. I commented on your editing habits and behaviour as an editor, but I should have left that to more patient and experienced contributors. I notice that several other editors have attempted to discuss things with you reasonably. Perhaps you might discuss these issues with them, on an article talkpage rather than mine? Doc Tropics 06:32, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Shiny new buttons

Two weeks ago I couldn't even spell administratur and now I are one (in no small part thanks to your support). Now that I checked out those new buttons I realize that I can unleash mutant monsters on unsuspecting articles or summon batteries of laser guns in their defense. The move button has now acquired special powers, and there's even a feature to roll back time. With such awesome new powers at my fingertips I will try to tread lightly to avoid causing irreversible damage and getting into any wheel wars. Thanks again and let me know whenever I can be of use. ~ trialsanderrors 06:00, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: External Link Spamming

If you'd be willing to look into that, I'd appreciate it. :) I probably could, but I'm swamped with all sorts of things, this week, and more than likely wouldn't get to it promptly. But if you don't, I'll eventually get around to it. Let me know if you need anything, too. Luna Santin 08:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: oops

Hi Doc. I've seen you around on vandal patrol too. Thanks for spotting the mistake on Harriet Tubman, sorry about that. I'm glad someone else found and fixed it. Best, Gwernol 12:51, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

THANK YOU

One, I really like your Wiki i.d. Two, I know you were doing routine vandal patrol. Still, I want to again say-- THANK YOU. TonyCrew 03:25, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Same-sex marriage

Hi, Doc. In this edit, did you intend to remove the paragraph that begins "Some disagree with the idea of government involvement..."? It doesn't seem to fit with your edit summary. Powers 15:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, thanks for pointing that out. Not only was that not intentional, I have no idea how it happened. How the heck did I delete an entire unrelated para in a different section? Oh well, it's fixed now; thanks again. --Doc Tropics 16:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's because it was added in the edit previous to yours, which also added the erroneous text that I think you intended to remove. Or something. Powers 19:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Selig Percy Amoils

I have not looked into all the ins and outs of this, but I have restored the material I added, which is properly sourced, and warned Paul venter not to delete it again. --Runcorn 13:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

RE: Somalia socks

Hi - I've just seen your message to WP:ANI - does that solve the problem? Thanks Martinp23 10:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Haha - I'm glad it's sorted. About responsiveness - I think that it's just that most of us despise the orange banner once you get one or two not-so-flattering messages, so the best way is just to deal with it! But then again, I'm guessing, having been only made an admin yesterday :) Thanks Martinp23 15:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Evolution

I agree that the discussion is not relevant to improvement of the article and is unproductive at best. After evaluating the discussion, I did decide to archive it. For future reference, archival is easy: just copy-and-paste the relevant section(s) to the archival page. Please let me know if you have any questions. — Knowledge Seeker দ 01:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

You’re welcome. Moving can only be used if you wish to archive the entire page at once. There are some advantages and disadvantages of using copy-and-paste or move, but I prefer copying and pasting for several reasons. You may be interested in Misplaced Pages:How to archive a talk page. — Knowledge Seeker দ 02:27, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Child pornography

Why did you remove a legitimate contribution from the "Child pornography" article with a blatantly false edit description?

However, real legal practice, popular sentiment and political positions stray far from this apparently clear-cut decision

You say it's unsourced, but it is nonsense, because that text itself is a refernce to a source! You say it's POV, but it's a sourced expert statement and thus doesn't meet the Misplaced Pages definition of POV. You say it's link spam, but it's a nonsensical claim, because it's a reference to a sourced statement which is directly relevant to the subject under discussion!

Please explain your actions, how they add to the quality of the article and how they correspond to the Misplaced Pages policy. Thanks in advance for the explanations. Paranoid 17:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Paranoid, I reviewed the recent edit history of Child pornography, and I'll try to address your concerns as best I can. You added the section "Legal Support" which was nothing but an advertisement for a specific lawyer. Next, you inserted two seperate links to the lawyer's webpage, along with a rather POV statement on the subject. The links clearly qualified as "spam" since they linked to a purely commercial, self-promotional site. Trying to use that site as a reference for your POV really isn't acceptable since the attorney can't be considered a reliable source...he clearly has a strong financial interest in presenting his particular POV. In short, I removed your changes because I felt that they reduced the overall quality of the article and called its reliability into question. Please note that two other editors have also reverted your changes with Edit Summaries indicating the content really isn't acceptable. If you honestly feel that your material would strengthen the article we can discuss that on its talkpage, but the way the material was originally presented simply isn't suitable to an encyclopedia. Finally, your reference to my Edit Summary as "blatantly false" seems to indicate a certain lack of good faith. My summary was clear, concise, and honest. There's no need to take a combative approach to this situation...my only personal interest is in maintianing the overall quality and credibility of WP articles, and I certainly hope we share that goal. --Doc Tropics 18:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Your edit to Fire

Your recent edit to Fire (diff) was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to recognize and repair vandalism to Misplaced Pages articles. If the bot reverted a legitimate edit, please accept my humble creator's apologies – if you bring it to the attention of the bot's owner, we may be able to improve its behavior. Click here for frequently asked questions about the bot and this warning. // AntiVandalBot 06:06, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I’m afraid, AVBot, that your revert was incorrect in this case; I restored Doc Tropic’s edit. Could you let your programmer know? — Knowledge Seeker দ 06:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Knowledge Seeker, that's the second time the bot has mistaken me for a vandal. Must be my personality? :) Doc Tropics 07:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

BLP warning

Thank you very much.--Runcorn 09:49, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

And amen to your sentiments.--Runcorn 21:39, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

KC is female

I changed your comment accordingly...JoshuaZ 18:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Firefly/Creationist Reference

D. Nice catch on that nice quote from Firefly. Captures the creationists quite perfectly.--Roland Deschain 02:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

unsigned support

It looks like you forgot to sign your support note (used up too many brain cells counting pages, maybe?) so I signed it for you. You may want to replace with your own sig though. Cheers. -- nae'blis 04:08, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, that's only moderately embarrassing. I've done worse. I'm just not going to discuss it here :) --Doc Tropics 04:10, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

link and section

The link is Wikipedia_talk:NPOV (Comparison of views in science) The text is Perhaps some of the people here might want to look at the way Thomas Aquinas dealt with presenting opposing ideas in Summa.--There's a good PD edition at --He set forth his view, encapsulated the opposing view in as strong a group of arguments as he could devise (often clearer than any actual argument to be found) and then explained why it was wrong point by point. It was his book, so he stopped there, but when he presented this material in oral debate there were several more rounds, and I'm sure things did not stay quite so controlled. But I suggest that the key to a useful debate is to limit the number of rounds, or it continues forever.

There is a problem however which was not applicable to his subject--the existence of verifiable facts (as contrasted with matters commonly agreed on.) If there is a difference in the standard of what constitutes validity, it is hard to make a direct argument on a point. Evolutionists normally do not do well in oral debate, because their opponents can attack the validity of any one scientific argument in the matrix, and claim that any doubt about any one of them destroys the evolutionist argument--and there are so many scientific theories to attack, as compared to what their opponents will find, where at the end there is nothing solid to attack, only the religious view of the universe and its purpose.

What is the point of pages such as this? To present the arguments in contrast as a summary? Yes. To present all the arguments? Impossible. To give the creationists a place to argue that will keep them off the evolution pages? Laughable. To keep the beginning skeptics from trolling on the religion pages? Equally laughable.

The problem is NPOV, which does not permit an argument on a particular point to develop its logic. More exactly, its NPOV as interpreted, which dictates that every biology article must contain a part for the arguments of those who doubt biology as an epistemological method. It should rather be NPOV for the encyclopedia as a whole. It should be sufficient to say that "This entire line of argument is not accepted by most biologists--to see their argument, see their pages such as X Y and Z," (deliberately worded as the inverse).

There remain some particular arguments, such as those based on entropy, or the validity of carbon dating, where the discussion is focused enough that a single article or group can contain it, but they are few.

To return now to the head of this talk page (Ungtss 13:14, 12 Jan 2005):

  1. the parallel approach requires a broader canvas than a WP article
  2. discussions based on a particular piece of evidence will fail because the evidence or its meaning is in most cases disputed
  3. discussions based on neutral facts are obviously impossible, for there are no neutral facts.

In practice, the best defense of creationism is by the groups who for their own purposes simply ignore extra-biblical evidence as irrelevant to the meaning of the world. The best proof of evolution is the success in applying the scientific method to other undisputed areas, and the induction that it is valid here. It is much more satisfying to learn some biology, and some religion, rather than dispute between the two. You can then believe what you choose, and your choice will rarely be on purely rational grounds, but you will also have learned something about different methods of human discourse. DGG 05:12, 22 November 2006 (UTC)DGG 06:44, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I found it as soon as the link turned blue, and I've already made an initial response...very brief to start. I'm interested in seeing more discussion :) Doc Tropics 06:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Admn. Noticeboard

I have another question, can you look? Thanks.Kiyosaki 07:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you look at the page, and the Talk for Israeli Apartheid, and see what this is all about? Please. Thanks.Kiyosaki 08:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

When all the reverts violate the entire page of Do's/Don'ts of Help:Reverting is that not bad-faith? What is the technical definition of it? Can you look at the content of the issue and Talk? Thanks. Take a look. The issues are never addressed, they are delayed, delayed, then I get personally attacked. You will see that the issues are never addressed and many of the Talk sections are left hanging with no responses. Is not responding an act of good faith? I can't see that. Can you tell me what "bad faith" means here technically? After reveiwing the page, and Talk, can you give me your opinion?Kiyosaki 08:13, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

If people don't "get involved" then the result is a team of allies that violates WP:OWN, and the article isn't vetted correctly. Wikipedians need to look into the whole thing, the conduct especially. PS Dispute Resolution says: "Be respectful to others and their points of view. This means primarily: Do not simply revert changes in a dispute." I am the one who is getting reverted, not the other way around. I don't get how Admns. can act in ways that violate everything I read about correct conduct. Kiyosaki 08:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Evo Talk

I have done my share of battling with the creationists off and on in different places on the internet over the last few years. The problem is, they just come up with the same stupid arguments over and over based on complete ignorance. Once in a while I am able to get one to come around and realize what is going on. But these are few and far between. Most of them end up thinking I am Satan incarnate for telling them that the earth is more than 6000 years old. I do not know why I bothered with the irritant tonight, but I think I made a tiny bit of progress. I should have directed him to the Creation Wiki I suppose. Some of them there are embarassed with their more obnoxious and ignorant bretheren who end up haunting regular Misplaced Pages with their inane comments over and over and over. But I felt more charitable today or whatever so I gave it a try. Probably did no good whatsoever. Maybe I might compile an FAQ page on the issue to direct them to.

I will also say that on all of these issues, including the introduction, I will usually bow and defer to biologists like yourself, since I am a physical scientist with only cursory knowledge. However, I want to help stave off these fundamentalist nuts because if they overrun evolutionary theory, then they come after the big bang theory or stellar evolution or redshift theory or plate tectonics or whatever other theory they feel steps on their belief in biblical inerrancy. So I figure I can fight them over there in biology, or fight them on my turf. I would rather fight them as soon as they poke their heads up than wait until they have overrun a good chunk of science. And maybe, just maybe, one or two of them might learn a little bit of science in the process whether they mean to or not.--Filll 07:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I think my sig and a gentle jibe at physicists have mislead you. I don't have a degree in biology! I'd hate for anyone to think I'm pretending to one because I, too, defer to the experts in these matters. My main contributions are actually Anti-Vandalism (and I've got Big bang on my watchlist too, along with many others) and minor cleanup efforts. It's only recently I've gotten involved in the controversies because I'm annoyed at how often the same thing pops up, and how much effort goes into explaining basic concepts to people that have no interest in actually learning what the simplest words mean. Argh, it's been a long day and you can tell I've exceeded my threshhold on this one...

Now remember, a physiscist is (almost) every bit as respectable as a biologist, don't let anyone tell you different :) --Doc Tropics 07:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Reign of the sci-fi geeks

You know, with your calculations, I think I owe Thatcher now. At last. I can retire and give up this life of crime.

Ah, and great notes on the noticeboard today :) Shell 08:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

No worries - anytime vandals and other various forms of baddies come screaming for your head, that's a sign that you're doing a great job. There's a great deal of trolling to the Admin noticeboards so anyone who spends time there gets an expert bullshit radar. Shell 01:43, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

When are you standing for Admin?

I see you around all the time now, doing helpful things. It may be time. If you don't already have a bunch of co noms, let's talk, drop me an email. If you do, let me know when? (oh, and "This user supports FloNight for the Arbitration Committee." too but I'm not big on bumper stickers) ++Lar: t/c 14:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Let me tell you something: If you're going to wake up in the morning, log in while the coffee is still brewing, and find you have a new message...this is really a nice message to start the day with. Thanks Lar, coming from you, that really means a lot; I'll send an email. I had avoided the Userbox wars completely, and intentionally sidestepped this summer's signature controversies, but I just couldn't resist the darn bumper-sticker. Even tho' I support others besides Flo, I managed to limit myself to just one. Thanks again for the message, it really made my day! --Doc Tropics 16:17, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Darn, I'm not the first one to have this idea. I've appreciated your work for a while. Should you want a co-nom sometime drop me a note.  :) Antandrus (talk) 01:21, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks hugely for the vote of confidence. I have more to learn before I'm ready, but I'll take you up on that offer when I am.  : ) --Doc Tropics 01:28, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

false accusation

define 'vandalism' — Preceding unsigned comment added by WAS (talk • contribs)

I have responded on the vandal's (not a vandal, just slightly misguided) editor's takpage. --Doc Tropics 17:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		For being a well-rounded and dilligent editor. Keep it up! OhNoitsJamie 03:59, 23 November 2006 (UTC)