"Anthony's a sex symbol. You see the thing is for the girls they're like 'oh Anthony he's so beautiful! And his muscles and his hair and oh golly he's so sexy!' but with me its like [with men] 'DUDE YOU'RE SO AWESOME...WOW DUDE. WOW!" - Flea
I've had a more thorough look at the case you raised on my talk page, and I agree with your conclusions. I've added some additional evidence. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:41, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, the results are in - the sock account has been indef blocked and the main account blocked for 31 hours. Well spotted. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tarc, hi, I looked at your recent deletion here:[1] You raised a valid point in the edit summary, but just because one source may be questionable, does not mean that an entire section should be deleted. Some of the sources in that paragraph looked fine. So instead of doing wholesale deletion of well-sourced information, could you perhaps try editing the section to try and provide a compromise version? --Elonka21:34, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am pretty sure that BLP's do not get "Criticisms" sections, regardless of sourcing. Reliably sourced criticism should be folded into the article text. Tarc (talk) 01:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am not thin-skinned. I would have felt the same had you made the comment to another. There are alternatives to the way you seem to communicate. I shall unwatch this page now, trusting that you will, in future, try a manner more befitting a Wikipedian.--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 04:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I communicate as I see fit. Junk edits adding useless trivia to articles, especially when previously reverted by others, get labeled as such. Case closed. Tarc (talk) 04:55, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Preferably, actually, you communicate as Wikipedia sees fit. Handedness is not open-and-shut trivia since it has been the subject of earnest study, for good or for bad. It doesn't take that much longer to say something nicely. By the way, sorry for beating you to ANI just now! It was doomed to happen! Bigbluefish (talk) 20:26, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for cleaning up my talk page
Captain-tucker (talk) has bought you a pint! Sharing a pint is a great way to bond with other editors after a day of hard work. Spread the WikiLove by buying someone else a pint, whether it be someone with whom you have collaborated or had disagreements. Cheers!
Spread the good cheer and camaraderie by adding {{subst:WikiPint}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Please remember to AGF
Regarding these comments you made on the Talk:Muhammad page:
It is being brought up for no other reason than to rehash the "OMG Muhammad iz a Pedophile!" anti-Islamic arguments, in an attempt to denigrate the religion and the man. There is nothing "significant, relevant, and notable" about it.
This is a remarkable show of bad faith. I would suggest you reconsider your words here; such blanket prejudgments make it impossible to collaborate. Aunt Entropy (talk) 22:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When I see bad faith, I will call out bad faith. WP:AGF is not a shield for bad behavior, nor a cudgel to silence others. As we can see, the person I directed that comment towards has now been blocked for WP:3RR violations, and it is more than likely that JohnnyCakes1 (talk·contribs) is a sock-puppet, as it is an account created today, doing the same reverts, as well as inserting dicks where they probably shouldn't be inserted.
So, in the future before the "OMG AGF AGF!" cries floweth over, perhaps you should spend some time investigating the overall context of the discussion. Cheers. Tarc (talk) 22:31, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes he was knighted, read the article. Your scarcasm shows a lack of profesionalism. I'd appriciate it if you read the article. If you still don't believe me, I would at least like the other part of my post to be left up, as it is clearly stated in the Roling Stone article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by RobbieG2448 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Tarc. I see that you have uploaded this image, but the only article that used it was turned into a redirect through a deletion discussion, and so the image is not currently being used. I'm not the one who tagged the image for deletion, I believe a bot did, but it will be deleted on March 8, 2009 as it is orphaned non-free content.--DisturbedNerd99901:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obama
How long do you think the WND idiots will stick around? I'm hoping to get back to editing the article. Btw, I left you a response w/reference to Obama and Wright. Soxwon (talk) 17:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They're like dogs chasing cars; sooner or later they tire, give up, rest a bit, then do it all again when the next shiny one drives by. Tarc (talk) 18:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I swear I'm not as big a right-winger as I appear. And I apologize for the Wright mishap, all the crap edits bury the legitimate ones in the history and it's sometimes hard to tell if you've replied and where. Also, is there anyway we could contact the others trying to help (wikidemon, Bytebear, Tastycakes, Baseball Bugs, among others) and work on this through one or more users talk page (or is that a violation, I don't know). Soxwon (talk) 14:40, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stop Violating your tools or acting like a dictator please
Okay, I am not going to respond your disrespect anymore. I simply created a discussion thread about the problems that are systemic that I saw. That is all. You seem to be deeply scared or intimidated by my point and are thus waging some strange "obamamania" war on me that I simply do not get. If you wanted to prove your "fascist" whatever idea that you said I thought then simply continue your feud with me. You are the one opposing the Jimbo guidelines not I. I don't think I have anything else to say to you. Leave my discussions alone and stop violating your tools. JohnHistory (talk) 05:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory —Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnHistory (talk • contribs)
I don't have "tools" on the wikipedia, my boy. Even if I did, purging WP:FRINGE whackery from article space would not be an abuse of them. Tarc (talk) 00:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The delete/undo button is a tool. but the main point is stop being a dictator and making empty threats that you obviously cannot carry out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.103.25 (talk) 05:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
re: "Funny how you aren't rushing back to restore this to the Irgun atricle, eh? This is a deliberate endaround of WP:WTA". Yes, this was a bit of an experiment on my part to see where it got restored and where it stayed gone. Don't forget to comment at the template deletion discussion as you clearly don't like this template much. Sean.hoyland - talk13:03, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment on AN/I.[2] Please note that the substantive discussion of this matter was moved to WP:BLP/N after three of the articles in question were protected. I just came back to report that the editor responsible for it was continuing to edit war on a fourth article. Cheers, Wikidemon (talk) 14:43, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Arbcom notice
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#User:Stevertigo's disruptive trolling and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. As threaded discussion is not permitted on most arbitration pages, please ensure that you make all comments in your own section only. Additionally, the guide to arbitration and the Arbitration Committee's procedures may be of use.
Quick point I wanted to raise, you write in your edit summary that if the crap isn't suitable for an article, it isn't suitable for inclusion. That isn't exactly true. The article about Obama's teleprompter usage was rightly deleted as a stand-alone, POVFork. As a stand-alone article, there were many, many issues. However, that does not mean that a line or a section in a broader article touching on the same material would automatically be excluded. We do not want articles that serve as content forks and are solely used to document criticism, praise, etc. However, we don't exclude criticism, praise, etc. just because it would be unfit for a separate article. Take for instance John McCain's "100 years" comment. Would it be suitable to include that as a separate article, of course not. But it is mentioned or discussed in the United States presidential election, 2008, Mother Jones (magazine), Comparison of United States presidential candidates, 2008, and Not Alex articles (some of which I'm sure you are aware of, because of your good work on the US political articles). So just because it isn't right for one place doesn't mean it's not right for another. If you respond, please keep it here to not fragment the discussion. Or delete this, either way is fine. :-) Mahalo, Tarc. --Ali'i15:04, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Abuse of Admin Capability
I wanted to let you know that I have a dispute with you before going forward with it. I believe you abused your tools when you prevented me from writing on my own talk page and made it impossible to appeal my block. I think your actions were based on a desire to censor me inappropriately. I have observed you also going after other people you disagree with in a similarly unprofessional manner. You may be well entrenched here but I wanted to make sure that you were aware that I think you are being abusive and that I am going to follow up on it when I have the time. JohnHistory (talk) 23:26, 29 March 2009 (UTC)JohnHistory[reply]
Honestly? I really don't care. You are in no way, shape, or form acting like a productive, useful, or valuable editor within the Wikipedia project. You have egregiously violated numerous policies and guidelines, not to mention the extra restrictions placed on Barack Obama-related pages, restrictions of which you are quite well-aware of by now. Also, I am not an admin. Also also, stop writing your name at the end of posts; that is what the ~~~~ does. Tarc (talk) 23:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Then stop acting like an admin. You go around posting official looking templates everywhere saying people will be blocked and it is their last warning. You are not an admin and can't block/ban people, so stop making threats of blocking people and saying it is their last warning. You already said that had my last warning before I got blocked so why haven't I been blocked yet? Stop pretending to be an admin. If you want to be able to say and do things like that then become one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.106.103.25 (talk) 05:53, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"I got a lot of shit for the Rolling Stone review of Reckoning because the guy really likes my guitar style and he wrote, 'on this record, Pete Buck does everything.' We'd stop for gas and it would be, 'Pete Buck does everything. Why don't you go pump the gas, Pete?'" - Peter Buck
OK, you suggested the discussion at an editor's talk page rather than at the article's talk page, so here we go (or am I not allowed to post on your talk page? Kidding, just a little joke!). Seriously, I think you smell something fishy with the new user "Hawaii57". But, what if they are just a new user unfamiliar with the Wiki way of doing things, and are making an honest effort to improve the article (from their inexperienced perspective)? It that possible in your view? Plausible? If not plausible, how does that jive with AGF? The operative point is that I recognize there is a group of editors sympathetic to the president, and that's OK. Hell, there's a group of editors bent on his failure. But, if there is no way for anyone new to make suggestions to improve the article, why not just archive the whole damnned thing? Zip it up, assuming that everything that should be said about Obama has been said. No other views welcome, unless they meet with approval from the "experience editors." Is that how you wanted to edit when you first started at Wikipedia? I don't know about you, but it kinda reminds me of a certain totalitarian regime where asking questions without the fear of censorship was verbotten. I am not suggesting that is the goal of you and others, merely that there is a perception of that being the goal from those of us who have a differing viewpoint. It doesn't make you right or me wrong. It doesn't make me bad or you good. It just makes us different. So, will you help? Turn a new leaf? I bring it to you here so as to not appear to be grandstanding (which was not my intention). I have seen hatred and the horrific things that mankind can do to each other; I fight that kind of hostility wherever I can. Am I perfect, hell no. But, it is certainly worth a shot to at least try to be civil to each other and not automatically assume the worst. If every new edior that asks a question (well intentioned or not) is shot on the spot for daring to cross the status quo, then Wikipedia as a project will fail. As Reagan was quoted as saying, "Trust, but verify." Now, I have probably mused too much, so I'll leave it to you. QueenofBattle (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Red-page editors whose initial edits are a likely non-notable article about the president's former home, and then on to the talk page of one of the most contentious articles in the project? No, doesn't pass the smell test, IMO. Tarc (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're probably right about that. I rarely edit in the template namespace. Would you please add the link to relevant articles instead, see that the page is created before Obama's first budget? I hope you can realise where I'm coming from. Ottre 14:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
Hi. May I respectfully suggest that you give this editor a little room, and also an extra dose of respect and courtesy? I know you believe some of his (her?) edits to be unhelpful and I won't disagree. But I think harshness or confrontation is likely to hurt things on another front, which is to encourage the editor to develop positive feelings for fellow Wikipedians and stop perceiving of others as being out to get them. There is an admin, Bigtimepeace, actively watching over this now. I don't expect an admin to resolve every last minor detail. They will probably let the small stuff pass and concentrate on the main things. Bigtimepeace has already noted that some of your stronger comments were unduly harsh. It probably works at cross purposes for others to get in the way at this point. Wikidemon (talk) 17:29, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing I said there was even remotely harsh, I simply raised an issue of what may be or may not be proper in userspace, and I don't really think that dumping passages deemed wholly unfit for articles into a userspace page is as simple as "sandbox editing". It appears to be yet another tired example of "look what the Wikiliberals are censoring!" flag-waving. Tarc (talk) 18:50, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
regarding your restoration of the talk box on WP:TERRORIST
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Hi: Which part of my edit summary do you disagree with? You are aware that you are a) misrepresenting WP:TERRORIST as a policy, b) restoring a box which is contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia and WP:TALK since it misuses a guideline to forclose discussion relevant to the article's quality, c) restoring a box which is not templated, and hence impossible to maintain, and thus potentially misleading in the future, are you not? I undid one of your changes, will not undo others until you reply, or a suitable amount of time elapses. I don't want to get into an edit war, but I'm firmly convinced I'm in the right about this one. RayTalk01:25, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Do elaborate further and make some effort to refute my points, each one of which is sufficient for removing this misleading and censoring message. RayTalk05:44, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We do not label these groups "terrorist" in a "So-and-so, formed in 1980 as a terrorist group...", so-and-so committed an act of terrorism on...", and similar examples. We explain who considers them to be terrorist organizations and why, and that is the extent of it. Yes, guideline is not policy, thanks for taking the time to point that out to me. However, guideline is the reflection of broad, overwhelming community consensus, and until/unless you can show that consensus has changed on a particular matter covered by guideline, then it is effectively the same thing. Trolls, vandals, single purpose accounts, POV Warriors and the like come around to these pages daily, seeking to jam the terms in wherever they can. These warnings on the talk pages seek to nip such activities in the bud, similar to the warnings over at Talk:Muhammad about how the images will not be removed. Tarc (talk) 11:15, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All of what you have said is true. However, that doesn't give license to put factually incorrect warnings up on Wikipedia talk pages -- most trolls and vandals will not even read the Talk page. Anybody who would heed such a warning is acting in good faith, and should not be lied to, nor have their opinions incorrectly suppressed. One does not need to show that consensus has changed on the guideline to negate the guideline for a particular article -- one only needs to attain consensus of editors at that article that the guideline does not apply. That is why it is a guideline, and not a policy, after all. Please see Talk:Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam for an example of a warning on the subject which is factually accurate, doesn't attempt to censor the conversation, yet conveys the point of current Wikipedia consensus. I await your reply. RayTalk18:13, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is you who are acting against consensus. There is no consensus to avoid discussion of use of terminology in an article on the corresponding talk page. You are trying to make it look like there is. There is no consensus for WP:TERRORIST as a guideline, you are trying to make it look like it is. I am finding it difficult to assume good faith under these circumstances. If you will not either remove or edit those messages to be in line with Wikipedia policies, then I will return to doing so. RayTalk22:50, 26 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um, no, it is your point of view on the matter that is in the distinct minority here. Go try to drum up some-consensus changing over at the talk page for WP:WTA or somewhere similarly appropriate, if you seek to change this. I will not be continuing this discussion on my talk page. Tarc (talk) 01:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
After several months, he's back to switching the Genre on every foo fighters-related article to alt rock. He's editing primarily from 67.242.56.62. Somehow, my petition for a ban was denied. --Kingoomieiii ♣Talk18:45, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The other day I had these Jehovah's Witnesses come round to my house, and they tried to convince me that the Pope was the Devil's representative on Earth. So I told them that Jesus was the world's first communist. So they left. They were genuinely enraged.'" - Ian Brown
Hardly need to tell you to be careful Tarc. There are some odd things, over several pages, cropping up in succession, at a crucial moment. Provocative, ill-formed, etc. One can hazard a couple of provisory readings of these things, what the point of it might be, if this is not just chance. My reading is, get detached, withdraw, observe the end result. RegardsNishidani (talk) 18:06, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I was noted of a sourcing issue between you and ChildofMidnight. To prevent an edit war, I made a note on the talk page for you two to talk it over there. Wizardman02:46, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have asked you to withdraw a personal attack from Jimmy Wales talk page, please do so and desist from attacking other editors with whom you disagree in such an aggressive fashion in future. There simply are no excuses for such atmosphere poisoning. Thanks, SqueakBoxtalk00:01, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Squeak, it is fairly obvious that you have been stalking QuackGuru and reverting his edits adding "co-" to articles that make mention of Mr. Wales. All I did was comment on said obviousness; it was not a personal attack. If you don't want to be called out for your behavior...behavior that includes stalking and editing against consensus...then perhaps you should, y'know, knock it off? Tarc (talk) 00:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By far, this is the oddest interaction I've ever had with an admin. Hopefully the AfD is nearing a closure soon. Tarc (talk) 02:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Well, I remember hearing girls behind me in English class talking about turning 18 and being old enough to strip. It wasn't that weird at the time.'" - Brandon Flowers
Project news
John Frusciante and U2 were featured on the Main Page on May 2 and 26.
You followed him around, reverting his edits, that is clear for all to see. That you've had a near-manic fixation on maintaining your minority POV prior to this is hardly surprising. But hey, thanks for the heads-up, sport. Tarc (talk) 11:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Letterman
I'm confused as to this edit, as it doesn't seem to fit with the logic of your edit summary. You reinserted Palin's interpretation and included other unnecessary details. Was it in error? --ZimZalaBimtalk04:45, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yea I think my edit reverted too far back, but just about right after that last night, my net connection decided to drop. Couldn't get back in to tweak it. Tarc (talk) 12:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question
Tarc, are you an Obama supporter? If so, then I think you should recuse yourself from being an administrator on all Obama related articles. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It (sort of) is my business, because you are trying to get me blocked from adding well sourced information that is critical of Obama to wikipedia articles, and I think you may possibly be using your own bias as a guideline. Do you mean you voted Hillary in the primary election, and Obama in the general election? Grundle2600 (talk) 23:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, Grundle, it really isn't any of your business, and you will get no further information on that angle. I am not happy with a good deal of what the president has done, or not done, so far in his administration. But partisan right-wing rhetoric makes me even more unhappy. As I and others have told you time and time again, being "well-sourced" is not the only criteria that must be met. Links to other core policies have been given to you time and time again, and I am not going to take the time to toss Wiki acronyms at you for the umpteenth time, honestly. You should know them by heart by now. Tarc (talk) 15:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Right wing? You think I am right wing? Did you see my political positions on my userpage? I think gay marriage should be legal. I think marijuana should be legal. I am pro-choice on abortion. I oppose the death penalty. I favor universal health care. And I want to end the U.S. embargo against Cuba. These are all very left wing positions. Grundle2600 (talk) 16:25, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actions speak louder than words, and regardless of professed motivations, your edits have been extremely disruptive. This is really the last I have to say on this tangent. Tarc (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Baseball Bugs (talk·contribs) is reminded to be more civil when dealing with users and to not use talk pages as a forum.
The probation on articles relating to Barack Obama will be reviewed by a group of involved and non-involved editors and administrators to see how effective it has been. The process will last two weeks. After the two weeks elapse, the working group will provide their findings to us and the community, and will outline how the article probation will run in the future.
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
Can you explain why mentioning Obama's race as "African American" is not racist, while mentioning the race of his mother is? It seems to be a total hypocrisy. In fact it in not accurate without mentioning his mother, instead it promotes a fiction that is easily disproved, and is more in line with political propaganda than real information.Robtmorris (talk) 14:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing inherently racist about the term "African American", and the way you phrased your entry gave it a "where dem white wimmin at?" feeling. So, bit of an apples & oranges situation there. At first I'd assume that you didn't mean for it to come out that way, but looking on your colorful (pun unintended) edit history (e.g. Talk:Racism/Archive 17#Sociological) of regurgitating flawed memes about racial violence, I'd have to reconsider that assumption of good faith. Tarc (talk) 15:55, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The information I posted in the Racism/Archive is not flawed, it is just not the PC prospective. If your idea is that any disagreement with the PC crowd is automatically racist, then there is no discussion possible.
I think people who focus on race are racist, and reject the whole "power" argument as bunk because the rules should apply equally to all. So to get back to the question: Can you explain why mentioning Obama's race as "African American" is not racist, while mentioning the race of his mother is? It is oranges and oranges, unless you don't think being "African American" is a racial identifier. Otherwise logic would say that you should mention both or neither. Political Correct thinking dictates you stick to some kind of "party line" that is drawn for the benefit of the favored. Towing a "party line" is not what Wikipedia is for. A weak argument is to say that "he calls himself 'African America', but if he called himself French would Wikipedia repeat that? Robtmorris (talk) 16:28, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I take that as an admission on your part that you are only able to see the PC prospective and you are therefore incapable of actual thought. Too bad, good bye.Robtmorris (talk) 16:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is an observation that you are only here to grind a particular axe, rather than to be an honest contributor to article editing. One in a long, long line that invariably ends with a ban. Ta-ta. Tarc (talk) 17:20, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have an "axe to grind", but rather information to add, honest, true, and verifiable information at that. If you don't like the information I suppose you can adopt the tactic of making threats, but that only shows that you are lacking in other means of defending your "position". I can't use the term ideas because there have been none presented. Robtmorris (talk) 17:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
A Unique Wikipedian
Several months ago you commented on an edit I made. I found it offensive. I kindly suggested that you be more polite to others. I unwatched your discussion page trusting that you would behave better. Well, I have just checked back.
You are a unique Wikipedian and so are your discussion page posts. Half of the content is sharp, nasty argument. When you find fault in someone's position, you seem to express it in the most cruel and unpleasant way you can muster. This is not so with 99% of other discussion page posts.
In the same way that you criticize others, please take a look at your own conduct. You are clearly the common denominator. If you spoke this way to others at a cocktail party, you would be left standing alone. It would be a breach of social protocol. So why do it here?
I am writing this because a friend recently started to contribute and then left because she encountered this sort of attitude from an editor. I hate to see contributors go because of a hostile, unfriendly environment. Wikipedia is a shared space. I feel you are spreading a terrible energy. So often, your comments clearly aim to offend. They seem like personal attacks. I thought there are rules against this. I don't know what this post will achieve. So many others have said the same thing. You seem to be unstoppable. I am surprised and disappointed that Wikipedia allows this. --Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh, I had to dig a bit, but yea, you're the one that had a hissy fit over the "trivial junk" response. Same point now as then; too thin skin. Sure, sometimes it'll go over the top, which is why I got the ArbCom reprimand. But the bulk of the time it is just a bunch of WP:SPAs, trolls, and POV pushers, most of which have been blocked, banned or reprimanded far more severely than I ever have. Clean block log here darlin, and if you ever have a complaint about a specific incident, WP:WQA is thataway. But really, in short; don't poke the bear.
BTW, I am the life of cocktail parties, people especially love my pirate jokes. Wanna hear one?
I was originally thinking a collaboration through e-mail, but then realized this would be difficult, so I might just put something in my userspace/wikispace where those e-mailed can begin discussion and work towards a conclusion. Wizardman17:48, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"The only confusion was, I think we all thought they were women. Kim was obviously a woman, but they all had this shaved-headed, pretty, soft look. And there were lots of lesbian bands at the time, and we always got booked with them, so we just thought the Pixies were another, like maybe they were like angry divorcees or somthing that formed a band.'" - Kristin Hersh
Hi Tarc. My name is Mike Lyons and I am a doctoral student at Indiana University. I am conducting research on the writing and editing of high traffic “current events” articles on Wikipedia. I have noticed in the talk page archives at Barack Obama that you have contributed to the editing or maintenance of the article. I was hoping you would agree to fill out a brief survey about your experience. This study aims to help expand our thinking about collaborative knowledge production. Believe me I share your likely disdain for surveys but your participation would be immensely helpful in making the study a success. A link to the survey is included below.
I've requested an amendment to the Obama ArbCom case to examine and remove several of the findings of fact and remedies passed by the Committee. Your comments would be appreciated here. Thank you. Sceptre(talk)13:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So I guess when Wikipedia had Queen's listed as the hospital that Obama was born in from Feb. 2008 to Oct. 2008, it was peddling in "poorly-sourced conspiracy theories", right? And that was with only one source. I have four and I'm not even saying that he was born there, I'm just saying that it has been often listed as his birthplace. That doesn't sound like a poorly sourced conspiracy theory, now does it. BenSpecter (talk) 22:21, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A bunch of illogical sentences placed together does not explain anything. My argument and my edit is legitimate as evidenced by the fact that you have not and cannot refute it nor can anyone else. BenSpecter (talk) 22:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence of Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories says this, "Questions and conspiracy theories about Barack Obama's citizenship, and other challenges to his eligibility to become President of the United States, have circulated before and after his victory in the US presidential election of 2008." This isn't a challenge to his eligibility or a theory about his citizenship. I'm just trying to reflect the truth in these articles by stating that no confirmation has been made about which hospital he was born at and that there are reliable sources that indicate both Queen's and Kapi'olani. Does that help you in your understanding? BenSpecter (talk) 22:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There has been confirmation, several times over, as the majority of reliable sources list it as Kapi'olani. Only within the murky realms of the Birther movement is there any doubt as to which hospital Obama was born in. So no, you're not "reflecting the truth"; the only reflection I see here is in the glare from your tinfoil hat. Tarc (talk) 23:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There have been reports from reliable sources that he was born at Kapi'olani and there have been reports from reliable sources that he was born at Queen's. Snopes admit this, and for six months in 2008, Wikipedia claimed he was born at Queen's. The majority of RS's now claim Kapi'olani but that does not make it a fact nor does it confirm anything, especially when Kapi'olani and Obama refuse to confirm it. It is therefore not a fact. Can you understand this or are you just obsessed with making personal attacks against those with whom you disagree and cannot debate? BenSpecter (talk) 23:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources corrected an earlier mistake? Stop the presses! And please, no one has made any personal attacks here, and no one is debating you. To debate, one usually has to have a position of credibility to defend. Birthers possess nothing of the sort. Tarc (talk) 23:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No personal attacks? How about your reference to a tin foil hat? The easiest way to avoid a debate is to dismiss the other point of view as lacking any credibility, as you just have. And, once again, this has nothing to do with a theory about Obama's citizenship so it'd be nice if you would stop hiding behind that claim. BenSpecter (talk) 23:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It has everything to do with citizenship. Now kindly, depart from my talk page. Take any further issues to the article talk pages. Tarc (talk) 23:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The issue itself does not, but the consequences of any doubt about his birthplace does, and you realize where it could lead and that's why you're so desperate to prevent it. Don't vandalize my edits if you don't have the ability to debate the issue. BenSpecter (talk) 23:47, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I had a look, but sorry, I cannot take such a thing seriously when one of the Wikipedia's biggest drama queens says "I'm hardly ever involved in any drama so I guess it's not much of a sacrifice on my part" there with a straight face. Tarc (talk) 20:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You and I may not always have gotten along in the past, but I have to laugh at your last comments. I, too, am asking WTF? Is there a camera somewhere looking at me? Oh well. Back to it. QueenofBattle (talk) 23:43, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't decide which is more bizarre; the near-frantic "don't tell the eeeeevil regulars about my article" over at DYK, or the huge amounts of drama generated by a WP:NODRAMA signatory. Tarc (talk) 23:47, 21 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I really haven't had much to do with the Honduras issue lately, not sure if I have time to dive back in. Take care in dealing with squeakbox though, he's made wikilawyering into an art form, and will invariably take the slightest opposition and attempt to frame it as a personal attack against him. Tarc (talk) 13:38, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up
I left a note on the case talkpage. I won't be engaging there, as it just seems like an attempt to end run consensus to me. Unitanode22:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, that's how my mind works; "Ron vs Ru" immediately came to mind, and I had to work from there to craft a response that included it. :) Tarc (talk) 21:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't. You seem to have a stunning knack for being disruptive, so it may be wise to reel that trait of yours in. Soon. Tarc (talk) 12:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Orly Taitz
I promise it was an honest mistake! I simply saw that there was a great deal of news about her and was WP:BOLD to make an article. I didn't check AfD beforehand so I didn't know there had been deletion discussions. Sorry! Basket of Puppies16:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted offending material as requested from User:Penright/Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?)
Have deleted offending material as you all requested from User:Penright/Triumph Of Truth (Who Is Watching The Watchers?) according to Wikipedia rules that you have pointed out about not appearing to attach any living person or organisation on in a Wikipedia article. Please would you all be so kind to review your individual "to keep" or "to delete" decisions in the light of the revised edit on this article, many thanks again for all your contribution, thoughts, advice and guidance as you all have a lot more experience at this than IPenright (talk) 22:21, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Penright (talk) 23:30, 3 August 2009 (UTC)Penright (talk) 23:37, 3 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Birthers"
I am gratified to see that you have been able to evalute the term "birther" in a neutral way. I feel that its use is designeed only to marginalize and draw ridicule to those who hold the beliefs. This is the antithesis of what the project is supposed to do. (I believe that he was born in Hawaii, for the record). If you would take a look at the discussion on the talk page there, I´d appreciate it--Die4Dixie (talk) 17:06, 5 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Realize that you broke 3RR on the conspiracy article. I understand that you are attempting to discredit this particular movement but that is not the goal of wikipedia. The caption as is, is confusing to readers, clarification is helpful. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your understanding of 3RR is in need of some work, Will. Read through WP:3RR, thoroughly, and perhaps you will see why my edits to that article today don't come within pissing distance of 3RR. Obviously I could just rattle off the whys and hows right now, but I favor the "lead a horse to water" approach. Tarc (talk) 00:14, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Guess that water was hard to find, eh? Different edits each time, not reversion of the same material. One could also point out that the continuous adding of Birther-tinged conspiracy is a disruption that runs afoul of the recent ArbCom case on Obama-related articles, the reversion of which is akin to combating vandalism. So on either front, you're going to be on the short end of the stick I'm afraid. Better luck next time, and give some thought to making legitimate content contributions rather than continue to harp on dismissed WP:FRINGE junk. It only leads to a band end around here. Tarc (talk) 00:57, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Er, I'm not sure that this was investigated properly. Edit #1 (which was on the 8th, not the 9th as mislabeled above) was not a revert, it was a removal of text I did not think was relevant to the article topic. Saturn's edit added that Pat Boone info plus some re-wording of the Alan Keyes section; I left the Keyes, removed the Boone, and posted to the talk page about it if people wished to discuss which to date no one did, so one can conclude that that was not a controversial edit. The other 3 are reverts, yes, but of different material, as Saturn has poked and prodded to get material, widely considered here to be WP:FRINGE ("short form", ", as posted on his website", and ", posted on his website during primaries"). 3 different ways to add fringe material to an article that is subject to probation. Even if one was to overrule that and decide it was reversion of the same material, that is still only 3, as the one on the 8th had absolutely nothing to do with the others.
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I don't really see how the one of the 8th can be a "revert action", but ah well. Already spent a 1/3rd of it asleep, and another 1/3rd will be spent at work, so I'll take an effective 8h time-out for keeping a Birther's tinfoil fringe edits at bay. Seeya tomorrow. Tarc (talk) 14:13, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you don't want to request an unblock that's up to you, but I think you'll find that even to enforce NPOV / sourcing / etc., against editors you see as disruptive, you still have to avoid edit warring. Next time just slow down a bit and don't feel you have to do it all on your own. There are plenty of people watching those pages, and truly bad edits will get reverted by someone else if you don't do it. I've commented on the AN/I topic where the block is being discussed. Hope that helps. Wikidemon (talk) 17:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did request an unblock, jpgordon declined it, and from what I recall here and there he's a pretty stand-up guy. So what else is there to do; pull a nutty and put a big wall of text on the top of my user page about the evil admins and rant n' rave about the block and them at every opportunity in various venues? :) (The similarities between that example and anyone who we all may or may not know round here is purely coincidental, of course).
ZOMG! You deny the existence of the massive admin conspiracy??? Don't you know that Jimbo is Kenyan and was there when Obama was delivered? Seriously though, I hope you didn't take this edit to mean that I didn't support your changes. :) Soxwon (talk) 18:56, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Y'know, Tarc -- if you just agree to stop edit warring you'll get unblocked quickly. That's all a 3RR block takes, especially when your record is as long and clean as yours is. --jpgordon::==( o )18:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, I just have too short a fuse for tinfoil hat I guess, sorry. I was under the impression though that different material/text did not get counted up in terms of 3RR, is that something that changed once upon a time? Tarc (talk) 19:18, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know, actually. But remember, the whole point of 3RR is to stop edit wars; it's not to prevent the offense of reverting some particular number of times. I'm glad someone shortened your block. --jpgordon::==( o )19:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hrm, that raises another point here, perhaps. If it for "stopping edit wars", there was a good 9 hours between the last edit to the article and the block itself. I'd moved on to other editing, then to sleep, and never had a chance to raise an objection at the time of the report. Tarc (talk) 19:33, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Guess I shoulda thought of that at the time, ah well. :) BTW, if you have a moment can you take a look at what I just posted in the AN/I thread? [3] Mr. Saturn here has tkaen it upon himself to log this as an article probation sanction, and I'm not all that sure that is correct. Tarc (talk) 19:43, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I reduced your block length and you should be OK to edit now. You've been here long enough not to let yourself be drawn into a situation like that, and you should have self reverted, especially when given the chance. Be more careful. Good luck!--Wehwalt (talk) 19:12, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.
I edit primarily from 2 IP addresses, and was on address #2 (not the one above) when the block was reduced, and was able to edit fine. It seems that this did not lift it from address #1 (i.e. the one listed above), which is the one I am on now. Something is wrong. Tarc (talk) 21:07, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
re: Barack Obama citizenship conspriacy theories;
I think you misunderstood the intent of my edit. i wasnt saying that the THEORIES were mainstream, only that they were covered in mainstreams ources. I think that while the theories themselves are outlandish and undoubtedly untrue, they are definitely covered in mainstream soruces and its not accurate to pretend like the mainstream media isnt noticing them, especially since so many of the sources criticizing them are mainstream and relaible sources. User:Smith Jones18:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obama conspiracy theories and mainstream attention
I think you erred in removing the word "mainstream" from the article. In context, saying that the theories received mainstream attention does not mean that they were ever endorsed by the mainstream, only that they were covered by the mainstream press. Saying that they received attention looks like a weasel word because it doesn't say whose attention - it's kind of awkward. Maybe there is a way to reword it, to indicate that during that period this fringe theory movement, or body of fringe ideas, was covered by the mainstream press. In a way, it's a claim of notability. What do you think? Wikidemon (talk) 18:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The way it was written was not conveying that, and going by past edits, this editor is not one I'd give the benefit of the doubt to, honestly. If there's a better way to say mainstream media picked up on some of the birther chatter, then ok. Tarc (talk) 19:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Let's keep working together to make wikipedia even better.
I see that by making this edit on my talk page, you are letting me know that it's OK for me to post on your talk page too. Thanks! I appreciate you doing that.
Anyway, as someone like myself who enjoys improving the Obama related articles, I thought you might like to know about a wonderful, reliable new source of information on that topic. The new book Culture of Corruption: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks, and Cronies by Michelle Malkin has 76 pages of endnotes, so everything in the book is well sourced and reliable. The book has also been at #1 on the New York Times Nonfiction Hardcover bestseller list for the past twoweeks. Given our past cooperation on improving Obama related articles, I am sure that you will be as pleased with this new book as I am. I know that you will enjoy reading it and using it as a source to help improve the various Obama related articles. Please keep up your good work here at wikipedia! Grundle2600 (talk) 01:55, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, its cool. Really the only things I decline to have on my page are either WP:SPAs who carry on article page debates, or hypocritical whining from I-P zealots. I know what these two are all about, its mostly harmless :). Tarc (talk) 11:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ChildofMidnight topic banned
As a party to the Obama articles arbitration case, you are notified as a courtesy of this amendment to the final decision.
Hey, Tarc... that was rather gutsy.[4] I've made a similar but more private and measured comment.[5] As painful as it is to be called a Nazi (I have some personal reasons here), I wonder how wise it is to call Arbcom members on their dysfunctional way of dealing with this case. Wise or not, they are the guys with the guns and badges, and as such they're entitled to some deference. Only the wisest judge is humble enough to listen to the cry of those he has sentenced, and realize when he has ruled poorly. A less wise judge would see the protest only as confirmation of his harsh judgment. Wikidemon (talk)
What we've got here is the equivalent of one boorish drunk at a party making the experience miserable for the rest of the party-goers. When said party-goers complain to the host about the lout, the host says "all I see is people arguing, so out you all go!" Tarc (talk) 03:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"We've been having lots of sex, and we're pregnant with the new baby already. It's vicious! It will have claws, like Freddy Kruger's lovechild.'" - Tom Meighan
You might want to revert your last edit... you just took that site out of the "non-professional" section, which by your edit summary, I don't think you meant to do. :) – B.hotep •talk• 12:31, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, odd that he'd just stop editing under one though, no block log or anything. Probably forgot his password was "Birtherz4Lyfe" or something. Tarc (talk) 01:51, 27 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dunno if you're still watching here or not, but I heard Check My Brain this morning and...eh. The main riff is almost like a buzzing drone, a bit tiring a few mins in. Speaking of grunge vets though, the new Pearl Jam single blows. Hard. Tarc (talk) 19:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Tarc. In my opinion Pearl Jam should have called it a day fives years ago and left an undisturbed legacy like Soundgarden did instead of turning into Metallica. They made some of my favorite music in the 90s (mostly from their debut album, Ten) but they just don't bring it home anymore. Still, in my opinion, they created the best rock song of all time and I'll always respect them for that. As far as Alice In Chains, my preferred tracks are the two singles and the title track. How about you?--Sky AttackerHere comes the bird!21:33, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Drama
I just saw this comment you made at WP:ANI, and I have to say I am in full agreement. Is it my imagination, or does there seem to be a significant anti-administrator movement flexing its muscles at the moment? My least favorite editor in The Universe (with whom I may not interact, per ArbCom sanction) seems to be at the epicenter, disagreeing with every conceivable admin action and generally creating drama all over the place. I realize some recent ArbCom FAIL (with respect to Law) has ruffled a few feathers, but I think this general assault upon administrators is totally unreasonable. -- Scjessey (talk) 20:49, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I find distasteful is the blanket attitude of "all admins are bad"...or more to the point, as with our favorite problem child of the year ChildfofMidnight, "all admins who do not agree with me are bad". My comment there was in reference to his most recent time-out, as I am glad someone finally took notice of his temper tantrums across AN/I yesterday. Tarc (talk) 22:18, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hear, hear. I recall a big "say NO to DRAMA" campaign recently. CoM was a major proponent of it. I sense a disconnection here... Auntie E.18:42, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I must add, there is a difference between expecting admins to be fair to everyone equally (which has been the issue in the past couple weeks) and campaigning to completely disempower them. Productive editors need you guys to keep this place clear of problem editors. Auntie E.18:47, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies. I didn't read the whole "racist allegations" and multiracial string closely enough. I am happy to revise my comments at the talk page if you would like. QueenofBattle (talk) 20:08, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Barak joker poster
I'm thankful to see I wasn't alone when I felt this was a horrible article. I can't believe this stayed while so many better articles are deleted.--Windowasher (talk) 20:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you so much for the heads up on that one. I was totally frustrated over the Wolf Blitzer interview, I can't believe an article was written on it.--Windowasher (talk) 14:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Read carefully
Clearly, someone was not listening.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Don’t know why, but you seem to have completely missed my point. I agree that Temple of the Dog and Mad Season are grunge, that has never, never been the issue here. I disagree that they should be listed as prominent grunge acts. Do not remove this from your talk page either. It is important that you address what my argument is about so that this “edit war” can be peacefully resolved as you don’t seem to have any understanding to what my point has been all along. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 19:09, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do not hold side discussions on my talk page regarding article issues, which is why I usually revert things like this with a "keep it on the article talk" summary. Consider this a courtesy notice to that effect, but do not follow-up here with this issue, as it will be ignored. Just because someone disagrees does not mean they "missed the point", fyi, Tarc (talk) 19:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You do miss the point, 'cuz you have absolutely not clue to what you're disagreeing with me about. This is not regarding the article, this is regarding your lack of understanding of what's being discussed so it belongs here. Consider this a courtesy note, if you do not respond and acknowledge what the discussion is about then nothing you contribute can be considered as you've clearly demonstrated multiple times that you have no clue to what's going on. Darwin's Bulldog (talk) 20:04, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was so amused by your Nathaniel Hawthorne reference, that I added a new "infobox" near the top of my talk page. All the best, LotLE×talk22:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Don't put much stock into Saturn's grousing. If we look back at his past edits in this topic area, the ones that haven't been instantly reverted due to POV-pushing, policy-violating reasons could be counted on one hand. Tarc (talk) 02:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unless there's been some spiraling downturn of events in the last few hrs (just getting back online now), I dunno if it gets that far. AC is intended to be the "Inn of Last Resort" on the dispute resolution road, so I'd think they'd want to see community consensus at ANI or an RfC first. Tarc (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree, I mean, I feel that if the issue is continued, then there would be sufficient need for atleast a RfC. I guess we'll have to see. Thanks. Grsz1116:37, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You know, I was wondering (because for some reason or other, I watch that page) in what sense is the documentary wrong? I'm totally ignorant of the thing. Give it to me in 100 words or less and you get a cookie! Regards, Hamster Sandwich|CANDLEBOX ROOOOLZ! (talk) 05:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am glad to see that you have finally taken my past numerous requests to "put up or shut up" and actually done something concrete for a change, rather than just post vague accusations in unrelated topics. I really gotta run to lunch though, so a reply will have to wait. Maybe I'll go get a BLT sub in honor of you. :) Tarc (talk) 17:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Vandalism counter
RE:ANI, thank you for your comments. I have added a vandalism counter showing that my userpage has been vandalized 8,938 times. This is a limited edition template which I'll keep only for a short while. On ANI, you said that this is permitted even if not true. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 23:59, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, whatever floats your boat. At some point that thread will be automatically archived though, which will break your citation link. Keep an eye out so you can update it. Tarc (talk) 00:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if we can find a fair use image of the president somewhere on the project and try replacing it with a stick figure drawing, see how far that gets, heh. Tarc (talk) 15:00, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
COMMENT: That is my statement. The form is part of the statement. The (improper) removals are also part of the statement. (No reply necessary, but undoing your revert would be wise.) -- Proofreader77(interact)20:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your statement is garbage, to put it mildly, adding nothing of value to the RfC. If you want to crack jokes and do the funny-boy-in-the-back-of-the-classroom shtick, go find another venue. I do not plan to edit-war over it, which is why I brought the matter up on the talk page to let others weight in, but nor will I revert my own edit either. Tarc (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This guy probably needs his own RFC/U, if he doesn't already have one. It's one thing to be a bit contrary, but this dude owns the word. I can't tell you how much I wish that restriction wasn't there so I could "let fly" (as Maximus would say). -- Scjessey (talk) 02:55, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I said before, you aren't nearly as witty as you think you are. If you had an actual opinion to share, you were fully capable of doing so without falling back on rhetorical diarrhea. Tarc (talk) 03:11, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
January 10, 2010
Are you and your buddies afraid of publishing fair and unbiased history? tuco_bad 14:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cgersten (talk • contribs)
Er, autoblocked?
Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):
Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.
This "Dylan" account creation/blocking has nothing to do with me, but is apparently someone on the same IP that I sometimes edit from as well. (workplace). Tarc (talk) 17:04, 2 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are looking at it from a too confrontational view. All I'm saying is that the reference used to justify Christianity is a horrible reference. It has errors, even forgets that his occupation is lawyer. It is not a primary source. It is just some wacko writing a website. They are not a primary or secondary source. They are a tertiary source, like Wikipedia is. JB50000 (talk) 05:08, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have a beef with the religious description, frustration that the discussion isn't going your way, so you are now taking potshots at other parts of the article in retaliation. Tarc (talk) 14:00, 5 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contributions to the encyclopedia! In case you are not already aware, an article to which you have recently contributed, Climatic Research Unit hacking incident, is on article probation. A detailed description of the terms of article probation may be found at Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation. Also note that the terms of some article probations extend to related articles and their associated talk pages.
They still having tea parties these days, thought all that nonsense fizzled out awhile ago. I may take a peek, but I've been out of that horse race for awhile now. Tarc (talk) 22:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Popular_Assembly_of_the_Peoples_of_Oaxaca
A dynamic IP keeps reverting the changes and reinserting POV terms..without any interest in discussing the situation. It was doing the same to the APPO section on the Oaxaca article, until that article was semi protected. I have now asked for semi page protection on the APPO article, as well as taken it to AN/I, but no one in either place seems interested in helping stop the vandalism. --nsaum75¡שיחת!18:56, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it had been just changing the article to say he wasn't notable, it would have been one thing and I would have been among the first to educate him. But nominating an article at AfD, then going to ANI to complain--all within hours of creating your account? That didn't sit well at all. Blueboy9600:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
CRU article name
Hello,
I am writing you this message because you have participated in the RfC regarding the name of the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident article. As the previous discussion didn't actually propose a name, it was unfocused and didn't result in any measurable consensus. I have opened a new discussion on the same page, between the existing name and the proposed name Climatic Research Unit documents controversy. I have asked that no alternate names are proposed at this time. Please make your opinion known here. Thanks, Oren0 (talk) 05:41, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So I can't even undo my own edits? :~) Let it stand. Maybe it is an appropriate comment on the process through the mood it conveys, even if the meaning is obscure. I will stay out of the ArbCom discussion. I find these squabbles futile and childish. Aymatth2 (talk) 16:32, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was a rather silly thing for Drmies to post to CoM in the first place, but the only reason I reversed it was because it isn't actually a copyvio. Tarc (talk) 16:36, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh. You posted it initially; I thought it was someone else, and you were reverting them. Hah, I never shoulda stepped in then, my bad. Tarc (talk) 16:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And then Aymatth2 fixed it again and I came along to revert back to the whole poem. And I was sober as a judge, really! It just seems to fit the circumstance. I think the original addition was inspired, so perhaps a little wine is a good thing. GeoffWho, me?03:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've reformatted the article to make it so the fact that it is the 15th anniversary episode more prominent. I've also found Nielsen ratings (even though they are hosted on a fansite currently; they are apparently from this site but it is not loading properly). Would this suffice for proving that it is a notable episode out of the 700 or that have aired?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 02:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I'd feel that just citing the tv ratings in that manner is skirting too close to original research. Goodbye, Farewell and Amen is notable because of its huge ratings, but the the story of the ratings win was itself the subject of coverage. There's a difference there, IMO. How about on whatever the main Power Ranger is, have a separate section? Call it "Milestones" or something of that, and give a paragraph-length blurb? "Once a Ranger" can then be a redir to that section. Tarc (talk) 14:40, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No offense, but the admins have thus far proven themselves to be unable to deal with the issues with this article. The same problem editors from 3 months ago are still around, still POV-pushing, still violating WP:NPOV, still violating WP:UNDUE, still violating WP:RS, etc. Can anything be done to address the problem? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Quest, they would likely say the same about you, though. My own involvement in climate controversy in minimal, as I really don't have the time or inclination to get very deeply involved these days. In answer to your question though, yes; ArbCom. If all of this goes there though, I predict a great many people will be greatly unhappy with the consequences. Tarc (talk) 15:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and I would challenge them to find a single biased edit I have made on this article or any other for that matter. A case was brought before ArbCom but they decided to give the community a chance to resolve these issues themselves. Wikipedia, it seems to me, is not equipped to handle large-scale abuses such as this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:58, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unblock by Trusilver
I was a bit astonished that you feel it is open and shut that Trusilver acted against policy. Of course, you can read my views at the hearing. I'd be curious to know why you think they do not hold up. Brews ohare (talk) 05:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
To me, solving F=ma is physics, but suggesting to an author that they cite Newton in this regard is not physics. My advice to Finell and Likebox to write for a broad audience and cooperate, here and here, is definitely not physics, and so Trusilver did not revert a sanction-related block, but a plain garden variety misapplied block. That action is well "within the pale". Brews ohare (talk) 06:22, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Whether it was a bad block or not, I don't think admins should be swooping in to undo blocks that they disagree with. I had a recent encounter with this Trusilver, and to put it mildly, this admin's ability to assess a situation and made a judgment on it leaves much to be desired. Tarc (talk) 13:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tarc: Well, it makes a difference to the sanctions applicable to Trusilver whether the block is a garden variety block or a block necessarily imposed by a sanction. That is, it isn't whether the block was a good block, or whether Trusilver usually has good judgment, it is a question of what rules apply. Brews ohare (talk) 15:12, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the IP; I moved this IP's comment from Jimmy's article talk page to Jimbo's user page. I made note of such with <small></small> tags at the top of the sub-section, but I guess it was too small. :) Tarc (talk) 19:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tarc/Archive1: 2009-2010 ! The template workshop is losing interest fast now that there is very little left to argue for or against. I have now split off most of the long threads purely on policy to a new discussion page so that any policy on its implementation can be established while technical development of the template can continue in its own space. When the template functions are finalised, the policy bits can be merged into them. If you intend to continue to contribute your ideas to the development of the template or its policy of use, and I hope you will, please consider either adding your name to the list of workshop members, or joining in with the policy discussions on the new page. --Kudpung (talk) 07:33, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Hir" ? I've always been fairly sure CoM is a dude, this has been a year-long display of a particularly masculine strain of passive-aggression. Anyways, someone asked a question, I took a look and answered it, but there's probably no need to do so again, no worries. Speaking of socks, he managed to get himself indef'ed from this encyc.org place too, for being abusive and in the end, socking. As I have always said, CoM's worst enemy has been himself, not any of us. Tarc (talk) 03:36, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Barack
I have made some good suggestions about fixing up the article, such as the foreign policy section. As you can see, it neither says that Obama is the greatest man to live on Earth nor does it say that he is a bad man. It's just an improvement over the current prose. Don't start knee jerk reverting but see if you can think of improvements, such as my foreign policy suggestions. Judith Merrick (talk) 19:25, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The featured article review #7 was opened by a bad-faith WP:SPA, and closed as such. Trying to start up #8 so soon after that mess was not a good idea. If you have editing concerns, then please create a new section on the Obama talk page, let the stale ones, esp ones initiated by now-banned users, be archived. Tarc (talk) 20:10, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, would you consider perhaps changing the opening sentence of this statement to third person? It probably wasn't intended quite as direct as it reads (one of those situations where phrasing the thought as "anyone can...." looks so much better than "you could..."). Best wishes, Durova41205:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tarc
I know you are adamant that you are not part of the group that supports Brews ohare--- and you are right, you aren't. But having gotten a taste of the type of harassment that gets dished out to those that are, perhaps you are willing to join?
I have given up on Wikipedia, but I went to a NYC meetup, and met some nice people who reminded me why I actually was optimistic about this project to begin with. The nice people are the great majority--- there is no need to block or ban non-rule-breaking people like Brews. Anyway, think about it, and no need to respond.Likebox (talk) 06:34, 22 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that this edit, while an astute observation, was placed in the "Users who endorse this summary" section...while not exactly endorsing that summary.
Your request is declined, as my comment as simply affirming the first line of Bali's second paragraph. I feel it is more than appropriate to note Ash's involvement in creating shoddy notability guidelines, thus my endorsement will stand as-is.
And no offense, but I do not value the input of anonymous IPs in non-article space, especially sensitive areas such as RfCs. Please do not address me again on this topic unless you create an account beforehand. (Before someone screams "OMG TEH 5 PILALRZ, IMO just because one can edit via IP does not always mean that they should). Tarc (talk) 17:42, 7 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How very charming and AgF of you. WP:WAE: "While having a username has a lot of benefits, editing already existing pages without one is perfectly acceptable, and in fact, is very much welcome...The true face of Wikipedia is the one we show on first interaction. So every effort should be made that we don't act friendly only to newcomers, but also to passing strangers."
You have recently participated in discussion at an AFD for a broadcast station. I have recently posted the above topic on the talk page of the notability guideline for organizations and companies, to see if there is interest in adding language related to the notability of radio and TV broadcast stations to that guideline. Your input would be most welcome. Thanks. Edison (talk) 01:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI, I put a note on Chris carroll us's talk page just now, urging him to discuss this Hawaii birth certificate thing on the article's talk page rather than trying to wage an edit war. I hope he will accept this suggestion, since I would genuinely like to hear whatever he has to say and have it properly considered for whatever it might be worth — something which is unlikely to happen if his dueling edits cause him to get article-banned or blocked entirely. Richwales (talk) 23:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Birth Certificate
Hey Tarc, about the IP that keeps changing the name of Obama's birth certificate. I was about to ask for help at ANI, but have to get read for the Red Wing game tonight. So let me give you some things I noticed about this issue. First, the three sources(1,2,3) that link to the image all refer to the document as Obama's birth certificate. This issue was settled many times before, and the result has always been to refer to the birth certificate as Obama's birth certificate(one such consensus is in archive 10). Hawaiian law, as well as Federal law, refers to the document as Obama's birth certificate and should be considered for all purposes the original. And lastly, the IP is socking with at least one more account. See this edit, and the edit histories for both accounts Ip - TruthfulPerson. It's obvious the editor is using the Ip as an edit warrior account, and at least the one registered account to include sneaky vandalism into Obama related articles. That's all for now. If nothing else, this info is here now. DD2K (talk) 01:55, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Every time WND puts out a new blog post about some new "explosive information", we see an uptick in birther-POV edits to that and other pages. It will pass. Tarc (talk) 02:07, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Tarc, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to Shiva Boloorian has been removed. It was removed by Sodabottle with the following edit summary '(contesting prod, there is coverage in farsi language media, because of the large amount of films/tv shows, would like this to go do AfD before being deleted)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Sodabottle before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 12:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages) 12:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The talk page says things are archived in 14 days but the bot has gone crazy and archived stuff in 10.
You said not to un-archive stuff so I have listen to you. I have re-archived the stuff that I did not make any comment on. The sections that are under 14 days old that I have commented on remains. Thanks.
This line "algo = old(10d)" in the configuration controls the length of time from the last comment made to archive a topic. I have no idea where the "Threads older than 14 days..." tagline in the archive box comes from, but it is incorrect. Perhaps it is a static or generic msg, I will look in a moment. Apart from that, though, topics are usually not unarchived to comment on; once it is gone, it is gone. As I said, if you really need to, then begin a new discussion via the "new section" tab at the top of the talk page. Going on as you are now is probably not going to lead to a good end. Tarc (talk) 22:24, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You said that I should not edit the comments of others. The reason to the edit was because TreasuryTag moved my defence to his ad hominem to the talk page, on the basis that it is not relevant to the article (to which I agree). However, he kept his ad hominem on the page which I subsequently moved too. However, someone had written a two part comment, the first agreeing with the ad hominem, the second relevant to the article. I split the comment into the two, one of which I moved, with the ad hominem, to the talk page, the other relevant part preserved on the page.
You also stated that the article was about one event. This is clearly not the case as the main article states two events, almost half a year apart. --A930913 (talk) 20:39, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think you really need to step back from this entire topic bro, you're involved past the point of all reasonable objectivity. I'm interested in seeing this be resolved somehow. Tarc (talk) 19:21, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no resolution! See this. Yes, my expansion was when I was heated, but editors who make an effort to edit that article are intimidated by him. I will not stand for that. If you find any of my edits questionable, please remove them. Erik (talk | contribs) 19:24, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Grundle. So should I pat myself on the back for being pretty much the only one to see through your aw shucks demeanor? You did have quite a few people fooled. Tarc (talk) 20:59, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the petition defending Gerald Walpin is notable. Without it, the article on him is POV and unbalanced. Someone had to do something to make sure the article was balanced and NPOV. Nothing that I have ever done here, in any article, has ever been malicious. Besides, wikipedia is the encyclopedia that "anyone" can edit. Blinky, Pinky, Inky, and Clyde (talk) 21:29, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"IMO, conservatives have a much harder time dealing with dissenting points of view. At least a dozen ppl there hit with a banstick over the years, in part or in whole from interaction with me. Whether it's a do as you're told household or job or military life, they do not have experience in dealing effectively with dissent. When their argument is counter-argued here, they can't do the counter to that, and instead lash out."
I'm a libertarian, and I don't have any trouble with opposing points of view, which is why I have never, ever, erased well sourced, relevant material from political articles.
On the other hand, you very frequently erase well sourced, relevant material from political articles, and in almost all of those cases, it's because the material is critical of liberal politicians. It's you, not me, who has trouble with dissent.
Not the same thing. This project works by consensus; changed are proposed, changes are considered, changes are either accepted or rejected by the community. Yours were frequently rejected for reasons you are well-aware of by now, I assume. You rejected consensus and chose to either edit war or try again and again and again and again and again to get your changes in. Contrary to popular belief, not everything I want to see happen here automagically happens. I was a vocal proponent of keeping an image in the infobox of the goatse.cx article, but the community decided otherwise. I am extremely frustrated at the short-sighted idiocy at the moment that has chosen to retain bigotgate as a redirect to the events of a poor woman who was voicing her opinion, and got denigrated by a politician for it in front of a live mic. Did I endlessly revert other users in either case? No. Do I plan to lay dormant for a few months and then try again? No. That's the difference between you and I, bro. Tarc (talk) 21:57, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm not actually an admin, I just did a non-admin close that other one as it was an egregious bad faith nomination. If this joker's gonna keep doing this, it'll probably require the real deal to step in and nip it. I can post something at WP:ANI in a moment. Tarc (talk) 02:09, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Orphaned non-free image File:The Pretender FF New Single.jpg
⚠
Thanks for uploading File:The Pretender FF New Single.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
That is odd, any idea how that link is mangled? I cliekd on the redlink in this edit summary, which is where the "usr" comes from. I think you moved my comment to the wrong IP though, as the guy I was trying to get to is 208.114.71.183, but you put it at User talk:208.117.33.183. Also interesting but probably unrelated to any of this, is that even though that 208.117.33.183 talk page has an old warning on it, that actual IP is no longer in whois or geolocate. Tarc (talk) 01:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How odd. I wonder if someone made a slight error with a wiki update that caused this, as i have never seen this happen before. Best to file it under "Creepy incidents" unless the problem becomes structural. As for that 208.117.33.183 IP, i can still get some results on it even though a standard DNS lookup offers nothing. Apparently it is (or was) located in USA, Texas, Boerne, and belong(s/ed) to Guadalupe Valley Telephone Cooperative. Excirial (Contact me,Contribs)12:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He should not have said it
He should be blocked for ever, and good riddance to him. There is no value to the project in his continued presence at all.
Off2riorob (talk) 17:14, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Matt57 was so hellbent on pursuing others for alleged civility lapses, being a constant pestering nuisance about it. Now you're pestering him over and over on his talk page about his comments and the unblock and whatnot. Irony FTW. Tarc (talk) 17:18, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only irony is that he has been unblocked at all. As for your suggestion of stepping back and dropping the stick... As regards this user if I see his name continuing to edit I will pick up the stick in readiness. There is imo no room for such personal comments and you may think it is fine to say such things but I never will. Off2riorob (talk) 17:21, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I followed the link to the Ultraviolence article over from the MfD on RAN's userspace article. I've never heard of them, but with 4 albums on Earache Records, Ultraviolence seems notable under WP:MUSIC criteria #5. Can I move it back into article space? Or do you want to? Or is there some reason you haven't already? YilloslimeTC01:21, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yea, as it is now I think some of the text remaining was largely lifted from other websites, which is why it was deleted. It'd need pretty much a complete rewrite, just one of those "didn't get around to it" yet projects. Tarc (talk) 12:39, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your post on AN/I, in which you mentioned me was extremely unhelpful, biased and unfair. I suggest before you claim something like that ever again to compare my contributions to yours own for example, how many articles on different topics I created, and how many did you, how many images I have uploaded and how many did you, how many times I commented on AN/I threads that do not concern me personally and how many did you. Please stop making your biased and unfair insinuations. If you are to respond, and I am not really interested in your response, please respond here. I would not like to see you at my talk page.Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 18:51, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lulz. "I am coming to post on your page but don't come post on mine, neener neener?" Srsly, grow the fuck up. You're a POV-warring, partisan hack. Tallying up articles created and images uploaded, like notches on some whore's bedpost, does not excuse a horrid battleground mentality. This is why I have pretty much abandoned the topic area and moved on to the relatively benign realm of American politics. Ideological fanatics are much, much easier to deal with than religious fanatics. Out in the real world, Jews will continue to murder civilians on incoming ships, and Arabs will continue to murder civilians in marketplaces and checkpoints. And you and your wiki-buddies can sit in the cozy confines of a computer screen and revert your opponents and their wiki-buddies all day, deluding yourselves into thinking that what you do here actually matters. I pity you. Tarc (talk) 23:44, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In a fit of unrelated pique, I trashed my entire watchlist a month ago. So other than re-adding good ol Israeli apartheid (a sentimental favorite), I have no interest in the topic, though random browsing through AfDs and DRVs might lead to some input, but unlikely. Y'all can have Hamas, Hezbollah, the Gaza flotilla raid all to yourselves, bro. Tarc (talk) 00:18, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your aggressive behaviour at ANI
I see I am the second person within three days to complain about your behaviour in this respect. Your assumptions (indeed your link) to some topic ban need to be seriously questioned. It was not a page ban, but merely a restriction on editing MoS pages WRT date unlinking/linking. It has absolutely nothing to do with the current issue, and you show yourself to be biased and possibly involved in muddying the waters. You have misled others on the page. I resent it. Tony(talk)10:26, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What you are on about has nothing to do with Mbz's caterwauling above, buddy boy. Someone asked about your past topic restrictions, asking if what you were doing now was covered by it, and I posted a link to your ArbCom case. Nothing more to it, I had no involvement with the date thing then and nothing but a simple observation in the present case. If you actually stopped to think for a moment, what I posted actually clarified that you were not under any restriction that'd affect your present situation. So please, stop acting all butthurt and think before speaking. Tarc (talk) 12:40, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(The sound both of you just heard is my jaw bouncing off my keyboard at this exchange.) I didn't know calling someone "Buddy boy" was "rank rudeness" or "incivil". Tarc, do you mind if I make a link to this over at WP:AN/I? I believe they could use a laugh. -- llywrch (talk) 05:06, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't matter to me one way or the other, as I haven't so much as looked at that thread since my initial post. Tarc (talk) 13:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.
Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.
When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.
Thanks for uploading File:Sublime Self-Titled.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
PLEASE NOTE:
I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.
I admire your observations regarding my choices of usernames.
I also admire your previous explanation of my User:G-MMDC account. You were the only one to pick up on that, while everyone else missed it.
For the record, User:Yohann4, which has been suspected of being me, is not me. I readily admit that all the others are me, but User:Yohann4 is not me, and I do not like getting the credit for someone else's work.
That being said, I find it reprehensible that you and the others are still removing notable, well sourced info, just because that info happens to be critical of Obama. I have never, ever erased any notable, well sourced material from any article. Articles should cite the good and bad things about their subjects.
Thanks. I don't think AMC was the originator of that altered version, as it also appeared on other TV stations. It's a common practice with R-rated movies.
I saw that movie in the theater seven times when it was originally out, including the opening day. I didn't know there was a surprise ending, so I was really, genuinely surprised. Today, people who see it for the first time usually know there's a surprise at the end, so it's not as big a shock to them as it was to me.
You caught the "trollz and lulz" post on Jimbo's talk page but you missed this. Considering both his edits I thought a final warning was warranted. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 12:46, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't get to checking his contribs yet, got sidetracked by other stuff. Dunno how ol Jimmy feels about his talk page being protected, but he may wanna consider it at some point, at least for a short stint. Tarc (talk) 12:51, 12 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tarc,
While I generally disagree with you and so have some conflict that way, I'm finding your comments in DrVs recently to be fairly uncivil. Please consider toning it down a notch or two. Thanks, Hobit (talk) 02:31, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A bit sharp, probably, but this Freakshow person has been quite a handful the last few days. He's pretty much stalking another users contribs and undoing every record label prod of theirs in sight the last few days as well. I have little patience for people I view as a net negative to the project. Tarc (talk) 02:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gwyn Elfyn
Haia, Tarc.
Re Gwyn Elfyn (and your advocacy for his demotion), you wrote:
>>Not that it matters much anyway, since barring a miraculous influx of well-reasoned keep opinions, this is going to be merged, but...actually, yes, you are. We have a widely-accepted guideline for this type of situation. This particular article fails all 3, yet you feel it should be kept anyways on the basis of "10th longest-serving actor" being notable.<<
Well, I think that it matters not "on the basis of '10th longest-serving actor'" but on the basis that I live in Wales and I can tell you that GE is a pretty damned notable actor here! However, I suppose I must recognize that trying to combat Wp-Americanocentrism is always going to result in mostly lost skirmishes. Doesn't mean though that the battle won't continue! Do have to wonder, all the same, about the apparent, strange mean-mindedness of certain Wp "vigilantes"... -- Picapica (talk) 20:43, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, User:Yohann4, which is suspected of being me, is not me.
I hate current music - totally hate it. But I absolutely love the new album Release Me by The Like. It's fun, cheesy, and retro. They don't make music like this anymore - except now they do!
Hello, Tarc. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Climate change case
Just a note to say I've collapsed the Scjessy discussion thread, please don't add anything more to it. Thanks. On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Dougweller (talk) 17:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
uncivil rant
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
If you actually bothered to read what you linked to, darlin, you'd see that if you plan to make that the primary focus of a complaint against me, you'd likely fail. But if you and I were involved in some acrimony here, were parties to an Arbcom case, etc...then you would get some mileage by pointing to that as a mitigating factor. But as I am neither violating your privacy nor linking to an off-site forum myself (youdid that, though I'm sure one of your cronies, wikifan or malcolm schosha, brought this to your attention), you'd likely get much out of it in that scenario either. So please, run back and your wiki-semiretirement. I won't even declare my talk page off-limits to you, even though I have every right to now. If nothing else, you do provide teh lulz. :) Hugs & kisses! Tarc (talk) 16:11, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you are mistaking about "wikifan or malcolm schosha". I do have account on Wikipedia review under my user name on Wikipedia. I've never posted there anything, but I do look at it sometimes, and sometimes I google on "Wikipediareview" and "Mbz1". It was how I found your rant last night. BTW I believe that even you should understand that no matter what I or anybody else saying about you, it is your own writings that demonstrate your extreme rudeness and stupidity because as my favorite philosopher Eric Hoffer said: “Rudeness is the weak man's imitation of strength”. Please do think about this, and have a nice day.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ho-hum. As I said above, what I am disgusted/amused by is you and your ilk using this project to continue your ideological battles. I'm rude? Yes, I am. But at least my rudeness isn't masked in deception and agenda-driven, partisan bullshit, like yours is. Enjoy your retirement; we're better off for it. Tarc (talk) 16:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your another rant deserves another quote “A half-truth is the most cowardly of lies”. My so called "agenda-driven, partisan bullshit" in your definition constitutes to .0005% of my total contributions, and even those have nothing to do with "agenda-driven, partisan bullshit". Please have a nice day.--Mbz1 (talk) 17:01, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That Wagner article was a disgrace to the project, and merely the most recent example. This is all you and the others do nowadays, discereetly push the pro-Israel/anti-Palestine POV around the edges of the topic area, since your "side" has been slapped down numerous times at Arbcom and elsewhere when trying to do it directly. ".0005%"? Lulz. At the end of the day, you're just a Zeq (talk·contribs) with much better English skills. Tarc (talk) 17:14, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:50, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
re: meta-ownership
I don't think Stevertigo was -really- claiming entitlement to wider latitude than others. I saw remarks like "you're using one of my shortcuts, BTW" as rhetorical flourishes not intended to convey anything of real weight. At least I hope Stevertigo is not deluded enough to have meant anything of substance by that remark. Anything is possible, though, I suppose. 67.122.209.115 (talk) 01:59, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think he's having literal delusions of Jimbo, no, but he gets in these little digs quite often about how long he's been around, what he had a hand in creating, etc... Tarc (talk) 12:33, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As you are an editor who had participated here, could you please state/explain your level of "involvement" (if any)? I'd appreciate it if you could provide a response (or a copy of it) here. Thank you, Ncmvocalist (talk) 10:35, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Christine O'Donnell, RfC
Just to let you know that I filed one of these after providing summary discussion on the talk page, and a description of the dispute. --Regards --KeptSouth (talk) 11:21, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I declined your speedies on the Palestine articles--see [6] for the rationale. I'm sure you disagree, so it can be discussed either at AfD or at ani. DGG ( talk ) 00:52, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey just giving a headsup that I started a conversation on the talk page pertaining to splitting up the albums. My preference is to split things, but I wasn't about to cause a ruckus if there was a strong consensus to keep things as is... although it would be "nice" to keep Nirvana looking like all of the other discographies in Wikipedia. Comment there... I didn't get much of a response before, perhaps a different consensus could be reached? - eo (talk) 12:12, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Tarc!!
You said, "we should all chip in and get him a Netflix membership so he can find some more usable usernames. Seems like it's been a cavalcade of IPs for awhile now."
No, I haven't run out of ideas for usernames. The reason that I've been using IPs is because recently, every time I had a user name that was at least 4 days old (the minimal requirement for editing semi-protected articles) the account had already been blocked before I ever got a chance to use it. It happened with about 15 or so accounts. I think someone wrote a script to block them before I get a chance to use them. 71.182.212.229 (talk) 03:15, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not a script, no, you just lack the ability to be outright deceptive, IMO. "Gyps Fulvus" is about to be shown the door, though... Tarc (talk) 03:17, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Making more than one appearance doing the same flipping thing is still "one event"; that is all the guy is known for, and his proverbial 15 minutes petered out a long time ago. At least you provided a reason for de-prodding, which is better than 98% of the others out there. I'll consider an AfD in a few, yea. Tarc (talk) 13:25, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand...your account has existed for all of 3 days and you're already this knee-deep in a de-prod spree? Hrm... Tarc (talk) 13:28, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Candidate deletes
First, there's a difference between a merge and a delete, and you are simply deleting. Second, you're well aware there is only a week before the election and there's no compelling reason to rush through articles at this point in time, other than rabid partisanship. If the issues couldn't be resolved a month ago, they can wait one more week. There's simply not time to do proper merges at this point, and I am not going to let you make Wikipedia yet more fodder for bloggers claiming we don't play fair. Flatterworld (talk) 14:32, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Um, there's a difference between a redirect and a delete; all the info is there in the history for when/if the person ever does satisfy WP:N. As for partisanship, I redirected Republican, Democratic, and Green candidates alike. There's also really nothing to merge; we're not going to retain biographical info, stances on issues, etc...for candidates that lose an election. Finally, I left alone any article where the person was notable for other things (e.g. notable businessman, mayor, state congress). So please, chill, esp if you plan to claim that I "deleted" things, because that is quite incorrect. Tarc (talk) 14:37, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong answer. For example, the Douglas Herbert article was created in June, and there was more than enough time to nominate it for a merge. (If I had caught it, I would have.) We don't wait until a week before the elections to do a mass purge. I repeat: you are NOT going to make Wikipedia a laughingstock. Flatterworld (talk) 14:45, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See Freeze request and skip the personal attacks. If you had bothered to check my contributions, you wouldn't be making such a ridiculous accusation such as 'use the project for your personal campaign flier'. I've put too much time and effort into making Wikipedia the go-to source for election and candidate articles to let you destroy Wikipedia's reputation, articles and volunteer efforts. Flatterworld (talk) 15:11, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately the ANI situation and the associated AfDs have been an extremely messy affair and frankly I'm getting fed up of the various accusations of bad faith being thrown around, especially in relation to your AfD nominations, but I do think it has become clear in this instance that the subject meets the general notability guideline and should be kept; therefore I'd ask that you withdraw the nomination and allow the AfD to be closed. I'm going to be avoiding this area now, since it seems to involve more teeth and nails than words, now. GiftigerWunsch[TALK]21:05, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, if tarc withdrew the noms and agreed to stop disrupting wikipedia on this point by sending in new AFDs/PRODS/REdirects/etc until after the election, then I would be happy to let the issue die. I had decided that there was no demonstratable need to push for a weeklong ban and that it was simply too WP:CREEPy and withdrew my support from Flatter's proposal. It was only after you (Tarc) decided to try to force the issue via AFDs that I've re-instated my opposition. With any major party politician for Senator/Representative/Governor, you will be able to find sources to prove GNG. It's just a matter of doing so.---BalloonmanNO! I'm Spartacus!23:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Mr. Balloon, I do not value your opinion in the slightest. Withdraw yourself from my talk page. Now.
@Giftiger wunsch, I still see the coverage as trivial, and note there's now one other call for delete, so might as well let it run its course. I'm off for a bit now, but I'll see later on if there's others to bring to AfD, since some of these "keep everything!" characters seem to be set in granite. Tarc (talk) 00:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is a shame that there are a lot of emotive "keeps!" so far on some of these, especially ones that so blatantly contradict the notability guidelines, i.e. the Nintendo guy. We'll see how they all go, I'm done for now unless Flatterworld decides to revert some more. Tarc (talk) 13:19, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fitzgerald
I collapsed it because the discussion about a userfied version of the article is tangential to the DRV. We are merely trying to determine of the deletion discussion in April 2009 was closed properly, reflecting consensus of that discussion. Whether she is notable or not is a separate issue and not part of DRV. Nevertheless, if you still feel differently, please feel free to uncollapse again; I'm not edit-warring about it. It clouds the issue and the purpose of DRV, but if you feel differently, that's OK with me too. Frank | talk 15:07, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd think that if we're talking about possible versions to restore, than it gets kind of entwined with the DRV, but I'm not gonna get too worked up over it either, and will just leave my edit-conflicted-at-the-time reply within the box. Tarc (talk) 15:11, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If it winds up being restored, it will have to be to the version prior to the original deletion, not the recent A4-deleted version, which violates BLP policy with respect to at least two people, in addition to many other problems already noted at Talk:George H. W. Bush. Yes, I am the one who noted those problems; yes, I am the one beating the drum against this the loudest, but this is clear cut to me. If it's restored, we'll likely have another deletion discussion. Frank | talk 15:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
Apology
I guess the community disagrees with me, thus I will apologize. I do think your timing and approach could have been better. If you had waited an hour or two to let the discussion at ANI die down, nobody would have questioned your actions. It was coming and usurping the discussion by sending articles to AFD that has people questioning your actions. (nobody challenges OrangeMike's doing the exact same thing) Anyways, I still think it does no harm to wait a week, but it may do harm to rush the AFD's (would you want a big AFD tag on your article questioning your notability the week before an election?) But that is neither here nor there. Again, my apologies.---BalloonmanNO! I'm Spartacus!07:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's the point though; I don't care about that angle of this, an encyclopedia is not a stop along the voter information trail. This is why I routinely oppose many, many, many articles at AfD on WP:BLP1E, WP:RECENTISM, and WP:NOTNEWS grounds. I'm surprised that given the recent news hoo-ha that there isn't an article attempt for Hiccup girl again. I want people here to write for history, not for TMZ or HuffPo. Tarc (talk) 14:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion is now archived, but to clarify after reading your comment at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 November 2, I have pretty thick skin; I don't take any personal offense with the template, I simply feel that the wording is such that it may well simply spark further issues in controversial threads, especially if misused. I've withdrawn the nomination though since several users clearly find it useful and User:Thesevenseas made a valid point that it may actually have the opposite effect to what I feared; I'll hold my cynicism until there are actual issues with its usage. Just felt I should explain my view as you appeared to be getting the wrong idea about my comments on the template. Thanks. GiftigerWunsch[TALK]22:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Stephene Moore
"I don't know why the article is so important to her, but it must be very powerful or she wouldn't want to trash it so badly." (Glinda to Dorothy, paraphrased) Moore's still the 2010 nominee, and will always have that 'title'. I've seen boxes at the end of similar articles showing previous, current and subsequent nominees. Anyway, I restored the infobox and updated the rest of the article. We really do need better guidelines, starting with a full discussion now that the election's over. Flatterworld (talk) 19:44, 4 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Suicide (song)
None of the details were matching up though. He clearly didn't write the song in '56, so even if he did record a song by that name the article as it stood was still a hoax. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention)14:06, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see you were involved in a discussion of that source at Mohammad Amin al-Husayni. It has been now used as a source at Nazism to state some facts about al-Husayni. For now, I've just attributed them. Note that the editor who introduced the book as source at Nazism, User:WookieInHeat, is currently blocked for an unrelated incident (but still in the same IP area), so he cannot respond until tomorrow or so. Tijfo098 (talk) 20:22, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you're Izzy, maybe you can tell me what this "guise of a different name" is, that's so coyly alluded to in the article but not actually specified. :) —chaos5023 (talk) 02:18, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Late 91/early 92 there was a Diku called SolMUD that lost its home and was looking to relocate. MGI (original admin) too his mostly stock server and merged it with Sol, becoming Kallisti...which at the time ran on a server otherwise dedicated to weather projects. It ran as this from Feb 92 to June, shutdown for the summer (vacation and all that, then came back in the Fall for good, full-time. It ran as such til about 1995 when it was shutdown for good. A few admins took the code (with MGI's blessing), rebranded it ErisMUD and opened in 1996. For various reasons, it was an unmitigated disaster, and shutdown about 2 yrs later, only to pop up again as Legends of Kallisti, run by me and Sammy-boy. Few years later, we had a bit of a disagreement (I thought he was a worthless prick, and for some odd reason he disagreed), so I took a copy and with Shinji's funding, ran it as EKD Mud (E for Eris, K for Kallisti, and I can't for the life of me remember what the D stood for, maybe just Diku) for a short time. I dunno, basically lost interest after a bit, turned it over to others and it eventually closed up around 2004 or so I believe. So there's the trip down Amnesia Lane, as they say. Tarc (talk) 03:04, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest toning "your sense of proportion is...poop, shall we say mildly" down quite a bit next time you get the urge to leave an edit summary like that. Thanks. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:55, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to buy into the editing disagreement that's happening with Anne Rice, but my reading of the last paragraphs of Anne Rice#Exit from organized religion indicates to me that she still considers herself a Christian, just not a member of a formal church. The relevant page on her website Anne's Profession of Faith (Already cited in the article) includes the text "I am a believer in every word of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John."
Yea, that makes sense. I don't think the "converts from atheism to Christianity" category fits....I guess she technically did, but with the joining and leaving of the Church in the middle, it'd seem like an odd categorization. Tarc (talk) 20:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I read it as she converted to Christianity, joined & left the Catholic church while remaining Christian, so the converts from Atheism does work, as would a hypothetical Apostates from Atheism :) I've had a bit of a look around & I can't find an existing category that works. Either Non-denominational Christians, or Independent Christians could apply, but don't seem to exist Non-denominational Christianity does exist, but seems to mostly cover groups while Rice doesn't seem to belong to any group. Sorry for not being much use on this Kiore (talk) 10:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
porn bios
whats the deal with all these porn bios? half of them looked likt they are entirely made up, and when you try to look through their sources most of them are blogs and industry websites -- not exacly WP:RSs for any other subject. i think that you are right to target some of these with WP:AFD as they dont seem to even attempt to meet any acceptable threshold of notability and contain numerous sources that would not pass muster in any other article series. User:Smith Jones19:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Likely that the WikiPorn Project contains industry insiders who are using the Wikipedia as an advertising vehicle. Look at the Wikipedia Commons sometime, it is full of uploaded porn shots. Tarc (talk) 19:18, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
lol, i think ill pass on that! Im not morally opposted to having any articles on porn actors on Wikiepdia. like as i said on the latest WP:AFD, the Jenna Jameson article is a good idea because she has established notability and a long string of sources in the ainstream media. however, the bulk of these articles that ive seen are basically just excuses to post pics of scantily clad women standing awkwardly in front of grimy porn sets. nearly all of them claim to have somehting called an AVN AWARD which i assume is like the porn version of the Grammys, and they bulk of the article is either links to interviews with them or just random lists of porn movies. they're not quite as blatant as just having a link to order the movies online or anything, but its pretty clearly an advertising vehicle and provides no added value to the Wiki. User:Smith Jones19:21, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not opposed either; I am opposed to non-notable swill that plagues the Wikipedia in general, and people such as these whose life mission is to retain the crap by whatever means possible. Tarc (talk) 13:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, I see an attempted revert got swallowed (pun intended) up in the edit conflict, but I think we'll preserve your witticism anyways...that's the perk of this being my talk page and all. If there's any admins lurking about though, I seek no action on NPA grounds. It amuses me. Tarc (talk) 15:12, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's ok, I did take a general swipe at the general ARS philosophy there, to which his was a response. My skin is remarkably thick. :) Tarc (talk) 17:11, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"taste test". lol. i did decide to revert it right after i posted it, knowing you would probably put it back anyway, but since nazis weren't mentioned i figured we'd all survive. -- to actually address the topic i intruded on, of course there are porn operative making edits on wikipedia, just like every other interested group does, but the porn peddlers are probably more effective at it. As for Rachel Roxxx (not much different than Crissy Moran, although the latter has a better case for notability), those articles are hugely popular if you check their views. That's why the pages exist.--Milowent • talkblp-r18:38, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
regarding Crissy Moran; that article is much more substantive as far as content goes than Rachel Roxx which has maybe 10 lines of ecnyclopedic content. my problem isnt that there are porn editors on Wikipedia -- everyone has tehir niche and there is nothing inherently wron with editing exclusivel in that section if you have extra special knowledge or interest in pornography but my problem is that it seems like literally every single prson who has ever appeared in a porno has an article that basically says "X is an [ethnicity] pornographic actress. X was nominated 3 times for an AVN award. Here is a list of movies that X has been in. Here is a picture of X standing around at some studio.". There are plenty of mainstream actor articles that has been deleted for being about that weak. User:Smith Jones20:06, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, man, I received your email to come on here. I don't really understand what you want me to do about that RFCU thing though. I can look into it but I can't really make promises. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boomtube (talk • contribs) 01:21, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yea. Nice try bro, I didn't mail anyone about anything. You need to flesh out your cover story, hit that right note of believability/sincerity while casting doubts on me a bit more if you wanna pull off a successful false flag op. It takes skillz, which it is painfully obvious that you do not have. Tarc (talk) 01:28, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
it makes me sick that you wer treated this way, Tarc. while this guys attept at getting you in toruble was clumsy and crude, a less experienced user might not have known what to do and ended up falling into whatever the Heck this guy wants trying to do. could this be related to your stance on the wp:porn bio afds?? User:Smith Jones04:20, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm like the Richard J. Daley of the Wikipedia, the list of those I've pissed off over the years is lengthy;
its not the incomeptence of the attack that matters, but the sheer reprehsnbility of it. I feel as if the users name should be blocked from recretaion and all edits he made to any articles shoul dbe reviewed by the ArbCom or by an administrators in case of any other subverison User:Smith Jones00:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure offhand, but simple common sense will suffice as well. If it is limited to s neutral ordering like simple alphabetization, then that will lead to less "so-and-so is more known for genre X rather than genre Y" squabbling. Tarc (talk) 14:40, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's going in the order of the genre that matters most. In this case, Nirvana has only two, but there are bands that have many genres, and it would be wrong, people would think that the first genre is the most important of the band. I've always seen and have known that going in the order of the genre that matters most. Look at these examples: Metallica, Green Day, Oasis, Led Zeppelin. Greetings JGabriel ar (talk) 15:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The same types of sources that you have been told over and over and over and (do we sense a pattern?) over again are not sufficient for establishing notability. Seriously, how many AfDs have we been through now where your links to toy guides and fan forums have been utterly rejected by the Wikipedia community?
Well, an RfC requires proof that multiple users have advised him against that, so I'm gonna need the diifs for other users to, relating to this. NotARealWord (talk) 20:45, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Adding sources from legitimate books are no crime as far as I know, and some times an article is salvaged by adding proper sources, so as long as I have the opportunity to add sources, and then people can freely vote in the nomination for deletion, I don't see there being any harm or disruption done. I don't even write new articles any more, I just add sources to the existing ones so they have a chance to survive if they warrant it. Anyways, I hope simply expressing an opinion on a nomination isn't hurting anyone. Mathewignash (talk) 22:11, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think an RfC would be over the top. I don't agree with Mathew Ignash's interpretation of what sources establish notability any more than you do; but there is nothing wrong with having a differing opinion, or even stubbornly clinging to it in the face of strong opposition. Unless he's trying to mislead people or disrupt anything, I think MI can be as wrong as he likes as loudly as he likes. ReykYO!06:16, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Flying f-ing spaghetti monster
Please don't make edit summaries[7] that require me to revdelete them. Somebody who is religious who sees that may take it as a very severe insult. There is no need. Okay, thanks. JehochmanTalk14:33, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If someone says to another editor "you're a fucking moron", sure, I'd agree. But in the way I used it ("jesus fucking christ"), deleting that is a bit Puritan. Tarc (talk) 14:37, 29 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I moved your reply to me to the place I think you meant it to be in the DrV on Scientology deaths. Feel free to move it back if I messed with your original intent. Hobit (talk) 01:03, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
