User talk:Minskist popper/Archive4

Archive from April 5 to May 29.

Parapsychology

Thanks for your support on the RfC and the deletion request. I'm going to try to change the focus there a little (later when I have time). Because all of the controversy around my edits stems from a disagreement of fact. I say parapsychology is a scientific field. I don't know whether you know about parapsychology, but its worst/best critics, like Carroll who is the author of the Skeptic's Dictionary, James Randi, John Alcock etc. all say it is a science. It has peer-reviewed journals, institutional support, and a long institutional history, and affiliation with the AAAS.

So, I think it is a scientific field. And all my edits would be non-controversial if this were acknowledged. Thus, this is the real issue. My behavior -the main stuff they are complaining about- stems totally from this. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 22:26, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XI - April 2007

The April 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by Grafikbot 11:37, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Hiss

Hi, Wooyi. The editor did indeed remove the Infobox--which, by definition, should contain no essential information not also covered in the article. At the same time, the editor made substantive additions and changes, properly sourced, to the main text of article. You may have a difference of opinion on his edits; he may have a difference of opinion about the nature and/or contents of your infobox. But, even aside from assuming good faith--which you didn't do--what happened was very clearly not vandalism:

Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia. The most common types of vandalism include the addition of obscenities to pages, page blanking, or the insertion of bad (or good) jokes or other nonsense. Fortunately, these types of vandalism are usually easy to spot. Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia.

That's our policy on what is and is not considered vandalism. I look forward to seeing an interesting debate on the article's Talk page. Best, Dan.—DCGeist 17:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks from Akhilleus

Akhilleus gets new weapons.

Archive4, thanks for your support in my successful RfA. As the picture shows, the goddesses have already bestowed my new weapons, which I hope to use to good effect. If you ever need assistance, or want to give me feedback on my use of the admin tools, please leave me a message on my talkpage. --Akhilleus (talk) 17:47, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Re:Articleissues template

Do you know if any of the bots (Smackbot) were reprogrammed to date it yet? Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:12, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't be a problem. Just don't mass-implement it yet. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 23:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Do me, baby!

I closed this discussion you started, without blocking. Mainly, this is because you didn't first contact the user with your concern: you did so after making the listing. This may seem like splitting hairs, but the point of being required to bring up your concern with the user first is so that they can simply agree to change usernames. If you think the name is so bad that it requires immediate blocking without discussion, try WP:AIV. Mangojuice^talk 16:43, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Spamigation

Alabamaboy, thanks for creating the article Spamigation, for a long time I didn't know it was created by you. It was an important subject but often ignored. Cheers! Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 00:31, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey, glad you like it. Thanks for the kind words. Best, --Alabamaboy 16:51, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: RS

ANswers.com ( largely being a mirror of WP) and wikifur are both considered unreliable for several reasons. Both are "self-published sources" which can only be used in direct refence to themselves. Also neither have any dedicated fact checking departent outside of their own editors. As a rule of thumb RS should all be from professinal or journalistic sources. Hope that answers your question. I would also check WP:ATT and WP:V for additional info. NeoFreak 17:24, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Bill Mescher

Reverted. In situations like that, you have absolutely no need to check google. If it doesn't have a source in the article, it can go. This is true of most information on Wikipedia, but if it is regarding a living person, get rid of it immidiately, even if you think it might be true. WP:BLP makes is clear that unsourced remarks regarding living people should be removed. Thanks for the heads up. --Deskana (ya rly) 22:36, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Turns out it's true. Still, I did the right thing by reverting, since it was totally unsourced. Please feel free to do the same in the future. --Deskana (ya rly) 22:41, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't worry about not finding any references; that is the responsibility of the person adding the remarks. :-) --Deskana (ya rly) 22:45, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Explanation

I mean that I'm the one who proposed a website to be blacklisted. It's my first time doing something like this, so I thought I should confirm that I'm TOhru Honda13, since I left a link to my talk page at the blacklist thing as my signature over there. Perhaps I should change the wording... and you asked what my medical problems were? I'm a tad overweight for my age. My nurse says that I have a condition that can lead to juvenile diabetes.... last year. I'm failing to get healthier. That's about all. Tohru Honda13 02:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: Recovery

It should be in your inbox. John Reaves (talk) 05:32, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Response

I have answered your question on my RfA. Thanks for asking. Danny 14:40, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Staecker's RFA

Hi Wooyi. I figured I should mention that you have voted both support and oppose on Steacker's RfA. Would you take a further look at it when you get a chance? Thanks! --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 22:52, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

No worries. --PS2pcGAMER (talk) 23:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

sorry i just hate blagojevich

KFP's RfA thanks

Thank you for supporting me on my recent nomination for adminship, which passed with a tally of 45/0/0. Please let me know if I can help with something or if I make a mistake. Cheers! --KFP (talk | contribs) 14:51, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

WP:CN

Several users have responded to the point you made: you may like to check their replies out. Cheers, Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 19:24, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Matthew Cox

Sure No problem I look forward to making more contributions to the project. Quadzilla99 12:39, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Chronic Irony

Since you admitted an adiction to caffine (like 90% of America), see this Kronik Energy Drink.CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 21:23, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

It's too early... made internal linky. CASCADIA^Howl/_Trail 21:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Archive4, thank you very much for your support in my successful RfA. I am thankful and humbled by the trust that the community has placed in me, and I welcome any comments, questions or complaints that you may have. Again, thank you for your support, and happy editing! Hemlock Martinis 22:24, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Harry Pregerson

Hi just to let you know that I have reviewed the article you nominated for GA status. Unfortuntely I have failed it this time. However I have placed my concerns and reasons as to why the article failed GA status on the article talk page: Talk:Harry Pregerson. My biggest reason was that the article wasnt broad enough. Of positive note the article is well written and well referenced and is well on its way to GA status. If you fix my concerns than send me a message and ill be happy to review again. Furthermore if you have any questions about my review please feel free to message me also. Kind regards, LordHarris 00:28, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Criminal Biography

Hi, as a new member to the project, I've started an article which needs some expansion - please can you help?? Thanks, --SunStar Net ^talk 15:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The article in question is William Bennest. --SunStar Net ^talk 16:26, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Removal from "Charles Manson"

Hi-

I think this may be the second time I've edited. Still getting a feel for it.

It was a total removal of a brief passage, but the passage was so badly written as to be almost incoherent. I would have been guessing at the intent if I had tried to repair it. And, as the subject (the murder of Sharon Tate and her companions) was covered, in detail, in the very next paragraph, it was redundant as well. The clean removal seemed the best fix. Would this be considered one of the exceptions of the "no removal" guidelines, or should I just take that as a rule from here out?

Thanks,

DF dosflores@juno.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 76.192.51.46 (talk) 04:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC).

DYK

On April 16, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Robert W. Sweet, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Blnguyen (bananabucket) 06:19, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom

Thanks for the note. Much obliged. Cheers, Moreschi ^{Want some help? Ask!} 14:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright

Wooyi, I'm still feeling my way around image copyright policies. It seems to me that with civil war images, any copyright should have expired a long time ago--if I remember right anything published before 1915 should be in the public domain. If the website is claiming copyright, though, I'd be reluctant to say otherwise. Could you send me the link? I'll take a look at the copyright policies and see what I can find. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, here we go, from Wikipedia:Public domain: "In the U.S., any work published before 1 January 1923 anywhere in the world[1] is in the public domain." Complications arise if the work was published in another country, of course. --Akhilleus (talk) 02:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Unspecified source for Image:Unterweger.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Unterweger.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, then you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, then their copyright should also be acknowledged.

As well as adding the source, please add a proper copyright licensing tag if the file doesn't have one already. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then the {{GFDL-self-no-disclaimers}} tag can be used to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Fair use, use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 03:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Iamunknown 03:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey Wooyi, let's talk it to Image talk:Unterweger.jpg, I'm optimistic we can find more information about the image, and maybe that it is in the public domain! We just need to do some more research. I'd be glad to help out inasmuch as I can. --Iamunknown 05:32, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Have a nice day!

Be happy, and have a great day, dear Wooyi! :) If you ever need my help, or you're blue and need a hug, or if you just feel like talking, be sure to drop by my talk page whenever you wish. I'm always waiting! ;) Take good care! Phaedriel - 06:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Transnistria

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Transnistria. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Transnistria/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Transnistria/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 22:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Wooyi. You suggested that arbcom should take a decision regarding the RCU Mauco - Catarcostica that I asked. I stated in the "evidence" talk page my request for checkuser [1], however it seems that nobody is answering at my request. My concern is that we will lose evidence as is needed to check not only recent contribution of presumed sockpuppet but also older contributions (before Mauco's block), as actually Mauco is aware of my suspicions and can create an "alibi" for his sockpuppet. What you advice me to do?--MariusM 21:18, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

My declined RCU was archived at [2]--MariusM 22:35, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Hello Minskist popper, thank you for supporting my RfA!
I was promoted with a final tally of 68/12/0.
Also, please wish a Happy Birthday to Her Majesty the Queen. Vivat Regina!

Jeff Defender sock case

Well, Honda Pilot got caught with checkuser and banned (puppet of JD), but the rest of the case was "inconclusive". Darn. I was more after Uninsured Driver/Jeff Defender (and whoever is ultimately actually behind those) than HP which was rarely activated, but oh well at least it's something. Thanks for the help with that. The results are here: Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jeff Defender. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 17:06, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Read the talkpage

Fontana is not a reliable source for MacRae's employment history which was explicitly under dispute. --ScienceApologist 20:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Smile!!!

Destructo 087 has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Sorry!

Dude, I'm soo sorry Wooyi! I completely forgot about your email! To prove I am Tohru Honda13, I shall reply to it ASAP. Thank you for your concern, Wooyi. I was touched. Peace man, The Hippie 04:45, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Xinhai Revolution

Thank you also! I noticed that you translated part of the "Influence in Malaya" section, which is great. There's just one more section to go, and then it's general formatting stage. (AQu01rius • Talk) 16:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Re: George W. Bush

One word: Oops. :) —  $PЯINGrαgђ  23:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Whiskey

谢谢您,干杯

perfectblue 06:35, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Philosophy

I'm working on a few papers and projects at the moment, but I'll give you some information as soon as I'm finished with everything (by this coming Monday). In the mean time, here is a little quip by William James:

Some observations of the effects of nitrous oxide gas-intoxication [...] have made me understand better than ever before both the strength and the weakness of Hegel's philosophy.

Simões (^talk/_contribs) 19:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Challenge

I Destructo_087, challenge you to find my hidden page on my Userpage. Have Fun.--Destructo 087 03:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Wow, my first barnstar. :) I appreciate it, thanks. I meant to ask you earlier, do you think it would be a good idea to list crime-related articles and categories in the to do list or would it be easier just to keep them on the talk page ? Also, I was thinking of bringing up the idea for a joint collaberation between the British, Australian and main crime page to collaberate on a crime article. Maybe the each project could have a join collaberation of the week project ? MadMax 04:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Hidden box

Thanks! Just add these two things after your text: Think outside the box 12:23, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

|} |}

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter: Issue XII - May 2007

The May 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by grafikbot 17:00, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Colbert Report

Yes, that was pretty funny. I wasn't sure whether Congressman Westmoreland got to 3 or 4 of the ten commandments (Since Jon Stewart stated that only one of the commandment he stated was edited out). Esperanza Ortega 20:13, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

less than constructive

That oppose on mastcells rfa was less than constructive. Why not explain your rationale for those of us that have no idea what your are talking about. It currently reads like a rant and says more about you than him. David D. (Talk) 20:30, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Mass deletion/renaming of criminal and street gang related articles

In regards to the recent cfd nomination of Category:Gangs by ethnicity as well as virtually all existing ethnic and historically related street gang categorires on Wikipedia haveen propsed for deletion/remaning. As mentioned at WP:CRIME, I feel this is a serious issue which is becoming more and more frequent in recent months. It seems crime related categories, lists and articles seem to be under attack from what I can tell are editors far less knowledgable on the subject. MadMax 19:34, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Wooyi, I left a message at my talk page however I just wanted to let you know I left a message at the other WikiProjects regarding a possible collaberation. I've also started an expanded to do list. MadMax 05:03, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Law Enforcement

Wooyi,

WP:LE seems to have chosen to remove themselves from WP:CRIME and feel their goals are seperate from crime and criminology-related topics. It's unfortunate, as we could have used their assistance with police related subjects especially regarding articles ni Category:Mob-busters, federal agents during Prohibition, the "Public Enemy" era, etc. just to name a few. No news yet from the other groups, although I'll let you know if I hear anything. By the way, while this is just an idea, however I was wondering what you thought of a crime related newsletter for Wikipedia ? I'd think it would be interesting if it was a combined effort by all the other crime-related WikiProject. I've also been working on creating a crime section for Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting among other projects to help monitor crime related articles for deletion (having included google searches in the maentime). MadMax 19:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem, I'm in finals now myself. :) MadMax 22:06, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply about Username Change

Yes, I made the mistake of adding my last name, and Secretlondon was kind enough to change my username. Zucchini Marie 18:54, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Check this out

You might recognize someone on this list. Zucchini Marie 19:43, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Bobby Boulders

Nearly all of his socks are blatantly obvious, so it's not enough to call him "suspected."Blueboy96 20:49, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep ... see the {{sockpuppeteer}} template page. Blueboy96 20:56, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom

On the paranormal arbitration I pretty much agree with your views and try to be moderate, but the sides seem to be irreconcilable, how do u view about it? Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 21:41, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. I pretty much start with the assumption that no one is 100% incorrect and go from there. The lack of reconciling is that (even when they agree) both sides are 100% suspicious of the other. This stuff is getting way too dissected. Editor's seem to have their mouse on the revert button and more than willing to revert for one word being out of place. In my opinion, there's a whole lot of disruptive editing going on.

--Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 21:53, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Qian Zhijun

You commented on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Qian Zhijun. It has been closed early after a confusing and IMO unfortunate sequence of events. I have now listed it on Deletion Review. You may wish to express your views there. DES ^(talk) 01:39, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Kata Kärkkäinen

Per WP:FU, the image can't be used in the infobox of the article. It may be able to be used in the body of the article though I'm not sure of that. There is only so much legal-eze that I can store in my brain as far as what qualifies as fair use, where we can use certain images, etc. and I know that the images in infoboxes are supposed to be free, not copyrighted as the Kata Kärkkäinen image is. Dismas|^(talk) 03:37, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Hidden Page

Neither of those links are my hidden page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Destructo 087 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 13 May 2007 (UTC). User:Destructo 087/Userboxes/Fooled2 You can have this since you found it the wrong way.

ArbCom

Thanks for letting me know. I've added you to the list of involved editors; once you bring a case, you're involved. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:34, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply

The user meant User:Yagikaru, not User:Yagi Karu. Zucchini Marie → ^{Complain here} _{Please sign!} 01:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Might be interested

I noticed that you took part in State terrorism by United States of America discussion for deletion. After the article has survived many deletions, you may be interested that there is a user right now who is deleting large portions of the article. 69.150.209.15 17:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for participating in my RFA, which passed with 53-1-0. I will put myself into the various tasks of a administrator immediately, and if I make any mistakes, feel free to shout at me or smack me in my head.

謝謝你的祝賀。Aquarius • talk 01:18, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Newsletter

• User:Lucy-marie recently got back to me and expressed interest of WP:BRITCRIME participating in the newsletter. No word from Australian crime yet, though. MadMax 10:10, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

I, Wooyi, hereby award this barnstar to you, Thoric, for your outstanding and diligent contributions to drug-related articles. Wooyi

Wow :) Thank-you very much for the barnstar :) --Thoric 17:06, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Office of Legal Counsel Edward Zorinsky John-Paul Langbroek Jim Talent List of people pardoned by Bill Clinton North America Cup Governor of North Dakota Governor of New Hampshire Norman St John-Stevas, Baron St John of Fawsley George Shiras, Jr. John-Paul Clarkin Claire McCaskill Dick Gephardt Charles Wesley Turnbull First Texas Legislature Christopher Dodd Dennis v. United States Adam Schiff Linda Lingle

Cleanup Advisory Neighborhood Commission Members, Washington, DC 2005-2006 Lindsey Graham Virginia Foxx Merge Hoagie List of British Columbians Penguin poetry anthologies Add Sources List of the most popular names in the 1890s in the United States Military Intelligence Hall of Fame Felix Perez Camacho Wikify John Brown (Kentucky) William J. Casey Robert Hart (musician) Expand List of United States presidential electors, 2000 United States Ambassador to the United Nations Chuck Hagel

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 16:27, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Suicide box

Yea I made it, if for no other reason to piss off self-righteous admins like Cyde. I'm glad you agree with me, as is there no reason whatsoever to delete it.Eridani 21:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It was at User:UBX/Suicide. You can see the deletion review here Eridani 17:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for making the new box and for your support on the issue. I appreciate it. -Eridani 22:08, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered. Please add any evidence you may wish the arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PalestineRemembered/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Srikeit 05:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

MFD

-- Please read the note here Yuanchosaan^Salutations! 08:35, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Your Help desk question about MediaWiki hosting

I added a late reply to your question:

• Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2007 May 14#MediaWiki

--Teratornis 14:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

John Mccain

Completely understand how it could be misinterpreted. And John McCain used to be one of the good republicans until he sold out on torture. --St.daniel ^Talk 22:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Exactly he was tourtered in Vietnam and made a stand against the bill for torture, and then he broke and voted for a bill that gave the President power to legally torture people. Because the ultra conservitive repubclains got mad at him and he thought it would wreck his 2008 run. --St.daniel ^Talk 01:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith.

You had no right to claim my good faith edits were "vandalism." I used the discussion page to explain my position carefully, and removed an egregiously biased passage that claimed certain groups were "extremist." BulldogPete 03:32, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I've replied

Just popping by to let you know that I've finally (sorry to take so long!) replied to the comment you left on my talk page. If there's more to say we can continue there. — The Storm Surfer 13:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

talk:ScienceApologist

I've left a reply on ScienceApologist's talk page which I think is relevant, and repeated here,[3] in case it is removed. Everyone is equal on Wikipedia, though I tend to have more respect for those who don't "exaggerate" --Iantresman 13:37, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Ian, while unfortunately being a complete dick here, is basically correct about WikiCulture. Everyone is equal on Wikipedia and you needn't defer to any perceived authority.

Re:Scientific method: In all of the classes I teach, one of the goals is to get students to think critically regarding various claims related to science. One of the distinguishing features of pseudoscience is its failure to rely on a consistent methodology when it makes its claims. For example, one might claim that a certain event has been observed when in fact there is no way to reproduce the observation of such an event. Or one might posit an explanation for data without presenting a way to test such an observation. Pseudoscience sometimes takes the form of armchair critique and sometimes takes the form of charlatanism (people hawking an idea for their own self-aggrandizement or personal gain). Either way, what is a distinguishing feature is its lack of consistent methodology.

Too often, our high school students who come into the classes believe that the scientific method is a template to fill in (e.g. purpose, procedure, data, analysis, conclusions). This doesn't really capture what the "method" is all about which is really a giant feedback loop that posits that observation and hypotheses need to be able to inform each other. Science is always exploring and is never finished. It moves between higher-order thinking rather freely in in so doing the hope is that we arrive at some approximate models of reality that we can use to predict future events. That's the essence of the scientific method.

--ScienceApologist 14:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Suicidal vs. committing suicide

Hi, don't worry about it, I can handle polite disagreement. It seems that you are advocating for the "suicidals" as a sort of pop-identity for the disenfranchised and the moribund. I don't agree with this assumption and I don't think that it is pertinent to the deletion discussion. The potential for abuse and disruption is clear, that is what matters most. Cheers, ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 19:56, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Dear Wooyi

Dear Wooyi,

I dedicated this poem to our mutual friend Allison just a couple of days ago, but I feel it is most apt to gift it to you now as well.

	I told you that sorrow would fade, friend, And you would forget half your pain; That the sweet bird of song would waken ere long, And sing in your bosom again; That hope would creep out of the shadows, And back to its nest in your heart, And gladness would come, and find its old home, And that sorrow at length would depart. I told you that grief seldom killed, friend, Though the heart might seem dead for awhile. But the world is so bright, and full of warm light That 'twould waken at length, in its smile. Ah, friend! was I not a true prophet? There's a sweet happy smile on your face; Your sadness has flown - the snow-drift is gone, And the buttercups bloom in its place.
Ella Wheeler Wilcox

No matter what is tormenting you, trust me, the clouds will pass - they always do. And in the end, all that will be left if you decide to leave in disgrunt will be the emptyness of not taking part anymore into a project you love, and into which you've invested good effort and excellent work. I have seen you around a lot, and I know you're an excellent contributor, destined to be a great admin in the near future. You represent some of the best of our encyclopedia. Please, don't think about leaving. Love, Phaedriel - 04:17, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Email

To which I have replied. I got your message right when you sent it. So I took a while replying. The Hippie 04:29, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Confusion at The Secret

[see The Secret (2006 film) ]

Hi Wooyi,

I am fine with the block on the article. I note you requested a block for the article immediately after my edits. This may have been a coincidence, so would you please identify what you see as the "Dispute, Edit warring". Is it (a) over the "editing by Gozer Media" paragraph or (b) over the other edits done by 76.80.202.216? I assume (a). Of note, various edits suggest 76.80.202.216 may be a sock puppet for user Soonsuit. This user originally added the "editing by Gozer Media" paragraph. Do you know... Is there a way to determine in Wikipedia if an IP address and a user ID are linked to the same IP address?

For the record, it appears that I was the only one trying to delete this paragraph (I placed the reasons on the talk page) and no one warred with me over this (I only deleted it once—well twice if you count the fact that the same paragraph was simultaneously in two locations in the article). User 76.80.202.216 did a move that might have looked like a deletion — was just trying to move it from a place lower down in the article to the Synopsis — not sure you picked that up. It will be interesting to see if user 76.80.202.216 or Soonsuit chooses to participate at the talk page — I predict not. By the way, I encourage you to add your comment at the talk page — if only to say I blocked this and here is why. thanks— WikiLen 12:53, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Don't leave...

I don't think you should leave. I understand that the Wikistress can get too much sometimes, and that some users can be obnoxious. There have been many times in the past when I've considered leaving, such as after my first (failed) RfA in November 2006. But what I've learnt about Wikipedia is that, for all its innumerable faults, there's nothing else in the world quite like it; and I'm sure that you'll want to return eventually. So go on wikibreak, but come back when you're ready. Walton ^{Need some help?} 15:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Walton ^{Need some help?} has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

A note of thanks

Thanks for your vote of confidence, my friend. But foreseeably the AntiNPOV bellwethers will come with their flocks. In my opinion, it would not be a good Wikipedia community event. If you could get the endorsements of the honorable users User:ScienceApologist, User:SlimVirgin, User:Jossi, User:Mel Etitis, User:Slrubenstein, and User:FeloniousMonk for your proposal, then I would agree, but otherwise I cannot. In any case, thanks again for your vote of confidence, my friend. --Rednblu 17:34, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia

Wooyi,

I'm sure other editors have expressed a similar opinion, however I'm truly sorry to see you leave Wikipedia. Unfortunaly I've seen a lot of great editors leaving the project for reasons similar, and even I have contimplated a leave of absence at times. Its been both enjoyable and extremely helpful working with you and I doubt WP:CRIME would have got off the ground without your help. While I would hope you might return eventually, I both respect and understand your reasons. I can assure you, you'll certainly be missed. MadMax 21:55, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Thanks for the kind message on my talk page. I'm sorry to hear you are leaving Wikipedia. I can empathise with your reasons, which is why perhaps I would be in two minds about standing for adminship. If you do decide to stay at Wikipedia, I would greatly welcome your nomination of me. Even if you don't stay around, comments like yours will be likely to support me if I ever were to run for it myself.

— superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 22:55, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Another random message

Hi Wooyi, I just saw your user page, and hope you don't take offense at my comment on Talk:Gordon Smith. I really don't have any problem with your comment, just some concern that as a politician headed for a potentially contentious election, Smith's page could be subjected to partisan bias in both directions. I've worked a lot on that page, and I suppose I'm a little protective of it, maybe overly so.

As for your departure...I hope you will stay, to whatever degree you can. Good natured sorts need to stick around, if we want WP to achieve its potential; in the end, it's as good as we all make it, and I prefer to see people sort out their differences, or at least learn ways to avoid letting differences interfere with making quality contributions...just my 2c... -Pete 01:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Reply

I didn't want to put a real picture of myself, so I found that one. I apologize for what I did. Zucchini Marie → ^{Complain here} _{Please sign!} 02:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Happy to see you staying!

Dear Wooyi, I'm so very sorry it took me a couple of days to get back to you, but I didn't want to leave your lovely and kind message unreplied. It pleased me and relieved me to see you reconsidered your decision of leaving us, because good and bright people like you are too rare to let go easily. I want you to know that, should you ever need my help, or if you ever feel like talking and blowing of some stress, my talk page will always be waiting for you. Take good care! :) Love, Phaedriel - 08:15, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Newsletter

Wooyi,

Just in case you check your talk page in the near future, I've recently begun a rough draft of the newsletter. I hope to hear from you. MadMax 17:34, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

AGF

I do understand the difference between a joke and an insult; that's precisely why I reverted you. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

You give me an award named for a famous segregationist based on the claim that my reaction to an RFA was based "on ideology instead of experience and integrity", and wonder why it is seen as an insult? Please stop wasting my time. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

He was a famous segregationist, and you have made a straw man presentation of my views. Claiming an insult is a "jest" does not make it so, and please don't bother harassing me about this on my user Talk: page any more. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:11, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Your concerns for me

Dear Wooyi,

First off, let me apologize to Durova for posting this message. She wrote on her talk page a while back that if I write her a nice letter in four months, she might reinstate me, and so I'm not trying to evade my block by writing here and on her talk page, but I felt it absolutely necessary to respond somehow to Wooyi as I was made aware of this editor's concerns for me. Anyway, if you see my talk page, I have updated it accordingly to indicate that my health has drastically improved. That's not to say that I don't still have some problems (I can no longer eat nuts, popcorn, seeds, corn, berries, etc. and my stomach doesn't look too good), but I seem to be over the really dangerous problems. I sincerely appreciate your kind efforts and concerns, as you seem to be a really good and kind person, but I do NOT expect to be dying any time soon. I am completely out of the hospital at this point. Thus, if you wish to discuss anything further with me, please do so on my talk page. If you were curious why I was blocked, it was because I created two other accounts (Wikipedian, Historian, and Friend? and Horace Horatius) out of frustration. So, you can see their edit histories to better understand Durova's intentions. I'm trying to respect her block currently and her note that if I don't create any new accounts or whatever in four months to maybe get another chance. Therefore, again, I'm truly sorry for using an anonymous IP to post this, Durova, as I'm doing my best to avoid creating any new accounts (I have not created anything after the Horace Horatius one) or anything else in the hopes that maybe several months from now you'll give me one more chance as you suggested a month or so ago, but I wanted to save you and Wooyi unnecessary trouble on my account as I should be okay. Again, your concern and efforts are admirable and really touching and I feel bad to have to use a friend's computer to reply and I hope doing so in this circumstance won't anger Durova too much, but I hope that this clarifies my situation and wish you all a pleasant day. Sincerely, Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles. --172.145.228.116 18:39, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Admin nomination

I gladly accept the nomination for Adminship. I wish you all the best in the future, whether that includes Wikipedia or not. Peace

— superbfc [ talk | cont ] — 22:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey Wooyi!

Yes, dear Wooyi, I sent you an email a few hours ago regarding that - did it get through? Please check and let me know, k? Phaedriel - 22:59, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Wooyi, many thanks for the Hugo Black award. Hope things are going well! Best, --Alabamaboy 14:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey

Fred, I noticed you are the first to comment on the Paranormal case...but where are the other arbitrators? Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 23:59, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

They are working away like beavers on other issues. Expect a major initiative by Jimbo and another administrator scandal soon. Still waters run deep. Fred Bauder 00:06, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Recently I inquired about the idea of an ARBCOM on Chinese Wikipedia, they still reject any proposal to set up an ARBCOM. But Chinese-speaking people in the world is not much less than English-speaking people, wonder how did they handle disputes. Wooyi^{Talk to me?} 00:12, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The alternative is for administrators to handle disputes. I believe the German Wikipedia does it that way. The traditional Chinese method was to appoint officials from a list generated by a system of rigorous examinations. Disputes would be submitted to those mandarins. I think the current system is that whoever has the most powerful friends wins. They have a word for that, having lots of powerful friends. Who knows what is coming... Fred Bauder 00:26, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Gordon

I'm sorry about Gordon's block, but I see it as something that was inevitable, and that would have happened sooner or later. I have constantly tried to help him, even e-mailing an arbitration committee member about the case, and asking other administrators to make sure (as far as they could) that he wasn't goaded. The problem was that Gordon was not prepared to stop annoying people. It wasn't malicious, and the administrator Marskell once compared him to a friend who talks all the way through the movie, and is therefore disruptive without intending it.

If I thought there was any possibility that Gordon would agree to stop making long posts, stop posting links to his website (I think forbidding the links on his own userpage was a bit harsh, but I'm in the minority), stop telling people that he's right and they're wrong, and not EVER, EVER, EVER try to bring any kind of case against anyone, and that he'd stick to those agreements, I'd be prepared to argue for an unblock. Just because I'm an admin does not mean that I can make him be unblocked. It would be like trying to insert your own version into an article when everyone else was against it, and Gordon certainly wouldn't help.

I don't think the block was fair or just, but I absolutely believe it was necessary. Musical Linguist 01:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

RFA Question

Thank you for the question on my RFA - posted a response! --Ozgod 01:57, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

It waa a good question - I wish people had more to ask! Thank you for supporting my RFA! --Ozgod 02:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

RFA

Thanks so much for supporting me in the RFA. I am grateful for your response, and it really means a lot to be appreciated. Thanks again! hmwithtalk 04:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for your speedy fix [4] to my format mistake. When I went to get it, I got an edit conflict with your fix. Thanks again! --Kralizec! (talk) 23:31, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I have no idea how it happened. Usually I catch things like that in preview, but totally missed it this time. Quite embarrassing since I am often encouraging others to double-check their edits via the preview button.  :-o --Kralizec! (talk) 23:38, 29 May 2007 (UTC)