User talk:Firebug

Welcome!

Hello, Firebug, Welcome to Wikipedia!

I hope you like working here and want to continue. If you need help on how to name new articles, look at Naming Conventions, and for help on formatting the pages visit the Manual of Style. If you need general help, look at Help and the FAQ, and if you can't find your answer there, check the Village pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions). There's still more help at the Tutorial and the Policy Library. Also, don't forget to visit the Community Portal — and if you have any more questions after that, feel free to post them on my New-Users' Talk Page.

Additional tips:

Here are some extra tips to help you get around Wikipedia:

If you made any edits before you got an account, you might be interested in assigning those to your username.
If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills, try the Sandbox.
Click on the Edit button on a page, and look at how other editors did what they did.
You can sign your name using three tildes, like this: ~~~. If you use four, you can add a datestamp too. Always sign comments on Talk pages, never sign Articles.
You might want to add yourself to the New User Log
If your first language isn't English, try Wikipedia:Contributing to articles outside your native language

Happy editing!

Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:12, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nice Job

I appreciate your comment toward NCdave at Talk:Terri_Schiavo#Edit_War. That guy has been very annoying recently and it appears you've been the first to so sharply point out his blatant fascination with pushing POV in the Terri Schiavo article. Also, I suggest you create a user page. You can steal my layout if you like. Throw some comments on my talk page if you need help. AngryParsley 21:47, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Howdy Howdy Howdy

Cool name and excellent work on the Terri Schiavo page. Thanks! --AStanhope 04:36, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Charlotte Ross Image for Deletion

I have responded to your question at WP:IFD. Mike H 06:54, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Firebug! good job on Terri Schiavo. Word of advice: you probably should create a userpage, lest everyone think you're a clueless noob. :) Warmest regards --Neutrality^talk 04:43, Mar 31, 2005 (UTC)

Doki Doki Panic

Nice screenshots of Doki Doki Panic, but if it isn't too much trouble could you take them again, but set your emulator not to smooth the shots. It looks like you had it set to "Eagle 2x" or whatever, but I think it would be more historically accurate if you made the screenshots look blocky, like the original games. Thanks! --Carl 09:35, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Good job, thanks a heap! --Carl 08:36, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Chamaeleon

Hi there! If you have an opinion on me, here's the page to say it on: Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Chamaeleon.

If not, excuse the intrusion. Chamaeleon 14:22, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Nation of Islam

I am a Wikipedia administrator and I have been trying to keep the Nation of Islam article factually correct, allow room for controversial items of substance to be presented, and make sure that the fact that they are controversial is also presented. I have reviewed the "edit war" you have going with several other contributors to the article.

Please read my comments and findings regarding the current edit war on the page Talk:Nation of Islam. That will be the best place for you to make your case for the changes you keep trying to make in the work of others. If you have more facts and sources, please bring them to the talk page and let's see if we can resolve the apparent dispute. You can leave comments on my talk page at User Talk:Vaoverland if you don't want to leave them on the article talk page for whatever reason. Mark in Richmond. Vaoverland 19:10, Apr 3, 2005 (UTC)

Nation of Islam and anti-Semitism

Firebug, if you move or redirect this page again without consensus, you may be blocked for vandalism. Please play by the rules. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 04:56, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

Which rules am I accused of violating? I am editing in accordance with the instructions given on Wikipedia:Be bold in updating pages. Quote: "If someone writes an inferior, merely humorous article, article stub, or outright patent nonsense, don't worry about their feelings. Correct it, add to it, and, if it's a total waste of time, replace it..." This is an extremely marginal article; it's already been up for VfD at least twice, and I'm seriously considering a third nomination. It bothers me that convicted POV-pusher RK seems to have the upper hand in this situation. Firebug 05:07, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Fathers' rights

You went and put an NPOV tag on the article, you really ought to leave a message on the talk page as to why you are disputing it's neutrality. --Spinboy 06:59, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. --Spinboy 06:59, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No reverts were done, hence there is no reason for the 3RR tag. A justification of the NPOV insertion has been placed on the talk page. Firebug 07:16, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template

Hi friend! How do you create a navigational template?? Allagappan.gnu 09:49, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)

VfD user page

Hi there! On Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Sam Spade/Detective agency you voted 'keep' because you thought VfD is not appropriate for user pages. However, other users have pointed out that it actually is, by deletion policy. You may want to reconsider your vote on that grounds. Yours, Radiant _* 14:31, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

IFD Vote

Hi Firebug, I notice you alluded to the potential for vandalism of the autofellatio photo. Well, the redirect bug has now been fixed, and the vandalism seems to have withered away as a result. (See, for example, my sandbox for an example of a redirecting page that doesn't redirect anymore because of the bugfix). From what I understand, you can't redirect to an image anymore, especially between wikis. Cheers, TIMBO (T A L K) 22:32, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

RFC

I have filed a request for comment on NCdave. You can visit the page by going here. I have left this message on your talk page since you have been involved in the dispute resolution process regarding his edits in the past. Mike H 11:31, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Template:Not notable

Please do not create templates for VfD voting, and in general, don't do something just to make a point. We're closing any loophole which allows this sort of thing, and creating this template was an unwelcome disruption. You should do the right thing and tag it for speedy deletion so your fellow editors don't have to waste any more time on this. Doing this would be a sign of good faith; making it sit on WP:TFD for five days before its inevitable deletion would be a bad sign. -- Netoholic @ 14:26, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)

Voting via templates is improper. As you've seen, anyone can change that template and affect multiple votes. Please do not be confrontational about this. Use simple text comments for voting. See Wikipedia talk:Survey guidelines#Voting via templates for evidence that there is no support for using templates in votes, with the idea that such votes won't be counted because they could have been altered. -- Netoholic @ 15:57, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)

RfC

You don't say which articles, or abuses, you're complaining about, but by all means go ahead and open an RfC. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 21:15, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

Please don't create and use templates like that. --SPUI (talk) 15:35, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template

I've moved Template:Not notable to your user space. I agree with all those who have said that you shouldn't be using it, but it certainly doesn't belong in the Wikipedia template space. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:16, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

RE: Template:Not notable

Based on your reasons to keep this template, I strongly urge you to read Wikipedia_talk:Survey_guidelines#Voting_via_templates and WP:POINT. Thank you. Zzyzx11 | Talk 16:19, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

VfD

Please do not use templates for VfD voting. Yours, Radiant _* 12:01, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

There isn't a strict policy against this, but it's discouraged for two reasons. First, it needlessly increases server load. And second, it makes it easy for someone to change all your votes by changing the template. However, if you use {{subst:name_of_template}} the template is automatically copy/pasted rather than linked, and there won't be a problem. Radiant_* 00:58, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)
- You are correct that people often repeat arguments on VfD. That is unfortunate. There have been several attempts to make policy or at least consensus on such issues as notability, but most of them have failed. Regarding notability, we do have consensus on for instance Wikipedia:WikiProject_Music/Notability_and_Music_Guidelines, and WP:FICT. That might help. Otherwise, yes, there are a lot of gray areas. Radiant _* 07:45, Apr 15, 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism

Don't be so angry! What a fierce person you are. Next time you speak to someone new, try saying hello first.Grace Note 07:05, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I try to avoid biting the newbies, but you aren't a newbie, so that doesn't apply. Firebug 07:06, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Nocontent

This template seems to largely duplicate Template:Nonsense, and is also not worded in a way that is supported by any WP:CSD guideline. Can you please explain why this templates is necessary? -- Netoholic @ 00:27, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)

Criterion 1 for articles: "Very short articles with little or no context". This template is useful for articles that can't be called patent nonsense but are still candidates for speedy deletion for that reason. Firebug 00:31, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is there any reason you feel that using this instead of the more generic and flexible {{deletebecause}} ({{db}}) is preferable? We have deleted templates before for being far too specific when a flexible alternative is easily used instead. -- Netoholic @ 00:36, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)

It saves keystrokes. Firebug 00:38, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Then use {delete} and trust that the admin can see it has no context. I am going to nominate this for deletion, as I don't believe the extra template is needed, and I don't like instruction creep. -- Netoholic @ 00:48, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)

I'm growing frustrated with your obsession with deleting templates. I think Xiong's actions are WP:POINT, but your actions border on that as well. This template serves a useful purpose, and disk space is cheap. Firebug 00:52, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

While I respect you want to make things better, I see unchecked growth in the Template space as a danger. Please consider ways of reducing the overall breadth of templates, and instead make use of the existing ones or add more function to them. -- Netoholic @ 00:55, 2005 Apr 20 (UTC)

I've been following this vote on TFD, and I was wondering - what about changing the template to use the exact text of the CSD criterion? It seems to me that "no substantive content" is broad and subjective. (I would gladly apply that tag to a lot of pages that I think are pointless, like List of sampled songs, which don't really qualify for speedy deletion.) "Very short article with little or no context" narrows it down some. FreplySpang (talk) 13:46, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

VFD vote

As you can clearly tell from my contribution history, I do not have 2 edits, and I have no idea where you got that idea. I would appreciate a vote on good faith, and on the merits (or lack thereof) of the article. Thanks. Deletionist 03:53, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) *Your edit history clearly showed only 2 edits when I viewed it. Firebug 04:01, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC) **You're looking at the edit history for my User page. That's different than my contributions. title=Special:Contributions&target=Deletionist Deletionist 04:04, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do not ever again revert my writing without reading it first. I made major improvements to the article, the Stalin reference aside, and you deleted them. Don't do it. As for Stalin, do some Google searching on the old gent before telling me he wasn't a Stalinist. He was. Big deal, many people were at the time until his activities became widely known. It will continue to be included. If you call my valid edits vandalism in an edit summary again, I will take action against you as it is a lie. Read the definition of vandalism before throwing the word around. Goodbye. Dagen 03:23, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If I'm editing from Cuba, would you report me to the secret police. I think a jail term for Wikipedia editing would be a slight over-reaction. Dagen 03:37, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty happy with the lead para of Fidel now, as long as you can accept the modified reference to the wealth he's amassed in office, we can avoid any further changes I think. It reads better I think, due to our collaboration. Dagen 03:54, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that's quite good. A good blend of the two versions. Dagen 05:46, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia bias

Hello, TDC has been reverting me, so I was looking through his history and saw he was reverting you as well.

Anyhow, you started editing here recently. As I have been here for some time, and you seem to have found that there is a lot of right-wing bias on Wikipedia, perhaps my experience can help you avoid frustration.

First of all, if you are beginning to feel frustrated and annoyed by people like TDC, Dagen and so forth, this feeling of frustration will only grow with time. These people run Wikipedia, and even admins have been driven off (User:Secretlondon, User:172) not to mention countless users who have tried to rid the right wing bias of Wikipedia articles by applying the supposed NPOV standard that Wikipedia adheres to.

Anyhow, I have given up on Wikipedia ever having being anything what it is. It's not worth the time and effort to revert the TDC's and Dagen's again and again.

I suggest to you that if you write an original article, you submit it to a more sympathetic wiki. Of course, you can submit it to Wikipedia as well, but realize it will soon be ruined. A recent case in point for me, my No Gun Ri article. I wrote an article about the massacre of No Gun Ri and Zonath appears and tries to water the article down. Fine. But then he adds the words "in self defense" in a sentence. Which is completely untrue, the whole uproar over what the investigation uncovered is there were orders to shoot any and all civilians in certain areas. So a lie is inserted to rewrite history. I have to watch everything I write like a hawk and defend it from the Zonaths, the TDCs, the Dagens, the Adam Carrs and whatnot. It's just not worth it in my opinion.

So if you write a new article, please submit it to either the liberal wikis Demopedia or dKosopedia, or the anarchist-y wikis Anarchopedia or Infoshop's OpenWiki. If you want, you can submit it to Wikipedia as well, but if some bozo rewrites it on Wikipedia, it will still exist on a sympathetic wiki somewhere. This also will give some critical mass to wikis where one doesn't have to spend half of ones time delaing with reversions and ridiculous right wing bias.

While people like TDC and Dagen and so forth attack you, you are isolated and alone, because people who agree with you have already been driven off. Also, some admins will side with them and the admins friendly to people like you like 172 and Secretlondon were themselves driven off. So after a while you will just get frustrated and leave Wikipedia completely. Thus the balance of Wikipedia will shift slightly to the right, and since you will be quitting wikis altogether when you quit Wikipedia, Infoshop's OpenWiki/Demopedia/dKosopedia/Anarchopedia will not grow or get any critical mass.

It would be nice if one those wikis had the momentum of Wikipedia, but momentum only comes with momentum. I am putting articles up on those sites, which hopefully will draw users and build momentum. Perhaps at some point I will do a mass transfer of the articles I write to Wikipedia. It would take them months to destroy them with right wing bias. Ruy Lopez 05:47, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Islamic fascism

Hi Firebug, am new here and want to write this article while I'm still thinking about it. Did you see the story on CNN about Aryan Nation and al Qaeda, quite interesting. Am just putting together some research on it all and will be finished soon. Thanks. Walkingeagles 05:24, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I understand your concerns regarding this issue, but the article that you have written so far has some concerns with regard to neutrality. It also duplicates the subject of an existing article, Islamofascism. You might want to discuss your material on the Talk page for that article. Also, keep in mind that Wikipedia has a policy stating that original research should not be used on Wikipedia. Please take this into consideration, but don't let it scare you off. If you have any other questions, feel free to ask me. Welcome to Wikipedia! Firebug 05:36, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Will make sure it has no overlap with Islamofascism. I understand the concerns some have about that because it is either a new word or not a word at all! But presumably with Islamic fascism we can cover the subject matter without worrying about whether the term exists. And yes, I will gather research and make sure a good mix of sources, I assume referring to secondary sources online doesn't mean original research, it's not like I'll be interviewing Osama bin Laden or something like that. I doubt he his taking calls anyway LOL. Walkingeagles 05:43, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi sorry for being back again so quickly but is the reason why the material I wrote about Aryan Nation that people didn't believe it or it wasn't written correctly or what? I'm a bit surprised. Walkingeagles 06:02, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your understanding of the sources policy is correct. It's OK to cite from books and articles. Indeed, using cites is encouraged. What is discouraged is the insertion of original theories and hypotheses. Please read the official policy for additional details. As for the deletion notice, it was posted because the nominator (Yuber) felt that it violated the Neutral Point of View policy. You have a right to discuss the issue at the relevant voting page if you feel that the article should be retained. It sometimes takes a while to get a feel for what material belongs on Wikipedia and what doesn't. Feel free to ask questions of experienced editors if you have any concerns. Firebug 06:08, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Template:Racist

Hi Firebug. I noticed you're the creator of Template:Racist. While I firmly believe racism has no place on Wikipedia or elsewhere, I'm not sure this template's the best way to deal with it, so I've nominated it for deletion. Please comment on it at Templates for deletion. sɪzlæk [ +t, +c ] 01:16, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

UPX

You voted Keep on UPX. It's been kept, but the article is still very weak. Perhaps you could undertake to improve it? TIA, Mwanner 12:38, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RickK

Because you asked me to comment on the RfC, I have done so, though I still think it's all nonsense. Rick K 23:02, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

User:Pavel_Vozenilek

You asked Pavel if he wanted to be nominated for adminship, and he accepted, but you didn't go ahead with the nomination. Did it slip your mind? I'll support the nomination.-gadfium 02:56, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I performed the nomination. The only reason I hadn't done it sooner is that I wasn't certain whether Pavel's ambiguously worded followup to my question was an acceptance or not. Firebug 04:26, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. By the way, you are allowed to vote for a candidate you've nominated.-gadfium 01:22, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Xiong

Hi there! Because the RFC about Xiong seemed to deal mainly on his disagreements with Netoholic, I thought it best to start a new RFC to see if people have comments on Xiong's behavior that do not relate to Netoholic. Please give your thoughts and/or opinion on that at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Xiong. R adiant _* 08:26, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Hello, Firebug. Thanks for your vote at my adminship nomination. I appreciate the support. Cheers! — Trilobite (Talk) 13:56, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

You did not provide a reason for this revert in your summary or on the talk page, as required by Wikipedia policy. In addition, you did not reply to the discussion over the two versions on the talk page explaining why the version you reverted to violates NPOV. — Cortonin | Talk 01:21, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It most certainly DOES violate NPOV for Wikipedia to be deciding who is a serious researcher and who is not. That is endorsing a view or person as correct, right, true, or better. Any way you cut it, each of those things is against NPOV policy. I suggest you read it more carefully. It perhaps does not say what you think it says. — Cortonin | Talk 01:28, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cortonin, if you would reduce your reverts to the part which is about IPCC being "respective" or not, I am sure that we would reach an agreement soon. But insisting to insert huge amounts of quotes is not in accordance with the NPOV policy and thus makes a compromise unfortunately much harder. -- mkrohn 12:38, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you only object to portion, then only revert a portion. Mindless bulk reverts make converging on a consensus impossible. If you don't take issue with the respect issue, then don't revert that part. I have said, and will continue to say, that I think those quotes do need to be included, but in a more digested text format. If you could focus your edits on shrinking them into a more summarized and digestable format, rather than on just erasing everything in large quantities, then we would make progress. — Cortonin | Talk 12:46, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Continued on Cortonins discussion page. -- mkrohn 13:00, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Firebug sez "It doesn't violate NPOV to point out that some people are taken more seriously in the scientific community than others"...

Yeah, actually, it does. It is called "editorializing". This isn't done in encyclopedia articles. These articles are here to report facts, not the author's opinions. If you have any questions about this, I'll be happy to answer them. --JonGwynne 03:00, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My reading of WP:NPOV, specifically the Pseudoscience section of that page, does not bear out the assertions made by you and Cortonin. According to that section:

If we're going to represent the sum total of human knowledge, then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false. Things are not, however, as bad as that sounds. The task before us is not to describe disputes as though, for example, pseudoscience were on a par with science; rather, the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view; and, moreover, to explain how scientists have received pseudoscientific theories. This is all in the purview of the task of describing a dispute fairly.

The belief that human action is not a significant factor in climate change is clearly a minority view, and most scientists consider it pseudoscientific. Firebug 05:31, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

First, calling caution regarding global warming conclusions "pseudoscience" is quite a stretch of sane reasoning. You're talking about a conclusion based almost entirely on simulations. But this is hardly the most important issue. The important issue at hand is, "What is NPOV?" So lets check "What is the neutral point of view" to find out. — Cortonin | Talk 12:30, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What we mean isn't obvious, and is easily misunderstood. There are many other valid interpretations of "unbiased," and "neutral". The notion of "unbiased writing" that informs Wikipedia's policy is "presenting conflicting views without asserting them." This needs further clarification, as follows.

First, and most importantly, consider what it means to say that unbiased writing presents conflicting views without asserting them. Unbiased writing does not present only the most popular view; it does not assert the most popular view is correct after presenting all views; it does not assert that some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Presenting all points of view says, more or less, that p-ists believe that p, and q-ists believe that q, and that's where the debate stands at present. Ideally, presenting all points of view also gives a great deal of background on who believes that p and q and why, and which view is more popular (being careful not to associate popularity with correctness). Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of the p-ists and the q-ists, allowing each side to give its "best shot" at the other, but studiously refraining from saying who won the exchange.

A point here bears elaboration. We said that the neutral point of view is not, contrary to the seeming implication of the phrase, some actual point of view that is "neutral," or "intermediate," among the different positions. That represents a particular understanding of what "neutral point of view" means. The prevailing Wikipedia understanding is that the neutral point of view is not a point of view at all; according to our understanding, when one writes neutrally, one is very careful not to state (or imply or insinuate or subtly massage the reader into believing) that any particular view at all is correct.

So as you can see, if you are endorsing a view as correct, you are violating NPOV. If you are stating, implying, insinuating, or subtly massaging the reader into believing that a particular view is correct, you are violating NPOV. It doesn't matter how strongly you believe a view is correct, or how much you think something is true, you are still violating NPOV. — Cortonin | Talk 12:30, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

NES cartridge megabits

Hey Firebug, I noticed you updated a few NES games with correct size information in regard to megabits. I think a lot of games have errors in this regard, and I'd like to try to fix them, but I don't know where to find out this info. I was wondering if you could help me out with this.

NES cartridge megabits

Hey Firebug, I noticed you updated a few NES games with correct size information in regard to megabits. I think a lot of games have errors in this regard, and I'd like to try to fix them, but I don't know where to find out this info. I was wondering if you could help me out with this. Andre (talk) 15:14, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Shitfuck article

I resent having my article called nonsense and vandalism. It was not nonsense, as it was written in plain English and was very much lending to comprehension. It was not vandalism as my intentions were entirely in good faith. I honestly desired to document a vernacular term and its origins. Given the numerous unsophisticated ways in which the article could have been written, I believe it's rather unfair that you would dismiss it in such a manner. But in the end, I really don't care enough to push the issue. I hope your satisfied.

Kind attention please

Recently one article Nehruvian-Stalinism was deleted as per VfD - almost the same materials have been placed in the article Jawaharlal Nehru by way of a subsection under this heading. In case, it is not conforming to wiki-policies, please do something. Thanks.--Bhadani 10:56, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It has been removed. Feel free to revert POV insertions like this if you see them, just keep the three-revert rule in mind. Firebug 17:22, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

VfD nominations and other strange edits

I think for now the only thing that can be done is start an RfC. The user doesn't seem disruptive enough (yet) to warrant more drastic action. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:10, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Me

Do you actually believe you're being helpful or constructive? I ask you... please... take a break and leave me alone until you can discuss with my mentors. You're behavior is far worse than what I am accused of. So please, give things a rest. Go edit an article. -- Netoholic @ 01:24, 2005 May 7 (UTC)

I have notified your mentors of your recent behavior. Your continued revert warring in the Wikipedia namespace is precisely the behavior that was objected to in your arbitration case. Firebug 01:32, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

152.163.100.137

I've blocked this ID for 48 hours, as I have two others he's been using. If you continues, I'll up the block time. Unfortunately, he's using AOL, so somebody may come along and unblock him. Rick K 22:22, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

I've had to unblock User:205.188.116.203 because the block was interfering with a legitimate AOL User. I don't understand how AOL works in that logged in users are blocked when anon IDs are blocked, because I use AOL and I've never encountered the problem. Rick K 22:42, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

Kindly explain what edits you claim I've made - that are not themselves Yuber's nonsensical POV pushing - were POV.KaintheScion

I've seen enough abuses of Admin power over the years to wonder if you're not just yet another POV-pushing admin. But I'm assuming good faith on your part for now.

Also, just FYI, Yuber is guilty of four Reverts today (in violation of 3RR). I'm not reporting him on it but THAT is the reason I called him a Revert Monkey: his tendency to revert pages OVER and OVER and OVER protecting his own POV-laden edits.

Yuber and KaintheScion

Is there a way we can find a solution to the problem between the two users? I am on some pages (mainly Islamofascist) that both of these users requent, and things have gone to the pits. I am not going to start on who did what, but I think this edit war needs to end. Zscout370 (talk) 02:53, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do not accuse other users of "vandalism" for making edits you disagree with. This is considered a personal attack. It is also a misuse of WP:VIP, which is an important policy page. It makes it more difficult for administrators to block actual vandals when dealing with frivolous reports like the one you submitted against User:Yuber. Firebug 04:40, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Firebug, there is nothing frivolous about reporting a user who without justification starts editing in the same crap that was rejected in consensus after an earlier dispute resolution. Get a grip and stop protecting POV-pushers. KaintheScion

Rabid deletionism at TfD

Well, of course he dislikes templates in general; see Wikipedia:Avoid using meta-templates (all of which applies just as well to any template). But he's not alone; deletionists gravitate toward TfD. They are opposed, but not strongly. We might want to work toward improving the position of a more moderate stance.

Suggest we take the trouble to place {{tfdnotice}} (see documentation) where it will attract the attention of more moderate users -- such as on the talk pages of template creators. Bring enough voices to the table, and some will remain to moderate the TfD process as a whole. — Xiong 熊 talk * 10:05, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

I love' Templates. I created Wikipedia:Infobox templates, and I do a lot of work in that space and am very familiar with how they are best used. What I dislike is misuse of templates. Without a lot of checks in place, that space has grown out of reasonable bounds. Template's are being misused because there is a growing perception that they are meant to be "handy shortcuts" rather than the powerful tools they have potential to become. -- Netoholic @ 15:16, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

templates

If your only problem is maintainability of the templates, I promise to ensure these series of templates remian in a standard format. We have been specifically asked by the developers not to use meta-templates in this way. That I trust, and must make sure we try and abide by.

Please leave these be until the developers tell us it is safe to use. -- Netoholic @ 00:23, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

Your statement that "We have been specifically asked by the developers not to use meta-templates in this way" is a flat-out, bald-faced lie. There is no other way to put it. The Arbcom ruling found the contrary - there is currently no consensus on this issue and the issue has been referred to the developers for further study. One disgruntled database admin is not "the developers", and should not be allowed to override the will of the Wikipedian community. Firebug 00:35, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a lie, please don't be so aggressive over this. You're disrupting not only me but Wikipedia on the whole because of the server impact of your actions. Jamesday is FAR from a "disgruntled database admin" and was very clear on the message at Template talk:Sisterproject#Technical impact of templates like this. Please please please leave these as simple templates until you can provide something better. -- Netoholic @ 00:41, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

You said "the developers" - plural. So far all we have is one guy's opinion. Sorry, that's not enough to force through a policy against community consensus. The machines exist to serve us, not the other way around. Firebug 00:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're a bit confused about the nature of the "community". The community is simply like you not sure that the developers agree with this guideline. Noone hates this proposal, they just want to see more. That's all fine. Let me ask you this, assuming I can get multiple developers to agree it is a good guideline, would you then support it? -- Netoholic @ 00:57, 2005 May 16 (UTC)

You state that "no one hates this proposal". I do hate it; it is a case of inconveniencing ourselves for the sake of the machines. There are lots of things that could be done to reduce server load. We could turn off images and resort to ASCII art. We could ban templates altogether. We could get rid of user and talk pages. We don't do any of these things for the very good reason that they would defeat the entire purpose. Meta-templates should stay for the same reason. If you could get a community consensus to agree with this guideline, I would acquiesce in it, but still disagree. The answer to hardware and software limitations is to fix the hardware and software, not inconvenience ourselves for its sake. Firebug 04:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- What actual inconvenience is it for you? What I find inconvenient is when the wiki needs to be taken down or is too slow to save an edit. The developers do the best they can, and the one most knowledgable about the problems has asked us to avoid using any template on more than a very small percentage of pages. Yes, this means we are slightly more restricted in what choices we have, but so what? We'll still manage to get everything done that we need to, even of a few functions of templates can't be used, or there is a little extra maintenance. That is really no big deal. I'd like you to consider the possibility that others, like Jamesday, know a little more than you do about our technical side. If they ask us to do a favor, we're supposed to help. I don't ask or expect you to take on any extra work maintaining templates. I am happy to do that myself, but please, respect what this person has said, and help Wikipedia. -- Netoholic @ 06:59, 2005 May 17 (UTC)

Nehru and Stalin

I think this is the blog you might be refering to: http://www.sandeepweb.com/2004/09/21/genesis-growth-of-nehruism-vol-1-commitment-to-communism/. I have no clue what this site is, http://www.partitionofindia.com/_disk1/0000001f.htm, but It could also be an opinion site. Users who are involved with the dispute claim sources from Encyclopedia Britanica and various government offices in India. We just need to cut though the bs and see what is real about this, if at all. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 17:32, 18 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I protected the page per your request. Warmest regards --Neutrality^talk 05:09, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

ElKabong

Count me in, Josh. There won't have any shortage of volunteers with this one. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:32, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

User:KaintheScion / User:ElKabong

It's difficult to believe that he's going to learn how to behave, it's true. He's blocked for 24 hours at the moment (as you probably saw). I've started a campaign of removing his personal attacks, which seems to have got under his skin; my hope is that, in the end, he'll realise that he'll get more done if he cuts out the silliness. If it doesn't have any effect, then I agree that arbitration seems to be the only step. Would like to give my approach a try first, though? The more people involved, the more effective it will be; if he's spending all his time replacing his childishness, then he'll have no time left for anything else (and he'll be at constant risk of violating 3RR) — surely even he will realise that there's no point? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:34, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When your "edits" consist of completely reversing his position, or cutting out cogent points (such as his agreement on the Islamic Fascism/Islamofascism merge contingent on your not making Islamic Fascism's article into a mockery of its former self) I can see why he was so upset.

Possible Sock

Hey, I saw a notice from this user on Jayjg's talk page: User:Enviroknot. There has only been three edits so for (as I write this) One edit at Dhimmi, Dhimmi talk page and at Jayjg's page. From his edit style, he seems to be a toned down version of ElKabong, but I cannot be very certian. I would keep on the lookout if I was you. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:11, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spammer

I blocked Pibohmark@aol.com infinitely. Warmest regards --Neutrality^talk 03:42, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

Caulfield Grammar FAC

Hi! You previously voted to object this FAC nomination, but the article has been significantly upgraded and improved since then. I would urge you to have a second look before leaving your final vote. Thanks. Harro5 08:15, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

User:ElKabong

Hi Josh, thanks for putting in the RfAr. I've added a statement here. If you'd like it to be more detailed, let me know, though I suspect the arbcom will be glad to accept this case. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:31, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Josh, I'm in as well. I've also put in a statement, and I think that what is there will be enough to get the case accepted. If not, I'll add more evidence. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:23, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Josh and all: the case was accepted by Grunt. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:31, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious RFAr

KaintheScion/ElKabong RFAr

You should be advised that I have left my comments in the KaintheScion/ElKabong RFAr.

You should also be advised that I have yet to be convinced that these two are actually sockpuppets.

I further object to being named in this RFAr at all, as it is an obvious indication to me that the whole thing has been enacted in bad faith by a group of editors pushing a political agenda. That you did so without so much as sending me a message or an email is very bad form on your part. Enviroknot

To answer the question about the sockpuppets, it has been discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive23#User:KaintheScion_and_User:ElKabong. The person who tied the two users together, User:David_Gerard, has been authorized by Wikipedia to check the IP's of various users. The other tie in, was stated by a user called Mirv: "The evidence of sockpuppetry is about as clear as evidence gets: their IP addresses match, and one signed comments with the other's name. I believe David Gerard offered to unblock whichever of the two is the primary account; rather than spout this ineffectual bluster that everyone can see right through, why not take him up on the offer? —Charles P. (Mirv) 15:11, 20 May 2005 (UTC)" David also stated this: "The above comes after ElKabong admitted in email that 129.7.35.176 was his IP. I unblocked ElKabong; then he wrote as KaintheScion wanting that account unblocked. I sent a copy of the evidence busting them. So the above would then be ElKabong claiming that KaintheScion is not a sock. Uh huh. - David Gerard 15:37, 20 May 2005 (UTC)." Zscout370 (Sound Off) 00:47, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen that "evidence." I've also gone back into the page history and seen the number of times David Gerard changed his story. I do not find it credible. There is also the matter of David Gerard claiming that the "wrong" email account emailed him, when Carnildo clearly indicates that Gerard is not reading the logs right.

Are you sure about that? Special:Log only shows manual blocks, not autoblocks, and as far as I know, Special:ipblocklist only shows one autoblock per IP address: the most recent. If the timeline went 1. 00:44: ElKabong edits 2. 00:45: KaintheScion edits 3. 00:??: KaintheScion sends the email 4. 01:03: KaintheScion edits to see if he's been unblocked you'd see the same thing in the logs. --Carnildo 03:50, 13 May 2005 (UTC) Enviroknot

The above comment by Carnildo can be found at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive22#User:KaintheScion_and_User:ElKabong. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 01:18, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for taking on Heegoop on the issue of American vs. United States. I thought their reasoning was a bit awkward but didn't feel like getting in a fistfight. Your handling of the situation is much appreciated.

By the way, your talk page here is bit lengthy. You might want to archive some of it like I have on my talk page. Cheers! — Frecklefoot | Talk 03:45, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

Alternative term for American

One of the terms I'm using from the alternative words for American is "United States (used as an adjective)" which is okay to use for the articles in the Wiki. Their are in fact some articles using the term (ex. list of United States companies). So it's okay to use United States as an adjective. That means I will change American back to United States on the Hasbro page. Now if I were to use "United Statian" or some other alternative the terms would have to gain widespread acceptance.

Arbitration Committee case opening

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KaintheScion et al. has been accepted and is now open. Please bring evidence to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KaintheScion et al./Evidence. Thank you. -- sannse (talk) 18:41, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation case opening

FYI, the edit-stalking you and User:Meelar are doing I have requested mediation on.Mlorrey 21:12, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I reverted a grand total of *two* of your edits prior to your posting this. I don't see any good-faith attempts to resolve the difficultes by other methods, and your edits flagrantly violate our NPOV policy. You cannot simply insert, as fact, criticisms of gun control. Nor does NPOV require that tiny extremist groups be given an undue level of prominence in articles. The article on Dwight Eisenhower doesn't devote half its space to John Birch Society accusations. Firebug 02:52, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your labelling of the JPFO as 'extremist' clearly demonstrates you are the one violating the NPOV policy.Mlorrey 03:11, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration

Given the accusations leveled against you and the tone of the dispute, I've requested arbitration. I hope you'll consent to being a party to the dispute. See WP:RFAR. Meelar (talk) 04:32, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

I've added the case; you can go to WP:RFAR to make your statement. Thanks for your agreement. Best, Meelar (talk) 14:00, Jun 3, 2005 (UTC)

W. Mark Felt

Salve!
I nominated W. Mark Felt as a WP:FAC. As you commented on the article's talk page, I'd appreciate your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/W. Mark Felt. PedanticallySpeaking 14:55, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

United Stated

Trying to distort this accurate term I have in mind. Will your going to have to go through Mackeriv first because I didn't originally coin the term. Heegoop, Jun 19, 2005 (UTC)

I noticed what's been going on here. This is really bizarre. It'd be a good idea for you took a look at Heegoop's talk page to understand what this is really about. It's all explained there. Sorry for any inconveniences.--Kaonashi 02:41, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Smarter than you

American can mean your from North or South American not just the United States. Leave me alone let me use alternative terms for American to refer to the United States. Heegoop, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay

Okay Firebug why don't you think "American" means your from North or South America which really does mean that. Also it wasn't necessary to reference "American city" on the Charleston, South Carolina article. Using just simply "city" was fine. Also why did you revert "US South" back to "American South" on the White Castle page as referring to Krystal. "American" really does mean your from North or South America and if you have a problem with it there's something wrong with you so therefore you better give me a good answer about all this on my talk page. Heegoop, 1 Jul, 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration committee decision

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/KaintheScion et al. →Raul654 July 2, 2005 02:29 (UTC)

Lets work something out

Firebug you may dislike me and I may dislike you and you may disagree with my definition of "American" and for that situation I would like to have a word with you. I know we are at unfriendly terms and we had alot of disagreements on the term "American". Since it's Fourth of July I learned something between us. I am quite inventive and you may not be very inventive but that's just a say. What I did this Fourth of July is go into a parade and tell all the people who were viewing the parade "we are United Statians". Another idea I had was grilled grapes. For the grilled grapes idea I learned that I was inventive. For the American term situation, when I first saw the alternative words for American page it just made me think that it was necessary to give the term "American" a different definition. Anyway I would like to work something out with you so good faith. Heegoop, 4 Jul, 2005

Firebug: Should I have written more about "the Last Supper" ?

Final decision reached

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Mlorrey case. →Raul654 22:37, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Gallery articles up for deletion!

I noticed that these articles:

that you worked on in the past are now are up for deletion. Would you vote in favor of keeping these articles? They show the history of the advancement of video game graphics over time and are useful as a source of images for graphics for video game articles. --ShaunMacPherson 20:01, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mlorrey

Mlorrey has asked for his block to be lifted. You may wish to share your views at User talk:Mlorrey or Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration, where the matter is being discussed. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 15:52, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{twoversions} is up for TfD again

FYI, the {twoversions} template is up for deletion again: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Twoversions. zen master T 18:57, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Template:TAETDBFKTI! ^TN

No worries, I deleted it again. Thanks, JeremyA 03:04, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mayor Shakspeare

Hi, what's the problem with the redirect to New Orleans Mayor Joseph A. Shakspeare article from the common spelling (which the Mayor didn't use) of Joseph A. Shakespeare? Wondering simply, -- Infrogmation 03:44, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for taking care of it. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 20:02, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

TPM Cafe

Just saw your comment on TPM Cafe. Yeah, that was me. Good to hear from you again. Best wishes, Meelar (talk) 18:13, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Pet Names for Genitalia

Actually, I didn't delete the article because of the title, but because the song didn't seem notable—I get only 251 Google hits for it. tregoweth 08:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem RE: Image:Janet Jackson Nude Sunbathing.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Janet Jackson Nude Sunbathing.jpg. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law. We need you to specify two things on the image description page:

The copyright holder, and
The copyright status

The copyright holder is usually the creator. If the creator was paid to make this image, then their employer may be the copyright holder. If several people collaborated, then there may be more than one copyright holder. If you created this image, then you are the copyright holder.

Because of the large number of images on Wikipedia, we've sorted them using image copyright tags. Just find the right tag corresponding to the copyright status of this image, and paste it onto the image description page like this: {{TAGHERE}}.

There are 3 basic ways to licence an image on Wikipedia:

The copyright holder gets the best protection of his work by licencing their work under an open content license like the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike licence. If you have the express permission of the copyright holder to licence their work under the above licence, use the image copyright tag: {{cc-by-sa-2.5}}. The GNU Free Documentation License is another choice for licencing one's work. Again, if you have the express permission of the copyright holder, use the tag: {{GFDL}}.

The copyright holder can also release his work into the public domain, see here for images released into the public domain.

- Images from certain sources are automatically release into the Public Domain. This is true for most governments like the federal United States government. (See here for images from the government of the USA and here for other governments) However not all governments release their work into the public domain, such as the UK government (See here for images from the UK government). Non-free licence governments are listed here.

Also, in some cases, an image is copyrighted but allowed on Wikipedia because of Fair Use. To see if this image qualifies and then how to tag it, see Wikipedia:Fair use.

For any other sources of for more information see Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. Please remember that if you don't tag your images, they will be deleted.

P.S. If you have uploaded other images without including copyright tags, please go back and tag them. Also, please tag all images that you upload in the future.

If you have any questions, just leave a message on my talk page. Thanks again. Extraordinary Machine 17:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged the image with {{no source}} because its description page does not specify who the copyright holder of the screenshot is. Extraordinary Machine 23:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use of the image on Wikipedia depends not on who the copyright holder is, but if they are properly attributed on the image's description page. Per Wikipedia:Fair use, the image description page must contain "Proper attribution of the source of the material, and attribution of the copyright holder (if it is different) where possible." In addition: "For each article for which fair use is claimed, the name of the article and a "fair use rationale" as explained in Wikipedia:Image description page. The rationale must be presented in a manner that can be clearly understood and which is relevant to the article in question." It's not enough to just upload a copyrighted image, tag it with an image copyright tag and insert it into an article; you have to provide a good argument for why the image's presence in the article qualifies as "fair use". If you're confused by all of this, don't worry: I was when I first learnt about it. If you can find the image's copyright holder, then you can look at the fair use rationales I provided for the copyrighted images on the articles KaDee Strickland, November (film), Extraordinary Machine and Mariah Carey, and try to model your claim of fair use for this image on the Janet Jackson article on those. Extraordinary Machine 23:37, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I thought that I would drop a note to correct some confusion. Wikipedia:Fair use is not in the same category as, say, the WP:MOS. Even if "consensus" was to infringe upon copyright whenever possible, our guidelines about fair use are not going to change to reflect that. If you're interested in participating in helping Wikipedia protect itself from copyright problems, please feel free to see Wikipedia:WikiProject Fair use. Jkelly 19:46, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Knight Rider Images

Your new images of Micheal Knight and Devon look kinda squashed. Can you fix them or find better ones to replace them? Cyberia23 01:21, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They look good now :) . Cyberia23 07:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted pages

Hi! Thanks for letting me know about those pages. Looks like the great Gadfium beat me to them. - Lucky 6.9 02:03, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Admin

I voted for you to become an admin and hope you make it.--YHoshua 21:09, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You've got mail

Email, that is. --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 16:36, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

anonymity

You're anonymous, too. Well, sorta. Until someone sees "Josh" at the top of your "Firebug" page. The point is, an IP is less anonymous. And there's a technical problem with having a login that looks like an IP: if I go to an IP that doesn't match, I'll be accused of trying something fishy. The point is, names are irrelevant here, unless maybe you're Jimbo Wales. I am identified by my behavior; and if prejudices against false perceptions of that behavior have to be allayed, I'm willing to do that (and you'd better be, too, because you'll find plenty of people here willing to misapprehend your actions). That is made easier by the fact that people don't hang presumptions on my chosen avatar.

But thanks for asking. As I argue through this issue, I develop a deeper understanding of what my goal is: if an anonymous user can do everything socially in this forum, then those peripatetic or one-time-edit anons wishing to do a few simple things mechanically are more accepted, and thus better protected. And if prejudice is diminished and the use of power is made more rational, everyone is better protected. --216.237.179.238 17:01, 9 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Meatpuppet template

Hi, thanks for telling me about the meatpuppet template! JoaoRicardo 16:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Newspeak?

You may be interested in Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Removal_of_libel_from_edit_history.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

template:afd-newbies

Good thinking. I've seen it twice going through AFD pages this past hour looking for discussions to join, and I think it's definitely a good template. The Literate Engineer 02:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FYI

Hi, Firebug. I've begun an RfAr against SlimVirgin for something that apparently you've had some issues with her over as well: [1]. Marsden 03:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for being bold

And taking some swift action against the blatant POV advocacy that User:RJII often pushes around. Sadly, he is not easily deterred or persuaded to listen to reason and work towards NPOV. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 05:21, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sad to say RJII has been at it for an entire year. He's not technically breaking any rules, but I'm sure we could find dozens of users willing to testify that he is a POV warrior. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 05:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have joined the RfC. I am very busy this week so I won't be able to participate very much, but I will try to get more involved starting next week. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 21:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No thank you for being disruptive

There was a vote on the economic fascism article and the result was "default to keep." You are acting contrary to the ethics of Wikipedia by redirecting the article without consensus. It's obvious why the vote to make you an admin failed. RJII 06:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Default to keep means that an admin won't delete it. It doesn't mean that people are barred from editing it boldly, including making it a redirect. Firebug 06:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Boldly"? Redirecting a page without consensus after a vote that clearly showed that there was no consensus, whether done "boldly" or cowardly, is unethical. You knew that there's no consensus yet you redirected it. When there is no consensus, the default is to keep. RJII 07:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Out of all the active editors on that page, the only one opposed to a major makeover or a redirect is you, RJII. There is no consensus purely because you veto it. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 07:24, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's not true. There were several votes to keep. [2] In other words, there was no consensus. When there is no consensus on the matter, the default is to keep. Wikipedia policy. RJII 07:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep" does not mean "do not edit". And I said active editors on that page, not voters in the AfD. -- Mihnea Tudoreanu 07:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting is not "editing." RJII 07:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

Ok, now it's time to start an RFC against you. Plenty of information out there to collect. I had better get busy. RJII 21:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RJII

Thanks for the heads-up. I followed your link but it took me to a disambiguation page. I did find your request here [3] but frankly am not familiar enough with the process to know what to do next. Is there a specific page for this RfC? Where exactly are others to add comments? Slrubenstein | Talk 21:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Note that I made an extensive comment on the talk page; you may want to refer to it in your complaint. Slrubenstein | Talk 22:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:AUM

Are you aware that in the last couple days, two ArbCom members have specifically reverted that page so as to preserve the guideline status? Additionally, one other previous member who was on my Arbitration commented similarly. The reason you're having trouble seeing the consensus stems from the reality that templates and meta-templates are extremely technical. The average Wikipedian just wouldn't get involved and those that do come to the talk page come mostly because I am challenging their template strategy. The ArbCom members, during my Arbitration, contacted various developers before they came to the conclusion that my assertion was valid (just not my behavior, which is separate). -- Netoholic @ 21:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Netoholic

On the matter of Netoholic, he is almost certainly acting against consensus. This is, however, immaterial in this case - the developers specifically asked that meta-templates be disused where possible, and, well, they trump whatever consensus may form around a given template. Phil Sandifer 06:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, going and doing large-scale reverts of Netoholic like that smacks of assuming bad faith - as I said, he's acting exactly as the developers have asked us to act, and the prettytable templates are deprecated at this point. Truth be told, they ought to be deleted. Phil Sandifer 06:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration has been filed against you

Just notifying you that an Arb case has been filed against you for your reprehensible and disruptive behavior and intentional violation of Wikipedia policy. RJII 18:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Opening a separate case is deliberately disruptive - you should put your statement in the existing one. The arbitrators aren't going to open 2 separate cases to hear these claims. Firebug 18:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's not disruptive at all. Doesn't matter anyway. The two cases were merged into one. I think that's good, because clearly you started all this because you couldn't get your way with the economic fascism article. Your chances of becoming an administrator that you so much desired are becoming increasingly dimished because of your own actions. I don't need a title or badge to make myself feel important and I sure don't need coercive administrative powers to get what I want. RJII 21:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Economic fascism is unprotected

I have unprotected Economic fascism, after moving the article back to mainspace. I would appreciate your reading my thoughts before proceding to edit. If you have any concerns, or the situation gets very disruptive without my noticing, please feel free to contact me. Thanks. Jkelly 17:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good move. RJII 03:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

jguk

What is jguk doing? I've done a mass reversion, but what's he think he's doing? What religion is he? Has religioustolerance criticised his faith or something and provoked that reaction from him? I've asked him to use talk pages, thanks for your input as well. Izehar (talk) 12:41, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Religioustolerance.org

As noted on Wikipedia:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org, the religioustolerance.org website is really no more or no better a resource than my mates' blogs. We really shouldn't be using it to justify anything in the encyclopaedia. The new Wikipedia:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org page allows a centralised place for any discussions about this, and is important on that.

It is imperative if this encyclopaedia is to improve that we require information to be sourced, and to require those sources to be reputable and reliable, jguk 12:44, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Firebug. If you wish to continue this discussion, please do so on Wikipedia:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org. Please note that it's hardly an ad hominem attack on the author of that website to say that he has no academic training in the subject matter at all, or that he writings are not peer reviewed. He's quite open about this on his website - I see him as being a thoroughly honest man, and he doesn't come across as someone who has somethign to hide. He's just not a suitable source! jguk 12:48, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I consider the information on religious tolerance better than the average website on cults and new religious movements, however it is sometimes extremely one-sided. For example, in its articles on Rajneesh/Osho it does not mention the documented poisoning of Salmonella, nor gives it a fair treatment of the critics of Rajneesh and his critics. In other words it cannot be used as a reference though I disagree with removing external links to it. Andries 13:14, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I had a similar discussion with user:Zappaz on the article talk:cult about using religious tolerance as a reference. Eventually the website was dropped as a reference. Andries 13:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop edit-warring and assuming bad faith

Please stop edit-warring. If you have concerns about my edits, please discuss them on Wikipedia talk:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org. Just reverting ends up wasting time, disrupts the encyclopaedia, and resolves nothing. Discussion is far more likely to be fruitful.

It's also somewhat unfair on User:Nandesuka to accuse him of bad faith (and rather inappropriate to call him my sockpuppet or meatpuppet - I've only ever come across him once and that was because he blocked me for four days!). jguk 13:10, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I retracted that inaccurate statement. Firebug 14:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Creators not voting "keep" at MFD/AFD?

I'm puzzled by your comment at Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org indicating that the creator of an article cannot vote "keep" in a deletion discussion. I didn't see anything at MFD about this. AFD only says that the creator of an author should clearly identify him/herself as such - see WP:AFD#AfD_etiquette. Article creators vote "keep" on AfD's all the time. Would you explain the source of your claim? Thanks. FreplySpang (talk) 13:55, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. I guess it goes one way sometimes, the other way other times. Thanks for the quick response! FreplySpang (talk) 14:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Book of Revelation

Firebug

If you would like to discuss whether Bruce Robinson is worth quoting on the Book of Revelation page, please discuss your point on the talk page. Reverting without comment is disruptive, as is trying to bully your view into an article by refusing to discuss the issue. I have reverted again (my concerns are outlined on Talk:Book of Revelation if you'd like to discuss them), jguk 13:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I did discuss the issue on the talk page. You simply refuse to listen to reason on this issue due to some sort of irrational animosity against this website. Firebug 13:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No irrational animosity. I just don't believe that it is appropriate to quote the views of a non-academic with no reputation whatsoever in the field of Christianity in an article on the Book of Revelation. What's unreasonable about that? jguk 13:47, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He does have a reputation in the field. That is my point. Firebug 13:48, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that yet again I need to remind you once again to be civil and courteous with those you disagree [4]. Kind regards, jguk 18:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An assumption of good faith only goes so far. You've exhausted yours. Firebug 18:34, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Totally Diputed

Wow. That sure changes the look of the {{TotallyDisputed}}. But for the better I think. I especially like the fact that the message has changed from "STOP" to "CAUTION". Much more accurate in my huble opinion.

But its gonna take some getting used to... and you're sure to get a load of comments on THAT change, thats for sure!!

Greets, The Minist e r of War ^(Peace) 14:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration accepted

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RJII v. Firebug has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RJII v. Firebug/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/RJII v. Firebug/Workshop. Fred Bauder 21:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kwanzaa

I hate to say it, but... yeh, that article you added to the Kwanzaa article should be kept, at least for a good long while. It is far better than most at exposing the actual origin of the 'holiday'. Thanks much, Firebug.

→ P.MacUidhir (t) (c) 11:23, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not an anon, perhaps; that is, the ip is the user name, since it lacks the following notice(?) El_C 15:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is the discussion page for an anonymous user who has not created an account yet or is not signed in. We therefore have to use his or her numerical IP address to identify him or her. Such an IP address can be shared by several users. If you are an anonymous user and feel that irrelevant comments have been directed at you, please create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users. We also recommend creating an account if you do not want anyone to see your IP address.

Hmm, I'm not seeing that notice with many other anons, though. El_C 15:44, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINT

I want meta-templates to be used, and I want the developers to fix the problem. However, you cannot hold a vote on what you would like server capacity to be. You've been explicitly told from the developers not to try and DDOS Wikipedia to make a point, yet this is exactly what you tried to do. Nice try, but no cigar. Ambi 02:39, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, get a grip. The developers aren't telling you not to use the l33t toys to be horrible meanies. It's their job to make sure the servers and the MediaWiki software work as efficiently as possible. If there's issues with a potential addition, then see that the problems are fixed. Complaining about "malice" is just laughable. Ambi 02:46, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

End your petty crusade against the will of the developers. You cannot negotiate this, and latching onto the "lynx" concern is pretentious. -- Netoholic @ 17:23, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The developers should serve the community, not the other way around. Their intransigence on this issue is unacceptable, and so is yours. They have been told time and again what the community needs, but keep dragging their feet. They deserve whatever they get. In particular, Brion is a full-time paid employee (NOT a volunteer) so I don't see why he can't just be ordered to fix the problem. Firebug 17:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That kind of statement is approaching insolence. I suggest that you find some other project to work on, because, with that attitude, you are obviously unhappy with this project and will rapidly become unwelcome, as well. -- Netoholic @ 17:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really give a shit what you think, Netoholic. Firebug 17:45, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously, Firebug, you need to calm down. Like you, I thought that conditional templates were terrific, until I learned of the damage that they cause. It would be nice if the developers could create a fix, and for all we know, they might be working on one right now. In the meantime, however, it's selfish and irresponsible to insist upon behaving in a manner that harms the site.

Sure, the community would like to use conditional templates, but it's far more important that the site not crash from the overwhelming server load that they create.

Making over-the-top comments like the ones above can only hurt your cause. Perhaps if you cooperate with the necessary phase-out, your polite requests for software improvements will be taken seriously by the developers. —David Levy 17:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm considering opening an RFC against Brion and Jamesday. Their intransigence is unacceptable and highly destructive to the project. Firebug 17:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What is an RfC going to do? Rob Church ^Talk 07:40, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection needed on Kutaragi

Brazil4Linux has returned, again. I think the only viable option is that Kutaragi become a semiprotected article... Daniel Davis 00:52, 27 December 2005 (UTC) (Doom127)[reply]

This has been requested on WP:RFP. Firebug 00:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

{{web-screenshot}} tag

I've noticed you've uploaded some images tagged with {{web-screenshot}}. This tag is not meant to be used for images that came from Web pages; it's meant to be used for images of Web pages (such as Image:Wikipedia.PNG, for example). I've retagged the images below as having no license information. Please edit the image description pages to include information about the licenses these images are under. —Bkell 00:48, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Antipornguy.jpg

Book of Revelation

First, please refrain from personal attacks - comments such as "I've already said all I have to say about your anti-consensus jihad against this particular website" are comments Wikipedia could well do without. It's also a shame that you are entirely unwilling to discuss matters. If you'd care to look on Talk:Book of Revelation you will find that I am not alone in saying that it is totally inappropriate that in the introduction of an article on a book of the New Testament to quote a non-academic who just happens to have a website. You are also aware, I believe, of the considerable disquiet about the website Robinson posts to from Wikipedia:Verifiability/Religioustolerance.org and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ontario Consultants on Religious Tolerance. If we are to quote anyone on the Book of Revelation article, they have to be quotable on that subject - have to have some renown in that field. It could be that they are leading biblical scholars, or have founded a major branch of Christianity such as Lutheranism or Calvinism. Or be the leader of a signifcant denomination, such as the Archbishop of Canterbury or the Pope. We certainly cannot quote a guy who has no academic training and no reputation in the field just because that guy has a hobby and a website, jguk 22:15, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

userboxes

Let's let the RFC run its course - hopefully we will come to some consensus, whether the end result is mass undeletion or mass deletion (of the ones she hasn't already deleted). – ugen64 01:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firebug please stop violating WP:POINT with what you did with Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Cryptic. --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:24, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opening an RFC for abusive behavior is perfectly appropriate. Firebug 01:25, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Abusive behavior, I really don't see any. Cryptic did right in blocking. --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 01:35, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox President

Hi Firebug. I have reverted your revert. To fix the mess, I've create Template:Infobox President old which corresponds to your version. Have applied that to all mayor presidents (including George W. Bush) as an emergency measure. Many presidents already need Netos new parameters so they all broke due to your revert. I can not see how great the damage of all that mess is. I'm currently analyzing. Adrian Buehlmann 02:07, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose (not sure yet) the problem is that Neto edited Infobox President in such a way that all existing uses broke as soon as he saved. The save he did required a new set of parameters to be on the articles, which is impossible to achieve this way without breaking articles, among those the prominent George W. Bush. Neto did a bot run to update articles to his new parameters and in the same time people started to act on broken articles. Your reaction was to revert Infobox President (which I understand) which broke those articles that already were converted to Neto's new parameters. A real mess. I do not know what's broken at the moment. I hope that wikipedians insert Template:Infobox President old as a temporary fix (but only on broken articles!). Adrian Buehlmann 02:29, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A thourough wiki forensic anlalysis will be needed to see what really happened. But that's a job for another time. I need some sleep now. BTW all the best for the new year! Adrian Buehlmann 02:31, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a timeline for you:

18:35, 31 December 2005 -- I finish the major part of my revision to the Infobox.
18:41 – 18:54 -- NetBot updates almost every article (over 100) to use the new parameters. Apparently, semi-protection of the Dubya article prevents the update from happening. I spot check about 20 articles as the bot is running.
~19:00 -- I spot check about 15 more articles and make a couple non-major tweaks to the template.
23:07 -- Firebug reverts the template because it broke one article that he saw.
People start to "fix" the now broken articles by reverting NetBot and leaving messages on my talk page.
02:03 -- Adrian Buehlmann puts the template back in working order.

Firebug... watch what you are doing. While my bot failed on that article, your zealousness caused this minor problem to spread. -- Netoholic @ 08:19, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also my reply on my talk to you. Netoholic, you are wrong. Your 18:35, 31 December 2005 edit clearly broke the prominent George W. Bush article ("one article that he saw" as you write) and other prominent articles because of incompatible changes in parameters. Firebug had not many options to fix your mess. I would suggest that you, Netoholic watch what you are doing. Firebugs reaction was well funded and he acted in good faith. Firebug is right here, though he might have better choosen a more complicated approach to fix that mess. You, Netoholic provoked that yourself. Adrian Buehlmann 10:16, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you really going to try and argue that my revision "broke" every article? My bot had changed all those articles (save one) within about 15 minutes.... It did so 4.5 hours before Firebug came along. How the fuck else are you supposed to make a change to a template's basic structure? You telll me ANY mechanism for updating 100 articles instantly and I'll do it. My bot runs at the fastest speed it can and the ONLY viable strategy is to change the template first then change the articles... If I do it in the reverse, anyone on RC patrol is going to think my bot is breaking articles because they will look broken. I really don't know how you and Firebug think sometimes. -- Netoholic @ 11:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firebug, I suggest that in the future you let Netoholic fix up his errors himself. BTW, template:Infobox President old is now orphaned (not used) and I put it up for a speedy delete. Adrian Buehlmann 10:22, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um... "error"... singular. -- Netoholic @ 11:45, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userboxes

Regarding your post here, I am not too sure myself. There is currently a discussion here. Some of the userboxes were initially deleted by another Wikipedian. Afterwards, another Wikipedian recreated them, but replaced the boxes with a message which was not particularly appropriate, and lead to the second Wikipedian being blocked for 24 hours. It was those userboxes which I deleted. --HappyCamper 02:33, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Legality

Being an admin doesn't make you a law unto yourself. Follow the deletion policy or I'll open an RFC on you. Firebug 01:05, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opening an RFC for abusive behavior is perfectly appropriate; however, your claim that I did anything "illegal" is false and inflamatory. El_C 04:00, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deterrance

What ought to be deterred is the use of templates specifically to attack other contributors, the assumption of bad faith that a declaration that you are "under attack" involves, the siege mentality, the attempt to overwhelm an RfC with numbers instead of with actual points and discussion... do you want more? Phil Sandifer 17:38, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes

But please, let BorgHunter or someone else start it: You've already started up two RfCs and I'm sorry to say it but you making another one might go against people who might otherwise vote in favour :¦ (for example the one on Cryptic) --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 18:08, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Josh,

I see you've been busy recreating templates that have been deleted. This is not the way to go about things. Recreating deleted articles and templates simply because you don't agree with their deletion is disruptive, and as much an "abuse of process" as the actions you're protesting against. Don't do it again. See WP:DRV instead. Cheers, fuddlemark (fuddle me!) 18:12, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

If you choose to re-create any userboxes or templates relating to this "Userbox purge" like the two which have been speedy deleted, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia for 24 hours. On issues of WP:NPA and WP:POINT, this is not negotiable, and this is your final warning. Thanks. Harro5 23:40, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template:User 2006 New Year Day Participate

This page is a personal attack. As such, it has been deleted. Please do not recreate deleted content. [[Sam Korn]] 23:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rollbak done

Look, it's OK to blank your user page, but not OK to blank your talk page. I've rolled back to the last edit on this page. - Ta bu shi da yu 05:28, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My Request for Adminship

Greetings, Firebug! I wanted to sincerely thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with a final result of 55/14/3. Your support means a lot to me! If you have any questions or input regarding my activities, be they adminly or just a "normal" user's, or if you just want to chat about anything at all, feel free to drop me a line. Cheers! —Nightstallion (?) 07:36, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

I hope you come back. Dan100 (Talk) 22:06, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Likewise. But after a good long breakl :-) +sj + 04:53, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don;t know you, firebug, but do try coming back. Arno 09:13, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We are organizing to keep people like Kelly Martin from using their admin power to push POV and could use your help. *Peace Inside 18:51, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you come back, too. The userbox thing was pretty shitty, but I think it's mostly over now. Even if nothing was resolved, I think future admins will be cautious about mass-deletions without discussion. --F a ng Aili 02:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]