User talk:Paul Klenk/Archive1

Hello there, welcome to the 'pedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you need pointers on how we title pages visit Wikipedia:Naming conventions or how to format them visit our manual of style. If you have any other questions about the project then check out Wikipedia:Help or add a question to the Village pump.

I also responded to your email. Welcome! Samw 20:01, 13 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

Usage tip: 4 tildes (~) signs your name & timestamp on discussion pages. Samw 15:26, 14 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

Hi, I got your e-mail but I thought I'd respond here...I hope I didn't sound too sarcastic or bitter on the Village Pump page. I was referring sarcastically to a previous example of someone trying to create a page about themselves, but it didn't occur to me that you wouldn't know about that...sorry :) If you want to wade through it all, it's at Talk:Daniel C. Boyer. The general idea is, if there is no reason for there to be an encyclopedia article about you, you shouldn't make one. If there is a reason, someone else will eventually create an article about you. But you can always put anything you want on your user page! Adam Bishop 22:51, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC)

That's Evil saltine's user page! What's wrong with it? The things on it are often added to articles, so he probably has them there so he can access them easily. I've got similar things on User:Angela/useful stuff. Angela 01:54, Oct 19, 2003 (UTC)

Er... thanks Angela :-) I don't get what's wrong with it.. maybe it's the name... Evil saltine 01:57, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hi. Welcome to Wikipedia. Why does Evil saltine's User page make you mad? RickK 01:52, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

---

Space cakes

First, I was all for the deletion.

Good good. I didn't think that one would be controversial.

Second, it made me hungry for Space cakes.

What are space cakes? Did you write that article?

Lastly, I am compiling a list of possible Baby names

Please don't!!

including 'Crown Prince Frederik of Denmark' and 'Space cakes.'

Those would be in your list of baby names? Hmmm. If you ever have children, please let someone else name them. :)

Angela 18:20, Oct 20, 2003 (UTC)

---

Mother Teresa

Hi Paul. I think it's great that you have dived in to try to help on this, but I don't think that this is a good or an appropriate way to resolve this conflict. This sort of separation usually occurs when there is a clearly separate topic. And just my $0.02 in general, you might want to slow down a bit on this one -- I think your being honest and forthright, but it's adding fuel to the flame. -- BCorr ¤ Брайен 03:51, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Bug reports

I didn't mean report at Wikipedia talk:Bug reports. I meant read the Wikipedia:Bug reports page for instructions on how to report it. You need to go to Sourceforge and write about it there if it hasn't already been reported. You might want to take it off the village pump too. Angela 02:07, Oct 26, 2003 (UTC)

Words beginning with the letter M, suitable for teaching children the alphabet

I got rid of this section because I don't think it's very encyclopdic - have you put similar sections on other letter pages? --Alex S 02:44, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire

Hi. Changed the link on my talk page. Usually, all redirects should point to the same thing (otherwise they do not work properly), but the links that go to the redirects are usually not fixed. Anyway, thanks for cleaning up. -- Chris 73 Talk 06:39, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

Welcome back

I was reviewing changes at genericized trademark and noticed you're back. Sorry I have no particular interest in those biographies. Just wanted to see what you were up to and noticed a typo. Welcome back! Samw 00:48, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non sequitur (absurdism)

Hey Paul, not really an issue for me either way; I thought I'd just slap some cat's on it to remind editors that they ought to be there and then let someone more qualified sort it out. (I think I may also have labelled it with a generic "stub" on the same principle--no idea what it falls under, but the stubsorting elves usually come along before too long to straighten such things out).

Non sequitur does seem closer to the list of rhetorical devices to me than the list of literary devices found under cat:narratology, but that was only a first impression; feel free to change however you like. Anyway, regardless of where it ends up, nice article! Best, --Dvyost 15:53, 20 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Test.

...message. 63.24.135.74 15:29, 21 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Peanuts

Thanks for your kind message. Your pictures were a great addition to the Peanuts page! As you already noticed I am a big fan of pictures, especially for such visual things as comics and animation. Hopefully I'll get around to adding some screenshots of the Charlie Brown animated specials sometime soon. Qutezuce 09:57, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

Who's making a promotional job ad on a TV program?

Sock Puppet Policy

first of all I'm not that dumb sock and I resent any implication that I am, if you don't belive me check my contribs, check with almost any other user, or you can just take a look at my current RFA and ask any of the voters from that. On the issue of the reversion of the talk page I wasn't targetting your sockpuppet tag and I was actually going to put it right back in a second, in reverting I was reverting a number of other questionable edits and your sock tag addition just happened to be an edit layed inbetween a bunch of erroneous edits. Sorry for accidentally removing the tag but don't overreact it was all in good faith, oh and just so you know, the reason I was able to revert so quickly is that I'm using CDVF to watch edits and userpage edits by someone other than that user are immediately visible. Jtkiefer ^T | @ | C ----- 04:39, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Paul, Jtkiefer really is not a sockpuppet. He's a well-established Wikipedia editor. I think you're beginning to overreact to this Imdaking business. FreplySpang (talk) 05:09, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

:: I already explained to you how I reverted so quickly, I keep up with recent changes and I noticed a bunch of edits to another user's userpage so I reverted. Now cease labelling random users as sock puppets. Jtkiefer ^T | @ | C ----- 05:17, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Please stop accusing these established users of being sockpuppets. This is highly disruptive and inflammatory behavior. Thanks. ⟳ausa کui ^× 05:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute

Please do not make personal attacks on other contributors. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. Some users may remove personal attacks, and you may be banned from editing. Comment on content, not on the contributor. For further help, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.123.204.81 (talk • contribs) 05:28, 25 August 2005

Paul Klenk

Please stop. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.123.204.81 (talk • contribs) 05:28, 25 August 2005

You have been blocked

You have been blocked for 12 hours for making personal attacks. If you want to make more constructive and civil edits, you are welcome to do so when your block expires. Thanks. ⟳ausa کui ^× 05:37, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked from editing for vandalism of Wikipedia. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires.

You have been blocked for adding erroneous sock puppets on pages of users that obviously not socks, for example me and Freply neither of us being socks (he's an admin and I'm up for RFA, both of us have over 2500 edits and are reputable editors). Between you and the IP's that's your issue and if you honestly believe that they are socks you are welcome to bring it up at Administrator's Noticeboard where an admin can investigate it and will block them indefinately if they really are socks, an admin will also be happy to block them if they are violating wikipedia's rules by vandalizing so I suggest you take it up there after you are unblocked. While you are blocked you are still able to edit your user talk page so I will be watching this page at least for the length of your block in case you wish to respond, or you can find me for another 3 or 4 hours this morning on irc at #wikipedia on irc.freenode.net. If you have any questions don't hesitate to ask, I realize that this was all a good faith attempt at trying to stop sockpuppetry and vandalism but I think you went a bit overboard. Jtkiefer ^T | @ | C ----- 05:44, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

Not sure if you're right about "good faith" - he called me a liar (or "intellectually dishonest") and "fixated" [1] simply because I did not not buy his statement that a policy issue I raised was "not an issue". It was a pretty minor matter in itself, but given this context I would call it an escalating pattern of incivility at the very least, if not intentionally disruptive behaviour. Guettarda 06:02, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.K

Im not a sock puppet i had a username,Unke, i didnt want any more, so i redirected it to my current one,Imdaking. stop this.

My response

I would like Jtkiefer to show me where I have edited the page of FreplySpang. I'd also like to know how it can be considered vandalism, by tagging the user pages of Imdaking, Unike, and Chriss P. when it is obvious they are sock puppets. Jtkiefer even warned Imdaking on his own page that he would be sockpuppeting if he continued to use both identities. My tagging of Jtkiefer's page was in good faith, because he/she reverted my tag, KNOWING the user was sockpuppeting -- how could I not assume it was the same person? SOMETHING STINKS HERE, FOLKS, and don't think I'm stupid enough not to see it. I'd like some answers, people. Ryan, I have sent you several messages by private e-mail. I hope to get substantive replies to my questions, including, "who have I attacked?" Paul Klenk 06:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I warned him, as long as he no longer edits with his old account it isn't sockpuppeting, he has been informed of this and has accepted not to edit with the old account(s) anymore. Jtkiefer ^T | @ | C ----- 06:36, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

To Guettard

Guettard, I would be happy to stand behind my statements to you on the Coulter talk page. Read the whole paragraph -- I was questioning your ability to contribute to the page in the spirit of NPOV. Here, I will quote YOU: "Um, no - Al Franken is a partisan, Ann Counter is a nutcase. Slight difference. Every second word out of his mouth isn't a lie." Your words, Guettard. Is that the attitude of someone with NPOV? CAN YOU HONESTLY sit there and accuse me of incivility? I think anyone who reads my comments and yours can see who is being intellectually dishonest. I stand behind them. Paul Klenk 06:25, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Simple answer is yes. NPOV is not required in a Talk page, it is required in an article. Show me one edit on AC's article by me that could be considered not NPOV. Please do.

My comment was made in response to a question as to why there were quotes on AC's page which made her look nutty, while there were not similar quotes of AF's page. Simple answer why the quotes were not on AF's page is that he doesn't supply nutty quotes, while she does all the time. Slight hyperbole maybe, but in no way contrary to NPOV. You chose to take that out of context, and try to apply it to a totally different issue. A policy issue. That might be something that your favourite phrase, "intellectual dishonesty' applies to - taking my words out of context and twisting them to mean something very different to what I said.

I can, in perfect honesty, point out your incivility. And not by taking your words out of context. You accused me of being a liar. That is incivil. You did so when I was quite clearly not doing what you said I was doing. That is also incivil. Then you chose to (undeservedly) place "sockpuppet" tags on Imdaking/Unike's user pages. The pages clearly stated that they were the same person. Are you going to put sockpuppet tags on Jimbo's page, since he has, in the past used "Jimmy Wales" as a user name? Harrassing users is incivil. When Jtkeifer reverted your actions (which were pretty close to vandalism) you accused him of being a "proven" sockpuppet. What proof? You had the slimmest of "evidence" (if you want to call it that), but you chose to slander a well-known and well-respected editor. I would call that incivility. When FreplySpang (a very polite, civil, hard-working editor and a very nice person) tried to explain your mistake to you, you ignored what he had to say and stuck to your original attacks. Major lack of civil behaviour there. Finally, your personal attacks and incivility caused Ryan Delaney to block you. I'm sorry, but the evidence is against you. I gave you the benefit of the doubt initially, was willing to dismiss the whole AC thing as an isolated event. You have proven that it was not, that it was part of a pattern of behaviour. If you continue like that you will fall foul of other admins. I don't mean that as a threat - I have no intention of blocking you. But such lack of manners and respect for your fellow editors will lead down a predictable path, and waste a lot of people's time and energy. Your life and everyone else's life would be much easier if you treated your fellow editors with some amount of respect, and stopped making wild accusations against everyone else. Give it a try and you will find people here much nicer to interact with. At the very least, try to not to be so insulting to people. Guettarda 07:13, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Awaiting replies from Ryan and Jtkiefer

JT has invited me, on this page, to communicate. I have done so and am waiting for a reply,

Ryan, by blocking me, left a page with a message telling me I can communicate with him by e-mail. I have done so and am waiting for a reply.

I have a lot of questions about why I have been blocked, but Imdaking, who is obviously using two sock puppets -- Unike and Chriss P. -- has not been blocked. Imdaking has identified me on his page in a "List of Annoying People."

Are you people serious?

Paul Klenk 06:36, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To Ed Poor

I appreciate your attention to this dispute. Please note that I am NOT putting this matter to rest, as Jtkiefer attempted to indicate on your talk page. I am taking this up the ladder, and I will not be intimidated. I would like to discuss this with you after I have been unblocked. You can also communciate with my by private e-mail.

Thanks for your assistance.

Kind regards,

Paul Klenk 06:39, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To Jtkiefer

So, you admit he's a sock-puppet, and he was still using the Unike account, but he doesn't get blocked, but gets away with a warning? Even after using the Unike account to leave me messages denying he's sock puppeting? And I, on the other hand, tag his page with a sock puppet notice, which you and he both revert -- and you call that vandalism and block me? How do you justify this? I can't wait to hear your answer. Paul Klenk 06:43, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Evidence that Imdaking is also Chriss P.

Check the history of this page, and you will see that while logged in as Imdaking, he has deleted a message purportedly written by Chriss P. Do you need further evidence of sock puppeting, people?

Ryan, Jtkiefer, I'm still waiting for some answers. Can either of you honestly say that you've treated me fairly, or that I was not SPOT ON in detecting Imdaking's abusive behavior? Perhaps an apology would be in order...

Waiting,

Paul Klenk 07:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Again, to Guettard

So, you betray your own hateful, vitriolic attitude towards Coulter on a TALK page, and think you can separate that from your ability to write and edit, and make decisions about, her article. You really have some gall. I'm not buying it.

By the way, since it's obvious you've not been paying attention to facts, let me point out that Imdaking has REPEATEDLY denied sock puppeting as Unike. He even used that identity to come attacking me for edits I made on "his" poorly written article.

Guettard, you're unwise to invoke Jimbo's name in defense of what Imdaking is doing. It's in bad taste, and your credibility is shot. Go ahead and defend Imdaking, for the record. Paul Klenk 07:23, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Further to Guettard

When Jtkeifer reverted your actions (which were pretty close to vandalism) you accused him of being a "proven" sockpuppet.

Imdaking is an ADMITTED sock puppet (and of course he alternatively has denied it), and Jtkeifer WARNED him on his page to cut it out. So, how is it vandalism for me to revert the page back to my version, the one containing the Sock Puppet Tag? Explain it. I'd say it was stupid for a "well-known and well-respected editor" to come to the defense of such a person.

What proof? You had the slimmest of "evidence" (if you want to call it that), but you chose to slander a well-known and well-respected editor. I would call that incivility.

I don't think it was slim evidence. I'll explain: Three identities, Imdaking, Unike and Chriss P. -- all of who are the same person -- were, in the space of a few minutes, deleting the tags I placed on their pages, AND making smart remarks and attacks about the editing I was doing on the Dirty Jobs page. And Jtkeifer joined RIGHT in, removing the tags and accusing me of "attacks". I'd like to see some evidence of those "attacks." You can call it whatever you want. Jtkeifer abused his long-established credibility to come to the defense of an immature editor, when all I was trying to do was follow established protocol for tagging the page and editing his work. You can have a problem with that all you want, I really don't care. And you can whine all you want about my so-called incivility. I personally don't think you should talk about that. You can bully all you want. It won't get anywhere with me. Paul Klenk 07:32, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To: Mr. Klenk

I told many times that i'm not a Sock Puppet. And im not any more or any less immature that you are or any other USER. Also I never asked anybody to be on my side and/or against you. You are distracting me from contributing. Again...I'm not a "Sock Puppet" Imdaking

No less immature? Oooh, that's bad. Guettarda 18:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Please do not make personal attacks on other contributors. Wikipedia has a policy against personal attacks. Some users may remove personal attacks, and you may be banned from editing. Comment on content, not on the contributor. For further help, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Thank you. 69.111.121.197 18:55, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note from Paul Klenk: Please note that the user making the comment above ("Please do not make personal attacks") is from IP address 69.111.121.197, the same address from which the following edits were made on the talk page of Imdaking:

ADDED COMMENT 13:08, 25 August 2005: "Im not a sock puppet... Re-directed my old name (not in use) to this one"

DELETED SAME COMMENT 13:15, 25 August 2005.

Paul Klenk 20:44, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Note about user Chriss P.: This user is also the same as Imdaking and Unike. He made the following comment on the talk page of Jtkiefer:

ADDED COMMENT 01:10, 25 August 2005: "I notice Paul Klenk add you as a SP. well im sorry and i dont know how he add you as one. I have contributed, and hes adding me as a sock puppet because I had a username i didnt want anymore so i redirected it to my current one."

Then, logged in as Imdaking, he made the following comment on the talk page of Jtkiefer:

ADDED COMMENT 01:49, 25 August 2005: "About Paul Klenk.(I was added as a Sock puppet) Im also not a sock puppet. If i new a way to delete my other username i would but i cant so i redirected it to my current 1. But im not intending to be a sock puppet in any way.Imdaking"

Paul Klenk 21:08, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:

I was told not to use Unike anymore. So I'm not, if you notice, I have not logged in to it anymore. They know already so I will continue using IMDAKING from now on. I was never intending to use it as a sock puppet, O.K(Okay) and i dont add those "templates"! Other people use this computer that use this website... not only me. And they are the ones who have my back. Beacause we contribute. and im not trying to attack anybody.Imdaking 03:35, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do not copy my quotes please

Like you said, you cant copy anybody elses work or text. Its not accepted here so it will be deleted.Imdaking 05:39, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

vandalism

if you are having problems with your userpage being vandalized you should post it at WP:VIP or WP:AN/I and an admin will notice it at one of those places and you are right to assume I'm a bit annoyed with you at the moment thus my not responding to you until now and my rather terse response. Jtkiefer ^T | @ | C ----- 06:17, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

As I said on my reply on that user's talk page I consider all matters with you closed and refuse to have any part in them, I am now limiting myself to pointing them in the right direction if they wish to file a complaint, normally WP:AN as I'd do if you asked me the same thing. This is over and done with end of story. Jtkiefer ^T | @ | C ----- 08:16, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

VfD procedure

Hi. May I suggest that you consult Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Log/Today#VfD footer for the correct procedure for listing pages for deletion? You don't seem to be following it 100%. Cheers, Bovlb 08:29:17, 2005-08-26 (UTC)

Sorry to be terse last night. The three specific points I noted were: using subst with {{vfd}}; using {{vfd2}} to start the actual vote page; and, most importantly, listing the vote on Wikipedia:Pages for deletion/Log/2005 August 26 using {{vfd3}}. Without the third point, the votes aren't being publicised properly. I note that jpgordon and Gadfium have added three of your VfDs to this page for you. Bovlb 14:10:54, 2005-08-26 (UTC)

Wiki brah

Thanks for your comments. I'm not criticising your tagging of his articles for deletion - some clearly should be deleted, others I think have value but I understand others may not see that. I do think Wiki brah is a genuine contributor who needs to have the rules explained to him in more detail than most people.-gadfium 09:19, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(Reply)

• I was looking at the recent edits list and noticed someone mentioned talk page vandalism, so I decided to check it out.Dbinder 15:54, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

answering your note on my talk page

Hi Paul. I see other people have pointed you to Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress and WP:AN/I. I have to say that I do not think Imdaking is as much of a problem as you do. He is a new user who has made some mistakes. In my view he is not being deliberately disruptive, i.e. vandalizing. He hasn't edited with the "Chriss P." account or the "Unike" account in more than 24 hours. Removing material from your talk page was wrong, but not necessarily Wikipedia:vandalism, more like a misunderstanding. I think he just needs to learn his way around. If he develops a clear pattern of deliberate disruption, that will be the time for punitive action. For now, polite guidance will be more helpful. FreplySpang (talk) 18:52, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

VfD process

I saw that your VfD practice page has not been edited for a couple of hours so I speedy-deleted it as a user test. I can't tell what you were doing wrong, and I'm not sure how I can explain it any better than the instructions on the Vfd page already do, but... The third step is to add the new subpage you've created to the listing of VfDs for the current day. When you do that its contents will automatically be displayed there. If you go to the instructions on the Vfd page, at the very bottom it lists the three steps. In the area for Step III, it says "follow this edit link". If you click on the words "edit link" it will open the current day's Vfd listing for editing. Scroll to the bottom of the edit window so that your cursor is at the end of the current day's listing. Type (or paste) {{subst:vfd3|pg=page name}}, except replace "page name" with the name of the page you are nominating. It has to be exactly the same capitalization, spacing and spelling. (The line you just added doesn't look like the other lines on the page, but that's okay. The template you are using will change it so it does.) Now press "Show Preview" to see if the result looks right. If it does, save the page, otherwise make sure you are using exactly the same page name you used in step II. Hope this helps! FreplySpang (talk) 19:05, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Once you get that down, we'll get you started on the process for reporting copyright violations like Dirty Jobs. :-) I don't think it's necessary to put it through the process now because the article has been overhauled. But, in the future it would be better if you reported plagiarism instead of rewriting it in place. Thanks! FreplySpang (talk) 19:21, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

More on VfD Process

I am the User:TheDeletator. I am a potential ally of yours in your Campaign to exterminate and uproot all the nonsense from this website! Come join me and together we shall make the trolls and idiots suffer!!

I've been watching your actions for a long long time my friend and think that with the proper grooming you could become an useful ally in my Crusade. But my question is that why is a supposedly urbane New Yorker like you having such a problem properly following VfD procedure? It is just three simple steps. I drill my colleauges in those steps daily. Just three steps! Dont' continue to look like such an idiot! ERWACHE!!!

And I have to ask you a small other question: BIST DU JUDE? <font=7>TheDeletator 21:24, 26 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vancouver Public Library

Thanks for the feedback about the VPL branches. Sorry about that - I am excited about the Wikipedia and went a little far. I will keep it simple. Take care!

User:Alex Ramon

Immature?

you wont be able to go on your own disscussions, talking about immaturity(I'm 20+, you just havent seen the real world on how adults really are 'cause your stuck in the computer all the time!), as it is my talkpage i have freedom to say or type what ever goes in to my mature mind(feedback), and if you cant handle it then thats your problem!, dont visit my talk page. 19 year old immature people like you that do dumb things, and if they do article on sex then thats good, as long as there are no people like you in this world than thats better off. Im starting to doubt you live in new york. People like that wont survive in New York, I say you live in Mississippi. Imdaking 01:18, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gather up your receipts...

...and bag all your unopened party paraphenalia for the long, sad drive back to Paper Warehouse. The celebratory fete honoring inductees into the Royal Flight Academy has been cancelled, and disappointed guests will have to wait a few years to see whether Your Friend and Mine will one day be bestowed with the honor and responsibility of launching inter-Internet missiles at anything and everything that flits into view of his airspace. Next time, kids, remember: You've got to learn to fly before you earn a chance to spy. Paul Klenk 03:10, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Site Map

Paul, go ahead and add whatever you can to site map. I started it to get rid of the red link on my current pet, search engine optimization. Jehochman 03:44, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I actually avoid creating site maps. A really well organized site serves as its own sitemap.

Will it play in Peoria?

Thanks for the heads-up -- hadn't noticed that article. Quicksandish 03:50, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Deletion practice

Hi. I regret that other commitments prevented me from responding to your request sooner. I can generally only spend time on Wikipedia after my daughter is asleep. Your sandbox appears to have come and gone, so I assume you've sorted out whatever you were trying to achieve. Happy editing, and please let me (or WP:HD) know if you have any other questions. Cheers, Bovlb 05:32:59, 2005-08-27 (UTC)

Because she is primarily a propagandist author/pundit and has even admitted she doesn't work in the court system anymore--Lamrock 08:03, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If she is "no longer working in law," then there is no validity in stating she's an attorney, especially in the openening statement. I'm not expressing a POV. What is it you don't understand here? Prove to me that she's still an attorney--Lamrock 08:17, 27 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deletes

They're showing up to me. If you voted Delete on the individual page then clicked on the Back button, it won't show on the full page unless you either re-enter the page via a link, or clear your cache. And you're welcome.  :) Zoe 08:17, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

request

Just that I'd ask nicely for you to remove that 19 year old comment from the page since that could be construed as a personal attack against me and I have done nothing to deserve it, rest assured that I won't bother you again about it if you decide not to remove it but just thought I'd ask nicely, one editor to another. BTW, I've seen some of the work you've been doing lately and wanted to say keep up the good work. Jtkiefer ^T | @ | C ----- 08:50, August 27, 2005 (UTC)

Re: desire to ban/block users who make bad contributions

On many of your VFD votes, you wish to ban or block users who make bad contributions (ex. vanity pages) which are soon deleted. It seems that you are "jumping the gun" a little regarding when they cross the line between being a newbie and being disruptive (for which they can be blocked). See Wikipedia:Blocking_policy. Andrew pmk | Talk 01:46, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You know what?

Yeah I read that whiny nonsense! sheesh...Well I check out your latest conrib, good writing. Check out mine. Plus I looked at the "Block Log" and see that User:Lucky_6.9 blocked our friend Wiki Brah today. Haha! TheDeletator 04:10, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's a speedy

Yep, it's a speedy, but I've actually heard of them believe it or not! --HappyCamper 05:20, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Incomplete VfD process

You'd tagged Chi-Chi (Scarface) for deletion, but hadn't created a VfD page. If I didn't think it'd be fine merging the page instead of deleting it, I'd finish the process myself. But I thought I'd let you know in case you wanted to finish listing it for deletion. --Mairi 06:19, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Morgan Turinui

In regards to the Morgan Turinui page I think it is wise of you to check the page before making claims as to whether it should be deleted or not. I have a fair idea that you do not know very much about Rugby Union and I think it best that you only speak about matters you understand. Morgan Turinui played in the Rugby World Cup 2003, I'm sure you must recognise the importance of a world cup even if you do not understand rugby itself.

Your attitude as a contributor

I have replied to your request for help at my user talk page. I also revised Dirty Jobs a bit.

I suggest you tone down your hostility to younger contributors.

Cheers. Uncle Ed 10:46, August 28, 2005 (UTC)

What's the story on your many new and deleted articles?

Just wondering -- if I can help, let me know. Hate to see someone get tons of deletions. Paul Klenk

I think you may have misunderstood some messages. I'm an administrator and sometimes I delete or undelete articles that others have created. The messages you see relate to those. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 17:40, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VFD

Straight to the point: Ease up on nominating for VfD, please. You appear not to investigate the slightest bit before putting articles up for deletion. I am thinking specifically about the UK Subs article. Punkmorten 19:28, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, thanks for the answer. I apologize for the way my initial message was worded, as it came out as an unfair generalization. I am delighted to hear that you intend to be a little less trigger-happy in the future :) Punkmorten 20:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

VFD on Tokpela

Hi, Paul. You nominated Tokpela for deletion, but I nominated it a day before you. So, I have redirected your Pages for Deletion page to the one I made a day before, and copied the votes over. --WikiFan04^Talk 16:11, 28 Aug 2005 (CDT)

I believe you

Imdaking was upset with the wiki-deletes. I guess the Imaking is venting at you and myself. The articles contributed by Imaking are either Votes for Deletation or edited for some reason. I guess the user contact me for advice.

But it's a shock to see that many of the Wikis are going through a mid-life crisis deleting articles. Surely, A person of good nature will expect this insanity. Yeah, we know this? I am surely experiencing the same shock! LILVOKA 19:44 28 August 2005 (UTC).

Will it play in Peoria?

Saw this compliment about an article I put up about a month ago, and that your user page is linked to it. Thanks! I got a marketing degree at Bradley University, based in Peoria.

I now do market research in silicon valley - Peoria's historical test market origins have always had a soft spot for me, took advantage of its unique status in various course projects (some friends outside the region don't even think the actual town exists!) - wanted to do my part to put up an article on its origins, along with personal insights I offered as narrative. also created various redirects based on the expression. -- Barrettmagic 20:15, 29 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

About Peoria

While you were tagging this article, I was adding a few new items (someone else just started it). After testing the title, I came across a very well-developed article already exists -- you may not be aware of it. See Will it play in Peoria?. Paul Klenk 03:48, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Image for Deletion

• Image:Shuffle.jpg
• Image:Twopaperfaces.jpg
• Image:Nycbuginvasion.jpg
• Image:Fixingdino.jpg
• Image:Simonswsjart.gif
• Image:CharityOLCcd.jpg
• Image:Holmesplaybill.jpg
• Image:Bsuwinter.jpg
• Image:Smilingkeston.jpg
• Image:Kestonintraining.jpg
• Image:Chip-and-penny.gif
• Image:Microchip-pet-id.jpg
• Image:Microchip-injector.jpg
• Image:Chip-scanner.jpg
• Image:Collartag.jpg

These images have no source information and may be deleted. Imdaking 03:10:14, 2005-08-30 (UTC)

Yep

Yep the draft is ready at the link I emailed you. Check it out please. TheDeletator (talk · contribs) 5:09 Aug 30 2005

Renaissance Technologies

Heh, no, not me; must be one of the other "Alan Au"s out there... --Alan Au 07:20, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

IN RE Helicopters...

Thanks for comments on my talk page, and for taking my comments on the VfD page as intended. Understood. Hey, editing should be fun. Like learning. Andrewa 01:39, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See my reply at my talk page. Andrewa 16:32, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RE:IMAGES

The images I uploaded where not changed the day I marked your,unknown source, images. If you check the image history I DIDNT clean up mines. And all I did to my page,Imdaking , was reorganize it.Imdaking 03:40:35, 2005-08-31 (UTC)

4 point rule

From my talk page: Do you a link to this rule? I'm interested in reading it. Thanks, Paul. Paul Klenk 03:15, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes. It's at Jimbo's userpage, a few headings above my question. --Titoxd 03:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paul

I see you blanked the Helicopter use in Brasil page. That's not good, and has been quite rightly reverted by another user.

I also see at talk:Helicopter use in Brasil you have quoted my advice as the reason for blanking the page. Assuming you mean my replies to you at User talk:Andrewa#IN RE Helicopters..., please read them again, especially the bit that says without editing the page up for deletion. Also you might heed my two previous requests (so this is the third) to sign your posts on my talk page. Andrewa 20:03, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Jesus Fish on Cars in the U.S.A. was deleted by User:Jpgordon; looks like he's on top of things regarding Brah. android79 03:33, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Hagiographic

You said: Wow! Otherwise, nice work on the paragraph. I can live with it. klenk 07:30, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was the phrase "simultaneously delights..." that got to me. :) --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 07:34, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, that would have gotten me to raise my blue pen, too, because her style neither outrages nor delights me (it just makes me do a Jon Stewart-ish, "Eh?"). It's just too sweeping a statement that divides everybody into an either/or category. And of course the original left out the criticism that she distorts facts - I searched down in the article and it's not really addressed anywhere else either. That's ultimately why I added that portion in and toned down the language a bit. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 07:39, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'm an admin - I saw the alert, but it seemed to me primarily a content dispute. I think he's breached 3RR already, so I'll leave a warning note. If he reverts again, I'll block, but I caution you not to break 3RR as well. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:17, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My opinion, as an editor, would be that the remarks are a) unsourced, b) needlessly salacious, c) irrelevant and probably d) original research as well. That being said, it's not vandalism, per se, so yes, 3RR applies. The same would hold as far as I am concerned if someone added that kind of information to John Kerry, and in fact, someone tried once, about an alleged illegitimate child. Not that this is quite the same, but I'm just wondering why does it need to be mentioned that Maher has joked about having sex with Coulter? --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:31, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Three reverts are the limit. 4 within 24 hours would be breaking it. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 08:44, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I understand it, it refers to specific versions of pages, but other admins may have other interpretations. To be safe, just don't do any more than 3 reverts per page per day, whatever they are. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 11:38, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

do unto others

I see that you have, for the third time in a few minutes, added an unencyclopedic remark about Ann Coulter's sex life. You are disrupting the page, and editing not out of a spirit of NPOV, but to deliberately provoke others and bait them to revert your work. I am asking an Admin to address this problem. klenk 08:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Paul, you have removed this reference as often as I have added it. It is true that Bill Maher has joked about his sexual relations with Ann Coulter on his TV show, I saw the episode myself and I'm sure there are plenty of references to it online. There is more than "joking about" it going on between the two but nothing that can be cited here. I searched the wikipedia policies and could find nothing violated and there are plenty of articles that mention the sex lives of various people. As you didn't try to remove the description of Maher being a "friend" of hers and as your "balanced" description of Ann that leaves out her factual distortions you are being clearly POV here. --71.112.11.220 08:18, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Minor note on Coulter

Hi, well you're right. I can never decide how minor is something when i edit a page. Nevertheless, I had problems getting the coding right, I wanted the link to show up with a description. Still can't do it :( --SpaceMonkey 18:55, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Mo' Brah BS

I do seem to attract the more, um, esoteric editors, do I not? Seriously, I still can't thank you enough for help on this particular one. We persist. - Lucky 6.9 19:10, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"I move discussions quickly"

In other words, don't bother writing things here. --71.112.11.220 19:38, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry, Paul. This individual is taking an all-expenses-paid wikivacation for one week. Dropped by to give you the latest Wiki brah brouhaha. Check out the history of Dinner and a Movie as well as the talk page. Our Brazilian certainly writes about a lot of US-based programming, does he not? - Lucky 6.9 19:55, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Coulter vandal

Interesting...this guy might be an admin?!? I hope not. Actually, the guy left word on my e-mail politely asking to be unblocked, so feel free to blame me. If he continues the POV-pushing, let me know. I'll block him and bring the situation to a bureaucrat's attention. Thanks for keeping me up to date! You can also blame me for unblocking the lovely and talented Wiki brah until his RfC is ended. A few other users thought it was only fair. - Lucky 6.9 05:40, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Will do. Just thought I'd kill a bit of time playing "wiki-cop" before hitting the sack. Why is it so hard for guys like that to get the simple concept of "NPOV" through their skulls? - Lucky 6.9 05:45, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Damn, am I ever sick of people treating this site like a sandbox. - Lucky 6.9 05:53, 4 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Wiki brah saga

Paul, I can't thank you enough for weighing in on this. Yours was one of the most insightful letters I've ever seen on my talk page. There really is a certain level of mediocrity disguised as fairness, that is to say, every shred of information is sacred to some. I have always been bold in how I edit...and I've been dragged across the coals more times than I care to count. Now we have this gentleman, and I have to tell you, I can't deal with him alone anymore. I felt bad a couple of months back during a situation with a similar user. Drove me nuts until he admitted his condition and I promised myself to tread lightly should a similar user arise. This poor "Wiki brah" wretch is screaming for attention, but he's doing it in the worst possible way. If he's a cocaine-snorting, butt-banging playboy, I'm a hard-boiled egg. One way or another, this has to stop both now and in the future and it'll take users with real cojones to make it happen. Thanks again for your support and for your kind words. - Lucky 6.9 16:20, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

GOOD stuff on WB's page, by the way. Almost forgot to thank you for telling it like it is. I'd appreciate your weighing in further over on the RfC. If you can make your case even half as eloquently as you did on that talk page, this'll get the attention of every arbitrator on the site. - Lucky 6.9 16:30, 30 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Tree sitter extractor

Liquefaction of the tree sitter extractor article appears incomplete. Did you forget to complete the VfD process? Thanks -- Kjkolb 11:04, September 5, 2005 (UTC)

No more copters...?

Somehow, I get the feeling that you aren't too crushed about that article going away, Paul.  :) Here's another slightly, um, distinctive user that is way overdue for an RfC in my opinion: User:[e-mail]. My work account is on Road Runner, so I'm familiar with the suffix...he's supposedly in San Diego...but the account is invalid, the guy makes strange, half-true or patently untrue articles about "kiddie" subjects and has never responded to a single user. Wanna take a peek and see if this individual is worth an RfC? Thanks. - Lucky 6.9 03:37, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Wish I knew where that utility was. Last time something like this happened, I damn near quit the site for good. We determined that User:B-Movie Bandit was a bot because of the shifting proxies, consistent editing style and total lack of response. This guy, OTOH, is no bot. - Lucky 6.9 03:57, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, you rock. I looked at the contribs but not at the namespaces. Off I go... - Lucky 6.9 04:06, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, and he's edited within the last few minutes. I'm giving him one more chance to respond. Each and every one of his edits except one have been to the main space. Some OK, some not so OK. Just too weird. - Lucky 6.9 04:12, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: How do you make sandwiches without bread?

Are you joking around? Because I'm not too sure what you mean by that (I didn't make that article in the first place, I just tagged it for speedy). Jaxl | talk 01:45, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Heh...Ask Smart Guy if he knows...he made it, after all. (I knew that tagging mistake would come back to bite me, but I didn't know it would come so soon...) Jaxl | talk 01:51, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And, just fyi, coeliacs (who can't eat wheat products) will often use lettuce in place of bread, often in a wrap-style. So it isn't impossible. -Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 00:02, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RE:Images for deletion

Images you have not given a source to, have been removed..::Imdaking::. ^Tlk | E-M 02:32:38, 2005-09-08 (UTC)

Nycbuginvasion.jpg

Hi, I see you uploaded Image:Nycbuginvasion.jpg. Please go back and add copyright tags for the image so that it doesn't get deleted. Thanks. -GregAsche (talk) 02:33, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your prompt response Paul, I have added the GFDL tag to the image, and for future reference when uploading images, a list of copyright tags is available at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags. -GregAsche (talk) 02:56, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

Hey Paul, I just saw your messages on my talk page. I was just reminding you to post images tags when you upload an image. If you have any more questions, post them at my user talk page, I'll answer them tomorrow as I am leaving for the night. -GregAsche (talk) 03:42, September 8, 2005 (UTC)

RE:RE:Ifd

Images have an unknown source..::Imdaking::. ^Tlk | E-M 02:47:04, 2005-09-08 (UTC)

RE:Help

I suppose I could at the moment..::Imdaking::. ^Tlk | E-M 02:52:43, 2005-09-08 (UTC)

What do you have so far?.::Imdaking::. ^Tlk | E-M 02:55:46, 2005-09-08 (UTC)

So, you must not see anything... The Images you uploaded have no source info.(where you got it from). All you have is a dicription of the page.

Hmm...interesting messages immediately above.  :) I'll have to take a look-see at the regs regarding images. I've never really become involved with them so I don't know how much of a help I can be. - Lucky 6.9 03:14, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

These Images:

1. Image:Fixingdino.jpg
2. Image:Simonswsjart.gif
3. Image:CharityOLCcd.jpg
4. Image:Holmesplaybill.jpg
5. Image:Bsuwinter.jpg
6. Image:Smilingkeston.jpg
7. Image:Kestonintraining.jpg
8. Image:Chip-and-penny.gif
9. Image:Microchip-pet-id.jpg
10. Image:Microchip-injector.jpg
11. Image:Chip-scanner.jpg
12. Image:Collartag.jpg.::Imdaking::. ^Tlk | E-M 03:24:38, 2005-09-08 (UTC)

I had internet connection problems so I wasnt able to continue until today, I saw the Holloween picture and I think it's okay. I will check to see if the rest of the pictures on the list need attention.::Imdaking::. ^Tlk | E-M 18:17:39, 2005-09-08 (UTC)

What ever seems OK to wikipedia, its OK with me, but I rather careless about these "policies", it would make it less stressful( there was no policies). Either way, you asked for help so I'm doing the best I can..::Imdaking::. ^Tlk | E-M 19:08:35, 2005-09-08 (UTC)

??? are you some councelor or something,"address the two goals", I already did what I can on helping, "I dont understand..." I clarified it if you can re-read the previos message, If you still dont understand anything, then I can't help you..::Imdaking::. ^Tlk | E-M 20:40:54, 2005-09-08 (UTC)

Bread & Puppet

Thanks for the note about your NPOV tag at Bread & Puppet. I must say I think you've overreacted a bit, as most of what's there is strictly factual and well-sourced, but I have made an effort to clean up the few bits of notably biased language you noted ("official paranoia," etc.). Can you explain (on the article's Talk page) why you moved it to Bread and Puppet Theater? I find the article title Bread & Puppet preferable because (a) the group always uses the ampersand, not the "and," and (b) the article covers the Press and other activities which are not part of the theater company. -- Rbellin|Talk 20:57, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Catch phrase

Thanks for revising the tag on the page. Since I placed it there, I refactored much of the article. If you think the tag is no longer warranted, feel free to remove it. Many thanks. Paul Klenk 01:48, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The page reads cleanly to me, so I changed the generic cleanup tag to {{unsourced}}, since references seem to be the only remaining problem. Thanks for your efforts, Beland 23:28, 10 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Idiocy

OK, I've gone and removed those last two asinine rants from your talk page, left word at Wiki Brah's and Imdaking's talk pages and have motioned on the Wiki Brah RfC discussion page to put a hearing on the fast track. I have enough stress in my real life at present and this is supposed to be fun. These guys aren't helping. Please stay in touch with me on this. I'm beginning to regreat reinstating his account and truly sorry that you're going through this. I will keep an eye on those two. If they so much as sneeze on your talk page, I'll stop that flaming so fast they won't know what hit them. Hang in there, New York! - Lucky 6.9 05:48, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Imdaking

User:Imdaking is now being discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Imdaking if you want to add anything. BlankVerse ∅ 16:18, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, I've commented on Imdaking's request here: User_talk:Fernando_Rizo#A_reply_for_Paul_Klenk_and_User:Imdaking. Fernando Rizo T/C 00:17, 12 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your prestigious award

[Chortling out loud.] What a rockin' award. Thank you very much. Bishonen | talk 21:08, 11 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Being There

You're most welcome re: the additions/corrections I made on the Being There page. I agree that it would be quite a nice project to create an exhaustive and accurate list. I watched the movie again this past weekend for the first time in several years, but not all the way through. Are all the references on this page really in the film? http://imdb.com/title/tt0078841/movieconnections Because they're not all on the BT page here now. I don't know where "Sanford and Son" is in BT, for example. This IMDB list has the obstensible name of the yoga program, and it's true that you can see a shot of "Days of our Lives" when Chance is talking on the phone in the office at the Rands. I'll let you add for now. Glad you appreciate this; it is exactly the kind of nerdy project I enjoy.

Oh, one more thing: I was pleased with myself some time ago when I figured out where the "Basketball Jones" cartoon sequence is from (it's a cartoon of a Cheech and Chong song). Evidently BT is the only place you can find that cartoon. If you google Basketball Jones and Chong, you'll find lists for Cheech & Chong fans, encouraging them to buy the Being There DVD if only to be able to see this Basketball Jones cartoon!

Moncrief 08:14, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

just wanted to say

looking over the ann coulter page and was reading your comments such as message to liberals/conservatives... thanks a lot for adding a positive atmosphere to the political pages, I really do appreciate your efforts towards making the article aspire towards both neutrality and civility. --kizzle 17:20, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Have you gotten into contact with BigDaddy yet or has he ignored you? --kizzle 23:14, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From BigDaddy's recent comment responding to you on his talk page, he seems somehwat unwilling to follow your advice. If you do give up your efforts (which are definetely noble to say the least), just endorse the RfC, but not before you feel you've exhausted avenues of communication. --kizzle 18:26, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wiki Rules

Hi. From what I understand, archiving is no problem whatsoever. You can do it as much or as little as you want, as long as there is some record of the legitimate comments. (And, you are right, harrassment, vandalism, etc on talk pages can be deleted). But, Imdaking simply deletes items from his talk pages, which, from what I understand, is a no-no. Hope I covered all your questions. Wikipedianinthehouse 22:58, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice

Thank you for letting me know about this, but I think I would rather not be involved with it. ⟳ausa کui ^× 03:42, 13 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BD777

[2]. I would appreciate your help. Please pay specific and focused attention to exactly what I did to the page in question. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:25, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That, and I cleared out his two test warnings (3 and 4), in addition to contacting the people who left said warnings, trying to clean off his slate entirely. Hipocrite - «Talk» 19:06, 14 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Re: comments on deletion page

Generally, I'd be referring to an interpretation of a debate somewhere. But I'm not sure what you're referring to specifically? Do you mean in my deletion log, or on a particular page somewhere? -Splash^talk 19:05, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, you mean those three AfDs I just added to today's log. I'm relisting them from the Sep 5 log. Personally, I'm not too happy actioning a debate where the only happenings are that two people happened to agree with one another. The outcome of deletion debates, particularly those resulting in deletion, rests on the notion (fuzzy as it is) of consensus. I'm not personally of the opinion that two people agreeing with one another constitutes a consensus. If more than 2 people are involved (as long as the debate is not split), then I'm happy that things are unlikely to be any different if I relist it. It's not at all uncommon for the nominator and first AfD editor to agree with one another but a later editor to point out some key fact and swing the debate; thus my requests that more people study a particular AfD nomination before I delete it. Hope that helps. -Splash^talk 19:14, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That said, I'm open to persuasion that I should act on a debate regardless of the number of participants. Part of my reason for relisting is to see if so doing generates any comments to me that I should or should not be doing so. -Splash^talk 19:16, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You think I'm being purposefully disruptive to satisfy my own evil ends? I did look at the articles, as I always do when I'm closing AfD discussions. And I don't think they have much chance of survival. And I will absolutely not repost them if they are deleted — I'm surprised you think I'm such a bad editor as to do that kind of thing. I could have made my own comment, you are right. But the fact is that I was closing the debate (or notclosing it, as it turned out) rather than particpating in it and I judged that consensus had not been reached on what should be done with the article owing to the lack of participation. If I should be the admin who comes to close the relisted debate, and there is a consensus to delete, I will do so without hesitation. Note that over the last few days I've relisted quite a number of one-participant AfDs, and they all now have very clear results. So far, you're the only person to suggest I shouldn't be doing so, and I will of course take your feedback seriously. But I reiterate that I am not pushing some Machiavellian scheme to repost poor articles. -Splash^talk 19:32, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I had thought it reasonably clear, given the timestamps of the comments prior to my italicized ones, that I had come across an old debate that I was not happy closing. That phrasing was just the one I used today. I think last time I said somethign like "more eyeballs needed, but tell me if I should just be closing these instead". So I'll make sure I use more specific language in future. -Splash^talk 19:42, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a parenthetical comment to the 3 I relisted explicitly indicating that I'm relisting an old debate. I hope that makes things clearer. -Splash^talk 19:50, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Advertising is not a CSD criteria, sigh.

You listed Quark city for speedy deletion. But ads are not a speedy criteria. I've removed the tag. It is a clear advert, so I'm sure AfD will take care of it. JesseW, the juggling janitor 20:27, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

VFD Participation

I, V. Molotov, hereby give you this Working Man's Barnstar for active participation of Wikipedia's Votes for Deletion.

Take care, Molotov (talk) 21:07, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the cocktail! Molotov (talk) 21:25, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Response to your message: See my talk page. I say those IPs shouldn't be allowed to add articles as most of what they add is vandalism or worth deletion. Secondly, the text now is fine enough especially the following: "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it. " Thus justifying if an article is to be deleted or not, etc. Molotov (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I responded on my talk page. ; ) Molotov (talk) 22:03, 15 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More Wiki brah

Take a look at what this guy left on my talk page. I have had it. - Lucky 6.9 02:38, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am so relieved you're online and that you've seen this nonsense. I've blocked him for 48 hours on the "no personal attacks" criterion. E-mail address is at work, though. Can't access it until tomorrow. - Lucky 6.9 02:44, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Karl Rove/September Survey

For future polls, don't ask three questions... ask one, or better yet don't ask anything at all. Create a proposal and ask for support so that users may if they wish vote, support, object, merge etc... and elaborate if necessary. This is more efficient and consistent with voting elsewhere in Wikipedia. Since its early days you can still change it. - RoyBoy ^800 15:45, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Karl Rove

Paul_Klenk said: I am asking past editors of the Karl Rove page to weigh in on a survey. If you can spare a couple of minutes, please visit this page: Talk:Karl Rove/September Survey, read the introduction, and answer the three questions that have been posed. Thank you.

I'm not sure. I think it's safe I stay out of this one. Aside from what I submitted to the article, I know little about the subject matter, and feel it easier to not weigh into something I don't really know. I'm sorry. Best of luck that the survey gets the results you want. Bobo192|Edits 17:26, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Got your message. However, I will not be tolerating "BigDaddy"'s rants any longer. I'm sure you've seen his RFC page, etc. The poster is in flagrant, abhorrent violation of any Wiki code of conduct, and I will call him exactly what he is: a troll, a vandal, and a coward. Is there no point where his behavior gets him banned, or are Wiki editors obliged to waste time obliging every harebrained screed he types? Once Wiki can get him to cease personal attacks, I will tone down my rhetoric. If you haven't already, I recommend you try to get him to change his attack-mode ways. In any case, enough is enough.

Rove/Plame stuff

Nice handling of the Rove/Plame issues. I'll be interested to read your final merged article on the whole thing. android79 19:01, 16 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3rr

paul, i can understand why you are upset. there is a lot of tension on karl rove right now, and though i'm not really much involved there, i know from experience how maddening that can be. that said, i do think it's pretty questionable whether ryan broke the 3rr.

it's perfectly fine to 'undo' someone's edit if you really are adding something substantive to the article that is relevant to the 'undo'. in a sense, any edit to existing text is an 'undo' as it changes someone else's work, but that doesn't make it a revert. another one was removing a cut-n-paste from a copyrighted source, that is perfectly appropriate and doesn't really count as a revert. so, that's only 3 at most (which is allowed). some of the remaining 3 are also a little dubious, e.g. reverting one word (footnote).

the 3rr is a relatively new one (< 1 year), and there was a very lengthy discussion about how to do it. the bottom line is really whether the reverts are in 'good faith' or part of an edit war. the two i cited would, at least to me, clearly fall in the good faith category. so anyway, while i do sympathize with your frustration, i wanted to clarify the spirit (and actually letter) of the 3rr so that you didn't get more frustrated. in other words, there won't be a block, but it won't be because people are 'siding' with her position on the article. sorry for the long-windedness here, but thought a bit more explanation might be helpful since you are new.

best regards & welome to the wiki, Derex 05:02, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ok, just my two pence. by the way, i agree with your response to 69.121.133.154 about the comma & kizzle part. it doesn't matter whether one technically uses a rollback (the *.154's standard) or manually changes the text. the relevant part is whether the 'undone' portion is substantively changed in a good faith way. cheers. Derex 05:22, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, look up a section! I thought you knew I was an admin because I just blocked that accout today. :) btw, most admins should say so on their user pages. Of course I don't want anyone to be angry. Here's how it goes: that 3RR page is specifically for reporting violations to admins so they can either issue blocks, or decide not to. In that vein, the "comments" section is only therefore people to make comments about that, as in when the admin says they've blocked, or when the offender disputes that there was a violation. It is not the place to carry on a disscussion about the person, just the violation. As I said, take it to a talk page or RFC. It is certainly not the place for you to impugn the character of an admin, one of our most respected users. Nobody's covering up anything and you didn't catch anyone at it and no one's admitting anything. That's what got me. So, you just need to cool it, and don't go to the page for requesting user blocks if you don't wan't one. Try reading WP:RFC. And surely you see why there was no block, correct? No one's glossing over anything. Dmcdevit·t 07:28, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You said to Kate and the anon (and possibly me) that they were all "glossing over," and then in big bold letters admit that I was right or something like that. That's just not how we talk to people civilly here. (Try not to come off like a paranoid person, too.) Dmcdevit·t 07:48, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Goodnight...

Just a note to say I am going to bed --- at 6:30 AM in the morning...

There may be a lot of discussion in the coming hours which is addressed to me. Please don't think I am ignoring you if I don't respond. I'm just getting some sleep. Kitties and I will be back this afternoon after our quiet cuddle. paul klenk 10:40, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Page Diffs

Paul -- I just remembered seeing you say you weren't sure how to provide difflinks, so I wanted to take a second to show you. It's not hard. Basically, all you do is click on a page's "history" link. Select the "old" version and then the "new" version you want to demonstrate the difference between, and then click on "compare versions." That'll bring up a comparison page. Just copy the link in your browser and paste it into the page like this: [http://linkhere.com]. It'll appear as an external link [43] or such as that. Not hard at all. Hope this is making sense. · Katefan0^(scribble) 18:05, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, on the 3RR page it should include a timestamp. To do that, just put a space and copy the time from the diff page within the brackets, like [http://linkhere.com 18:05, 17 September 2005 (UTC)], for 18:05, 17 September 2005 (UTC). Dmcdevit·t 18:21, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sleep time...

It's 5 AM Eastern on Sunday, and I'm going to bed. Will talk to you all later. Good night. paul klenk

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fake color articles

Because of the complexity of the vote at the above AfD, I have attempted to break down the individual votes on the AfD talk page. If I have misunderstood your vote with respect to any of these, please correct it. Cheers! -- BD2412 ^talk 12:54, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Response

Paul -- thanks for the note on my talk page; it wasn't necessary that you take all that time to explain your views, but I appreciate that you did just the same. It's a sometimes unfortunate fact of Wikipedia that often people act without taking time to talk about the roots of their views, which can lead to many misunderstandings. Let me answer a couple of your points.

First, I must confess that I am confused as to why you made a report on the 3RR page if you weren't seeking a block. That's the point of the page. Next time you see a 3RR but don't want a block effectuated, please don't report it there. That's the sole purpose of the page -- not to be a court or place to seek some kind of judgment from on high about user conduct; that's what the ArbComm is for. There's no need for you to continue to explain on this point; it's done and probably best left to rest. I understand that you weren't familiar with the process; it's really OK. This place has a pretty steep learning curve; even I am still learning about certain things, after nearly 10,000 edits and almost a year of involvement with all sorts of articles and debates.

Let me be clear about one thing -- you didn't "seem to call my actions into question," you did. You suggested that I was somehow favoring RyanFreisling in the matter by not blocking her as a result of your report, then you essentially discarded my decision and asked for someone else to evaluate your report. Maybe I'm misunderstanding, as I know you were a bit confused about the 3RR policy that night, but you seem to justify your stance even now by saying you "don't kowtow." My reputation is here is good and I consider your suggestions on the 3RR page essentially a smear against it. I'm not sure how else I'm supposed to take this.

Regarding your mentoring BigDaddy, good. I'm glad to hear it and hope that he will improve. As to the rest, I agree that the IP in question needs watching. But there's no way for anybody but a developer to tell whether or not an IP is linked to someone else's account, so for now everyone should be careful about accusations of sockpuppetry. Best · Katefan0^(scribble) 16:14, 18 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Stobbster?

Okay, in the AFD debate for Stobbster, you made some crack about how it could have been saved by an inverted triangle.

That's the sort of subtle joke that just forces me to read the article, to try to figure out what you meant. So I did, and I still don't get it.

Explain? DS 15:07, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

um

This is really minor, but... um... could you go back to that comment you left on my page, and sign/datestamp it? It feels tidier that way. DS 20:18, 19 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

trouble @ the Biff Rose corral

I'm posting about Biff Rose. Oyu may well be a friend to the editor willmcw. In that case I guess this is useless, as all the people I've found to be friends with willmcw seem to simply back him without paying any attention to what he might be doing erroneously. See the talk page, and how he reverts edits when ever he chooses, but demands that others not do the same when he is out of line and brekaing wiki rules and practices.Jonah Ayers 06:25, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever I may be doing "erroneously" I'd like to know about. Anyway, thanks for your participation in "Biff Rose". The more editors of that article the better. Cheers, -Willmcw 09:21, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that there are any "newbies" involved in this topic. But otherwise I agree with everything you said. I'm a relative newcomer to this topic, and cannot fathom its controversy. Like any factual article, it's better to have it shorter and more accurate. Anyway, it's much better than it was a few months ago. Cheers, -Willmcw 09:54, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, there have been reversions and talkpage deletions, but I've seen worse. The peripheral issues seem to be multiplying, but they are all based on one article so it doesn't seem to be a major problem for the project. I agree with you about the difficulty in determining reverts. I can't offer any suggestions for improvements in the system, but if you have any I suggest that you push them forward. I've encountered the same difficulty with other articles. -Willmcw 10:06, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

stew

thanks for the laugh about rove stew, sounds toxic to me, but i did relish the image. couple comments.

• i noticed on gator1's page that you felt there was a trend of dumping negative material into articles. you are not alone in that view; people of all political views here feel that way, and correctly so. except it's not just articles about conservatives; i'm sure you can imagine what the clinton or kerry articles were like a while back. it's essentially impossible to remove material here, even trivial stuff which obfuscates an article, without being accused of censorship (or 'electioneering'). i'm not commenting directly on rove here.

• i used to view this as the fatal flaw of wikipedia. material comes in, but never goes out, leaving a cluttered mess. but, with strategy, it can be turned into a strength. i have developed two approaches: 1st add a little more material to give a neutral context; sometimes this ends up being a net win for the article. 2nd if that tends to overclutter an article, then you probably have enough material for a good daughter article. i already know you would like to do that with rove/plame & i agree that is probably a good solution. (i just prefer waiting a month for fitzgerald to wrap it up). the end result is that you keep the main article on point with a judicious summary, but those interested in the scandal get a fuller exploration than can be crammed into the main page. based on my experience, there is just no way that BD is going to win his fight to remove substantive material. but, you can probably get some of it moved to an article where the criticism discussion can be more fully and fairly developed. again, i now see that as a strength.

• BD is his own worst enemy. he's a walking personal attack on himself. by that, i mean that he causes his true arguments to be ignored by his terrible demeanor. people who have been around here a while have little patience for that sort of behavior, because it eats up an enormous amount of time. just look at how many pages of talk & rfc have been devoted to the topic of bd's attitude. now, imagine if all that effort had been devoted to his arguments. similarly, think how much effort you've put into defending someone who won't even defend himself.

• BD is not being persecuted for his political views, it's about his attitude. proof: there are lots of very conservative editors who are well-respected here. ultimately, i don't care about BD; i care about writing an encyclopedia & having some fun. and if BD does not become a positive contributor to that on net, then good riddance.

• reputations do matter. and rightly so, for they are based on experience.

• you clearly have a strong sense of injustice & a desire to help the oppressed. you seem like a liberal at heart to me ;) Derex 17:50, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hasenpfeffer, Inc.

Thanks for that! A bit of Yiddish always brightens my day! As you might imagine, it's (lamentably) rather thin on the ground here in Ireland. RMoloney 20:05, 20 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello good sir...

I saw your comments on some anon's user page and thought I'd ask you something. Do you really think people without a login name are worse than people with one. I'm not saying that anons don't cause more trouble, because they clearly do, but why do you not stand for some anon editing (User:71.112.11.220). Is it just the fact that this one was a vandal, or is it something against anons being able to edit in general? I was just wondering, and I hope this note doesn't sound too mean, because that was never my intent. Also, in regards to your quote on your user page (the killing a man, etc.), there was a recorded occurance of a man in Jamestown who when starving, killed his wife and kept her body in his little icehouse. He ate everything but her head because he said that would be weird, so to speak. I'm not sure you really care about any of this, I just thought I'd pass a little historical information on to you. Cheers. --Lord Voldemort ^(Dark Mark) 17:22, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I sent you an email, I hope you get a chance to respond. Also, I cannot recall much about the Jamestown incident, it's just one of those things I remember from a Colonial America class I took back in college. Maybe I'll go back and try to find my notes about it somewhere. And Thanks for your timely response RE:anon users. Messages make me happy too. Cheers. --Lord Voldemort ^(Dark Mark) 17:43, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just checking to see if you got the email. I suppose you don't have to respond, I just want to know if you actually received it. Thanks. --Lord Voldemort ^(Dark Mark) 19:56, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

LOL!

Dude, did I actually type those things...? AAARGH!

Yes, I really did need the chuckle. Wouldn't be the first time I was quoted out of context.  :) - Lucky 6.9 17:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good question. I say go for it! It can't be any worse than the nonsense I got sucked into somehow. You'll love this. Go to Ashida Kim and read the votes for deletion as well as this guy's message page. I've gotten a few e-mails from him ranting about his article...and I never heard of him before now. Apparently, neither have several other users. What fun! - Lucky 6.9 17:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ain't he cute? All this wonderful technology at our fingertips. We can literally access the world from our desks. Then we get...this. Woefully unpoetic. - Lucky 6.9 18:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

Paul:

Why is it that the RFC main page has headings that are in favor of the the RFC read generally "Users who endorse this summary" and "evidence of disputed behavior", but those that are against it are labeled as "Gator1's outside point of view" and "Paul_klenk's evidence of improved behavior" Seems like it's a obvious attempt to marginalize the opposition and make it sound like a fringe minority with no support. What do you think? Should it be changed to make it conform to the others?Gator1 02:12, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I had no intention of doing anything or ever saying anything on those pages ever again. I just wanted to know your opinion on the subject. Their formatting seems biased to me that's all. Thoughts?Gator1 02:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and Nightshade seemed eager to rescind the motion to suspend didn't he? He certainly has an axe to grind...but weight it's not personal, I forgot!Gator1 02:24, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your encouragement, but I've said my peace and don't want to devote any more time than I already have to it. I just want to get back to editing and I encourage everyone there to do the same. RFCs are not why we are here and Hip and Kizzle and BD have already made up their minds about what they're going to do and not to do and there's not much any of us can do change anything (than what we've already done). I hope I haven't disappointed you. I have a great deal of respect for you. See yah.Gator1 13:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on worst of threads

What exactly are you looking for? Links to one section on a particular article or parts of articles or??? I don't quite understand. Plus, why wasn't this dropped on Katefan's talk page or someone else's? Not questioning it. I just find it sort of strange. --Woohookitty 10:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BG777 Worst-Of Threads

All of the quotes in the RFC link to diffs. Those diffs contain complete context. The coproponent spent a great deal of time compiling the evidence we did. I don't intend to rehash this at this juncture. Hipocrite - «Talk» 11:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Hip. I was hoping I would not have to go into length, but here is what I am asking for and why:

I am looking for a section in time of talk page history where BD gave one of his "worst-of" performances -- not a link to one specific comment. Perhaps you could indicate this with a beginning link, and tell me how many hours I should look at in that thread, say, 10 AM Sept 3 to 8 PM Sept 3. The problem I am having with tons of isolated quotes is, I have to do all the work to find out the context of the remark. I cannot evaluate someone fairly based on a ton of quotes, taken out of context, listed on a page. If it were you being evaluated, you would want someone to know why you said what you did, who you said it to, what the comments followed, etc. etc. The RfC does not provide this very well. It is asking people to "take their word for it" that, in context, the remarks were unjustifiable.

I took a couple of hours to carefully review two very long threads of conversation involving BigDaddy. I did a very detailed analysis, comment by comment, on each side of the arguments. Although I saw many of the behaviors the RfC complains about (and I believe BD should shape up), his comments really didn't seem so bad compared to what other people were slinging at him. Mostly he was making colorful but well-worded arguments, defending his case, and objecting that people were not addressing the arguments (they weren't). Instead they were objecting to how he was wording them, and whining a lot. I couldn't bring myself to search and search for something with more weight. That's why I asked you to. Out of respect for the process, I thought it only fair to let someone from that page really prove their case. Tons of isolated quotes do not prove this case. A link to one comment on one thread is nice, but I still have to wade throught the before and after of the debate -- to see context. paul klenk ^talk 11:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But, if you must [3] has a total of 25 newlines, 11 of them blank. It starts the personal attacks on the third word. Hipocrite - «Talk» 11:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Hip. First, read my lengthy discussion above. It really tells you what I am looking for. Not a "single edit" (however long it may be) but a long thread I can look at, seeing everyone's comments on all sides, over a period of time. In the second example you provided, I was actually readhing that thread, so fortunately I know what the contents are.

I can't tell you how much I wish I could just speak to you on the phone. Honestly, I can type and type, but a person to person conversation would be so meaningful right now. Would it offend you if I begged for twenty minutes on the phone?

I really appreciate what you have been doing to help me, by the way. paul klenk ^talk 11:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not interested in a phone conversation. I do not intend to provide more detail or discussion untill the individual who the RFC targets either continues in his poor behavior or corrects it. There is no more slack, no more negotiation, no more arguemnt. This is done. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

[4] is the thread in which I determined this user needed serious intervention. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:31, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have provided a well-intended, partially accurate, but horribly flawed RfC. You are asking all those judging it to do your work for you: Do their own digging through endless threads looking for dozens and dozens of out-of-context quotes to try to put those quotes in context.

I asked you for the worst, you gave me the most recent. I asked you for a lengthy discussion over a period of time. You gave me one moment in time. I will live with it.

You asked him not to use so many new lines. He uses more than you like. You will live with it, Hip. With all due respect, I absolutely cannot believe you would even bring that up with respect to an RfC. It just takes my breath away. I know you have a thing for formatting, but it can be taken to an extreme. I think you may have just surpassed that extreme.

You have called his comment about Wales "ignorant and uninformed." But that can only be determined from context. You didn't provide it. But I assure you, if BD had ever used the words "ignorant and uninformed," those words would be included -- out of context -- among the dozens and dozens of quotes in your RfC. And you would expect fellow editors and arbitrators to do what -- make some sort of determination from that? What would you be asking them to do? Dozens of quotes are not weight, they are volume.

The above is essentially a microcosm of your RfC. In it you can see many of its flaws. I truly know you are well-meaning, and BigDaddy has screwed up. He uses the word "girls," which is inappropriate, and people flip out like their world is falling apart. Neither side in this will get satisfation. It doesn't exist. Neither side will never agree on the terms for getting to a resolution -- so how can they get there?

A group of editors is writing about some of the most hated and controversial political figures in the news. For their sources, they have to rely upon a media that is driven by sensationalism, allegations, innuendo, rumor, and accusations. We have to sort through that junk, as historians (which is essentially what we are). Up until now, editors of these disputed articles have failed to use impartial sources, failed to balance the articles, and failed to provide a broader overview of their subjects -- just lots and lots of snippets and quotes, gussied up to look at an article. You can never get a good article by starting with the material we're using. It'll never happen.

Such articles can never be written by a group of editors whose baseline for "getting along" is the baseline provided by the most sensitive and touchy among them. John Cleese once talked about this as the reason we have political correctness. The touchiest people are the ones who tell everybody else -- the moderate, well-adjusted, thick-skinned ones -- what the standard is for behavior. Cleese was brilliant in his characterization. paul klenk ^talk 13:07, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You write too much for me to reasonably respond to. BD777 will clean up his behavior or we will go to RFAr. There are not other options. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:20, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ps: Click the "next edit" link to see the thread. This is how we do things here.Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have written too lengthy an RfC, with too little context, for a reasonable and fair arbitrator to respond to. You still have options: You could do the work ahead of time, instead of asking arbitrators to slog through piles of out-of-context quotes, to find out the full context of his remarks. paul klenk ^talk 13:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An RFC is a community request for comment. An RFAr is a structured process with authority figures. The RFC forms a basis for the RFAr. I would have moved the vast majority of the RFC to the talk page, but someone objected to me doing that before, and accused me of vandalism. That person was you. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:28, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You know what, I just went ahead and did it. The RFC page is now clean. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:40, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We have already settled that matter on your talk page, you and I, have we not? Is there something else we need to talk about there? Please say so if there is. You and I had a great conversation, we covered a lot of ground -- everything, I thought. I guess I am wrong. I'm happy to do address anything that needs addressing. I would go into more detail here, but it just saddens me that I would have to. Please think about what your comment may have undone.

My comments took up the "vast majority" of the RfC? I'm not so sure that is true. What was the percent, mine vs. everyone elses? But it isn't just the length of the RfC that I think is a problem -- it is its inability to provide good summary, good analysis, and good context. It relies too heavily on characterizations of comments, or comments out of context. If you had read my thread above, you might have seen that.

You have so many valid things to say about BD. I just don't think you've provided the best kind of foundation you needed to do it.

If there is a way I can summarize my section -- for isntance, providing links to a larger page -- I would be happy to do so.

Please read the current RFC. As the extranious crap was excised to talk, I believe it provides a clear structure as to what BD777 needs to do. Specifically, he needs to stop making personal attacks. Hey, that's what I've been saying all along! Perhaps if he just said he was going to do that, and did it, or just did it without saying anything about it this would all be over? Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

New section for Paul and Hip

Let's use this formatting: You take the left margin always, I take one indent in, always, back and forth. Thanks. The ever-narrowing margin is driving me batty.

Every time I browse over to WP:VIP I know exactly why things are not settled, and why, when I came in to clean up the remainder of the RFC page yesterday, I was unable to do so, and why I had such hesitancy now to do so. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please tell me specifically what you'd like me to do with respect to the WP:VIP. Thanks. paul klenk ^talk

"I apologize for misfiling this here - I misunderstood a text move. There was no vandalism. ~~~~"

Let's also be clear here - there is community consensus that BD777 needs to change his behavior. You, in fact, joined that consensus He has not changed his behavior. (You contend that he makes fewer personal attacks of less severity - I, of course, insist that he stop all personal attacks, forever, without fail or exception. Please do not take this time to complain about the behavior of a user that is not-me. If you have a problem with a 3rd party, please file an RFC.) For the purposes of getting comments from the community, the RFC succeded - every signatory - EVERY ONE - agreed with the co proponents, or signed on to "Bigdaddy is rough around the edges and certainly tends to get hot under the collar," or "I'm still not sure that he understands that talk pages are primarily for working on the article, not for registering one's indignation with the other people involved, but he seems to be headed that way. I certainly would not want to see punitive action at this time, but he's certainly not on my mental list of editors I tend to trust to do the right thing." Every. Single. One. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A bit of reforatting -- see my note above (sorry if it wasn't clear). You're flush left; I'm one indent in; you're flush left; I'm one indent in.

Do please tell me what I need to do with respect to WP:VIP. Do I need to go back there and summarize what you and I talked about, and tell them the matter is closed? Is that what you're waiting for me to do? If there's something else, besides that? Please tell me.

You're right in all your assertions above; thank you for noticing that I've agreed with you, and forgive me if there's something else I could be doing for you but am not. I'm sorry, I'm not justifying what he does, just saying they need to be placed in context, and pointing out that, all things aside, this experience will never, ever satisfy you. If that answer doesn't resonate with you, we can just drop it -- it's okay. I'll leave it alone. paul klenk ^talk

Please do summarize that you do not believe any vandalism occoured on VIP, or blank the report entirely. His actions do not need context at RFC. He needs to stop making personal attacks. There is never an excuse for personal attacks. They need to just stop. His last personal attack was made on September 17th ("girls"). He was obviously trolling on the 20th, but I ignored that also. He's back, and gaming the system to push his pov today, but I don't care about that. On his next personal attack, in the absence of him promising to stop on the RFC (in which case I will grant him some leeway, as I will let him wipe the slate clean at any time) I will go to ArbCom. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"You can always go to democratic undergound or daily kos and spew your anti-Rove paranoid hatred." [5] I will file the RFAr by days end. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I left a comment at VIP, and please, please feel free to let me know if there's a hint of anything else I need to do, or discuss, to ensure this matter is forever closed. If I also could delete the entire section at VIP (am I allowed to do that?), or get an admin to, I would.

I think part of our talking over each other -- just a bit -- is because I may not hold to a view of what RfCs should expect to accomplish and how they should be worded, formatted, sourced, etc. I haven't seen enough of them to have a bigger view of how Wikipedians feel about them. I think this may cause me to come across as a bit obtuse to you -- am I right? paul klenk ^talk 14:57, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, not obtuse. Most users, even those who participate, see RFCs as a judiciarry process, for one to defend oneself from the onslaugh of assault they are undergoing. It's ok that they violated WP:POINT, because someone else violated WP:AGF. It's ok that they violated WP:NPOV, because they were right! It's ok that they... because.... This is not helpful. An RFC is an intervention - much like against an alcoholic - "We, the community, think that you are doing wrong. Look at all these people who think that you are doing wrong. Stop doing wrong!" This RFC was poisoned almost instantly as another conservative POV warrior showed up and decided it was liberals vs. conservatives in RFC land. Then the liberal POV warriors showed up and did the same thing, turning what was formed as a request that someone stop making personal attacks into yet another extension of the liberal conservative flamefest that persists due to actions of editors like BD777, and their POV-pushing, dishonest, system gaming, personal attacking ways. The second BD777 stops making personal attacks, I will gladly take my name off the RFC. He shows no promise of doing so. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A new section

I really hope you're not talking about me, because I NEVER made any such liberal vs conservative statement and I defy you to show me where I did. My arguments have always been centered around the fact that BD did not deserve the filing of an RFC for his poor behavior (i.e. it wasn't poor ENOUGH to warrant it) and it was actually motivated by a personal vendetta by people who just didn't like him (conservative orliberal I couldn't care less) and the way he refused to acknowledge the RFC. I really hope you weren't talking about me and if you were...just SAY it and don't act all vague and mysterious "conservative POV warrior" lol.Gator1 15:22, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You advised him not to respond. You consistantly reinforced his decision to continue his personal attacks. You diminished the weight of the RFC, because you thought that just a few personal attacks were ok (in contradiction to official policy): [6][7][8]

In summary, if you had not shown up to the RFC, it would have been far more likley to curtail personal attacks. I don't begrudge you your desire for Wikipedia to be a battleground, but you hurt this process, and the encyclopedia. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:45, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gator1 and Hip, you are totally welcome to use this page for this discussion; if you wouldn't mind, though, please create another section for it, then keep it in that section. I think Gator1's questions are valid and should not be vaguely dismissed. Kind regards, paul klenk ^talk 15:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing you said had anyhting to do with caling me a "conservative warrior" you just assumed that and hae failed to prove your previous statement. I stand by what I said and did and don't feel it made anything more or less likely and if it hurt the RFC......good...it's pure BS and doesn't deserve to go anywhere. I didn't hurt Wikipedia, that's pure exageration on oyur part. Be ashamed. If anythin this entire process hurt it, becuase it took time away form editing to attack some guy for not beign nice....what a joke! BD's behavior needed to change, the RFC helped that....move on and don't talk about me without using my name, I don't appreciate it. It's two-faced to be quite honest. I'm done here unless you want to continue this nonesense.Gator1 15:55, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not interested in responding to you anymore. Your entirely self contradactory statements about personal attacks (for thee, but not for me), your statement that the RFC was "pure BS", contrasted with your statement that "BD's behavior needed to change" pretty much show that you don't really know what an RFC is. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Guess you told me! Have fun. It's very entertaining watching you and the others get more and more and more angry....can't wait to see how it ends. (oh and still waiting to see how I was a "conservative warrior" but I guess that just mor rhetoric and exaggerations.....I won't call it a personal attack and file an RFC though...who would such a thing?! ;)Gator1 16:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Read the Above, and Place your links here:

Place links in this section:

• State the name of the page
• State the time of the beginning of the lengthy discussion.
• State the time of the end of that discussion.

Sample:

• Karl Rove Talk
• 9:35 AM, Sept. 3
• 6:10 PM, Sept. 3

Thank you.

paul klenk ^talk

BD

I was asked to provide evidence if I had any about User:BigDaddy777. However I see the section here is quite long, and I'm not sure I see that it would do any good. He has yet to acknowlege the RFC, right? I don't particuarly see the point in adding to it. He knows that his uncivil behavior isn't appropriate here. What is the outcome that is hoped for here? If I see him be uncivil, I may well post a note to his talk page about it. Other than that, I don't see what would be any good. If the behavior continues, I imagine he'll end up with an RFAr at some point. Hopefully it won't go that way. Friday (talk) 14:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because I'm fair:

This is evidence that he is at least partially willing to correct his behavior. Not that it's all that acceptable as it stands, but now it's at least passable. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:18, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

But I'm not blind or stupid - [9]. Pure gaming the system. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:46, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BiffRose

I'm advising you that I have discussed the revert war that is currently being engaged at Biff Rose, and that you are now considereda part of that. The article as it reads now was a rewrite of one earlier, and that was then reverted by Willmcw, surely a friend to you. I will protect the message that Rose's work is anti smetic and racist, and will include those phrases each time the article is rewritten.Jonah Ayers 01:22, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio

Hi, just noticed your copyvio "tip-off" on the Los Angeles Department of Transportation page. When calling a page out, make sure you make a log of it, so others won't think you're wasting space. Pacific Coast Highway 01:24, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Coulter

It wasn't aimed at you - it was a general comment...if people can spend days arguing about the word "insult", etc., they are probably spending too much of their energy on one article. That's all. As far as I'm concerned, the way that Coulter choses to provoke could be termed "insult", but it probably wouldn't be the most elegant word. But if it degenerates into a "find a source that uses the word" eventually someone will find a source that uses "insult", and then (if some of the other arguments I have seen are anything to go by) someone will insist on saying "some say...", which will then move on "X says"...and then someone will say "x is not a reliable source" and the other side will say "NPOV does not mean No-POV"...etc. It's all pretty pointless. Less stress on the editors, and fewer stubs for wikipedia if people stop arguing over a stalemated article. Guettarda 02:14, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Imdaking

Thanks for the heads-up, Paul. I think it may be time for my fellow Californian to have a little "come to Jesus" session with the arbitrators. - Lucky 6.9 03:26, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Just had a thought: I'm thinking of giving him the benefit of the doubt. If he put the article up thinking that it was public domain like a US Government site, it's a simple error. I just hope he doesn't do it again. - Lucky 6.9 03:31, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! AFAIK, just about anything by the US Government is considered public domain. Some state stuff, too. Just not all of it. - Lucky 6.9 03:38, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Secret admirer

Look what I just found! User:PaulKlenk, now blocked. You must have done something good. Dmcdevit·t 03:41, 17 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You can do a preemptive strike on the creation of these types of accounts by creating them yourself and then adding the doppelganger template (see User:Blank Verse). BlankVerse ∅ 21:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder who might have created that account and if there's anyway to find out????Gator1 22:53, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Current policy is to only do checks on suspected sock puppet accounts when there is a clear indication that it was created by someone who is under ArbComm sanctions. Only the developers and one ArbComm member can do such a check. The data itself, as I understand it, is only kept for a week. BlankVerse ∅ 23:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting! I did not know that!Gator1 00:42, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good Idea

We obviously think along the same lines. In fact I could become a category on my own! Giano | talk 12:43, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Free Republic and Rathergate

Nice job, the Rathergate page has many details as well. Dominick 18:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sock puppets

I'm sure that User:216.175.112.9 is a sock puppet. Jonah has been using multiple sock puppets ever since he started editing. I blocked a handful of them previously. I suppose that we should block User:216.175.112.9 too. -Willmcw 19:30, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Due to his many disruptions and personal attacks, some sort of action regarding the user now known as user:Jonah Ayers would be appropriate. Perhaps an RfC? What do you think? -Willmcw 23:46, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS, yes, I think you acted properly to refactor the personal attack against you. -Willmcw 23:48, 26 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You might want talk to Sojambi, I think he's going to file one. At least, that seemed to be the implication. Derex 01:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

On the Biff Rose talk page, I extended an invitation to meet Jonah in Union Square, New York City, for lunch, my treat. Apparently we both live in the 5 Boroughs. Perhaps we can work this out in a civil manner. So far he has not responded positively, and my name remains on his official enemies list. So we will see....I'll give it another couple days. -Sojambi Pinola 01:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

RFC page for BD

Got your message. I've removed the comments. Eleemosynary 18:42, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

it.wiki

Hallo, many thanks for you message. We aleady linked the interview in our Village pump a couple of days ago. Thanks for your nice words... :-) Ciao it:Utente:Civvi

pl.wiki: A quick hello

Hi Paul.

Thanks for the info on the interview. I think it's the best one I've watched so far. :) I wanted to let you know I've moved it, but we all have our hands full right now (the 100K articles Press Release brought an enormous popularity increase).

Happy editing and see you at Wikimania 2006 (hopefully).

Best,
TOR

BD777 IP address

Takes ownership of it here [10] Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:15, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I forgot to mention that I agree with your position on E - those comments are most appropriate for the talk page - see "threaded discussion" in the comments section. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:15, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Old Sandbox

I keep up with your old sandbox page. I would note merely that my attempt to fix BD777s behavior is quite clearly detailed on the RFC page, with links to diffs of what both I and he said. I'd also note that the pages you accuse me of having as "pet" pages are pages that I had not edited untill after BD777 began editing on them. While some of the signatories of the RFC are liberal POV warriors, you're going to have a hard time convincing me that I am. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:26, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What your comment on my talk page demonstrates is that you are not doing the requiste research to fully understand the issue - for instance, you can't figure out why BD777 got vanadalism warnings - but I can, and I did, in about 10 seconds - he got them for being a vandal. Everyone who is going to look at BD777 from an ArbCom perspective is going to look at his first edit. They're going to understand why he got vandalism warnings. Unlike you, people are willing to click the previous edit and next edit. They are willing to scroll down into the text under the diff to figure out context. Why you are not, I have no idea.

Okay, you've proved your point and mine: Yes, that is clearly vandalism, but no, I shouldn't have had to dig for it or ask you for it. Has he made any edits since that are clearly vandalism, or were the warnings sufficient?

He has not done anything since that rises, in my eyes, to the level that I would consider banning him indefinitely, no. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:11, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You write that you don't see how this is a rebuke - as you can see by the comment above, I wrote "please read WP:AGF". BD777 responds that he's not going to follow WP:AGF. I ask him what we can do to fix the article - he has nothing to say about that. Anyone who isn't trying to defend him is going to see exactly that he ignored my good suggestions.

BD is making a judgement, based on his experience to that point, that AGF has evidently been abused so much that he can't assume it any longer. If it has, in fact, been abused, his statement is reasonable (but, arguably, too broad). I understand why his comment would upset you, but what is the great, big deal about that? There is not bottomless cup of coffee at Wikipedia, when it comes to AGF. At some point, for every editor, there must be an end to assuming that. Each editor must make that decidedly subjective judgement for himself. Who are you to say BD has not, in his own way, made a reasonable judgement based on his experience with editors and their work. I myself, Hip, have written a few people off when it comes to AGF (though I still engage with them as if I haven't). What I have done, that BD hasn't, is refrained from telling those people who I think they are.

That was his 17th edit. It was his sixth edit to a talk page. He did not reference a specific author - he said he did not AGF anymore, he AYAAL - he Assumed You Are All Liberals. You are defending what is an obvious and eggregious violation of AGF. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:11, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You write that you don't understand how [11] evidences a user trying to resolve a dispute. You don't think apologizing for the nit-picky offense that BD777 took to my above posting is trying to resolve a dispute?

I think your apology was very gracious. It looks to me like the dipute in that case was caused by you, and that you resolved it with an apology. What other unresolved dispute is evident in this one edit?

WP:AGF requires that I assume that you didn't see the gamesmanship in his edit by accident. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:11, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You write that you don't why [12] was even written - obviously, you didn't look one comment back, where BD777 wrote "I think since this line was inserted directly after that CHEAP SHOT quote of hers, that a little context on how deranged some of her other statements are is quite apropos."

I'll have to look at this in detail; but again, how far back and forth am I expected to go to find what you say is there? Just give me the links; don't make me dig for them.

You should go far back enough that you understand everything about the context of the author. You can do this in talk pages by scrolling down to the relevent statement and reading the context. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:11, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't understand what's going on, how can you defend BD777? Perhaps you should go to the relevent pages and read the interactions. You were provided things to look for - if you insist on commenting, you should go look at the pages, not demand that someone copy every edit by every user. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand what is going on. I am not defending any bad behavior on the part of BD, no matter how many times people want to repeat it. I hope that is not what is bothering you here. I will not be boxed into an "either or" proposition here. And if you insist on making your charges -- however reasonable they may be -- you should do the work for your readers, and not demand that they all dig through history to find everything you allege is there.

If you're not, we'd see edits where you tell him to stop his bad behavior. We'd see you telling him that this behavior is just plain not acceptable. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:11, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you will agree I have been extremely generous with both my time and my opening up my thoughts to you. I appreciate your taking the time to read them. I may take a bit of a break here, and do some other editing. This isn't about "taking sides" for me; it's about putting this whole affair in perspective. paul klenk ^talk 19:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is your choice to continue participating. I belive you should use your time used in the way you believe the most value is gotten from it. If you believe that I am somehow indebted to you due to your efforts in opposing efforts to get BD777 to improve his behavior, let me suggest that I would like to stop incurring debts. Hipocrite - «Talk» 20:11, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Your efforts in opposing efforts to get BD777 to improve his behavior..."

Wow! The inherent dishonesty in that statement is matched only by it's overwhelming cluelessness. I have to applaud this author. Rarely is someone able to cram so much disinformation into one brief passage.

Big Daddy 21:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

BigDaddy777, it is truly an astonishing remark. It sweeps away all meaning from every thing I've ever said; it dismisses my heartfelt attempts at meaningful discourse with the author; it ignores all my efforts to help and influence you -- as well as to help the author; it says so much about what the flawed RfC is expected to accomplish; and it is poorly written ("efforts in opposing efforts"?). It's just not true. Evidently, the only two wikithinks available in this affair are 1] BigDaddy777 doubleplusungood and 2] BigDaddy777 doubleplusgood. I suffer from ungoodthink, I guess. You really hit the nail on the head. paul klenk ^talk 21:56, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you could point out some instances where you have helped and influenced BD777 to do anything, and were succesful in such? Perhaps you could get him to apologize to Kate, for starters, or respond to the RFC, or stop making personal attacks? Or are you just interested in helping him POV war? Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:48, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Did I or Didn't I?

Paul - In response to your post on my talk page - Yes, my talk comments that were at first accidentally posted without my moniker, do affirm my current POV that Ann Coulter is hot. Big Daddy 21:45, 27 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kizzle

BD777's allegation that Kizzle uploaded a picture of a pierced penis is not accurate. Will this be an example of your "efforts to help and influence" BD777, or is it going to be an example of one of his WP:NPA violations just sitting out there?

Kizzles photo history: [13]

The history [of something else -- Paul's words added, Hip's removed]

Hipocrite - «Talk» 11:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an example of "my" anything... What a strangely worded question. Just add it to your little list, and if "my" anything bothers you, come and talk to me about it. And please, no more such links on my page. It should have been obvious to you that I had already figured that out. paul klenk ^talk 15:35, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I believed I was clear that the link was to something graphic, and it wasn't clear that you knew about Wikipedia commons. I'm asking if it will be an example of you helping BD777 change his behavior, or if it will be an example of BD777 leaving an unfounded PA just sitting out there. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:03, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Are you even listening to me? What did I just tell you? It isn't an example of "me" doing anything. It has nothing to do with "me". Leave "me" out of it. Read what I wrote you.

Your inaction is an action in and of itself. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:14, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have previously asked to be informed when BD777 is acting poorly. His recent passage regarding "The Usual Method," is filled with violations of AGF and CIVIL. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

to Kate

I'm moving this discussion here, to keep the thread from sprawling on BD's page.

"...the cites you came up with look more like they came from a Nexis search for 'Why Karl Rove is demon-possessed..." Truly a classic. paul klenk ^talk

Only if you "truly" believe that I somehow biasedly cherry-picked the citations, which I did not. I wouldn't expect BD777 to think anything else, since he's already judged me, but I somehow expected more from you, Paul. Is that what you're really saying? I'd like to know. · Katefan0^(scribble) 12:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kate, you are creating a false alternative ("only if you..."). Though I didn't look at the cites, I don't have to believe that you cherry-picked anything to believe that BD might reasonably think otherwise, even if he has done so mistakenly. Surely you can see that. Please don't drag me into this because I don't find it as disturbing as you, or that it gives me a chuckle.

I wish I could leave it at that, but I would like to give you some thoughts in the hope that they will help you as a person, and I hope that you take them in that spirit. It's a bit long, but it's from my heart:

With due respect, the above is a good example of someone just looking for something to object to, and of the extreme touchiness that is fueling so much of the harumphing on the talk pages (is "harumphing" too colorful a word?). BD is giving his opinion about the citations. He's doing it in a funny and colorful way. You are completely missing the humor in the situation, seemingly, in order to be annoyed. The statement is hilarious; that's why I mentioned it. It is not an attack, but a characterization of text.

Now, I realize you are an admin, and BD sometimes interprets what you do incorrectly and doesn't show you the deference you feel you deserve. He's obviously not afraid of you. Sometimes he steps out of line. So block him, or have another admin block him. Start with an hour, move to two, then to four. How hard is that? Just do it, if it's warranted, and if it isn't, move on, or keep a record of what he did in case you want ammunition for later.

It is important that editors working on highly disputed political pages have thicker-than-average skins, not thinner. John Cleese has made a very good observation about political correctness that I think is apropos for WP: P.C. is rampant because the touchiest people among us are trying to impose on everyone else their baseline for what is acceptable behavior. They do it by whining, bullying, demanding, threatening, and taking offense. There is a lot of talk about community with respect for BD and his RfC. Well, it seems to me that the RfC is relying on the objections of those that are least likely to get along in a community of diversely-tempered people.

And personally, I think some are doing this to protect certain pages from those bringing neutrality to them. Their irrational hatred of Bush and other convervatives, like the irrational hatred of Clinton and liberals by others, is driving their efforts to make conservatives look as bad as possible. They have a lot of creative ways of doing this, but, as in any market, this market is catching up with their efforts, and it is driving them batty.

Don't misconstrue this to mean that I'm condoning everything BD's done. Another false alternative. I am not "taking sides" in this, and it appears that some people think I am. There is far too much going in here to lump everyone into a good camp and a bad camp. I assure you, I have given BD harsh criticism, in private, and have urged him repeatedly to give a short, thoughtful answer to the RfC that is humble, respectful, and addresses all its concerns. I think his doing so would not only be to his advantage, but to the disadvantage of his detractors. It is his choice alone to answer the RfC or not, and I respect his choice. paul klenk ^talk 16:50, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you may not be able to "leave it at that," but I will, even though I take exception to more than a few things you've written here. · Katefan0^(scribble) 15:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I do thank you for taking the time to hear my view. paul klenk ^talk 16:13, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm glad you answered, I appreciate the time it must have taken. · Katefan0^(scribble) 17:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hipocrite's deft (sp?) analysis of the above

I'd like to leave my comments above for Kate to respond, if she wishes. I will let Hip's statement speak for itself. paul klenk ^talk

So, to summarise, BD777 is funny but stupid, Kate should break the rules, in public you provide him nothing but support, but we are to take your word that you have provided him harsh criticism in private? Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:19, 28 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Assume good faith. I'm sure you're familiar with that particular policy.Gator1 15:43, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am. I'm trying to determine if I have accurately summarized Paul's position. If I have not, I look forward to being corrected. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Just checking. I'm glad to see that you are merely engaging in fact checking here, not something more serious.Gator1 15:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gator, it is so clear from what I've written, isn't it, that I think "Kate should break the rules"? And that Hipocrite et al should take me at my word (on anything)? And that I think "BD777 is funny but stupid"? (For those of you who believe Ann Coulter is a Tim McVeigh supporter, the previous remarks were meant to be ironic.) If Hipocrite would like to engage in his fantasies, he is welcome to. Perhaps he can also read some meaning in my decision not wish to "correct" or rebut him.

It is heartening to know that an editor who can "summarise" what I have said with such pith is also editing highly complex and disputed political articles on WP, and lecturing people on AGF, POV, NPA, etc.

"Do not give dogs what is holy, and do not throw your pearls before pigs, lest they trample them underfoot and turn to attack you. Matthew 7:6 (ESV) paul klenk ^talk

I'll summarize that for Hip: So your wisdom is like pearls and you're calling him a pig. lol. Just thought I'd make it easier on him so he wouldn't have to engage in more "fact checking." LMAO.Gator1 16:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Pot calling the kettle black." Don't know why this phrase keeps popping into my head recently....oh well, we will never know I suppose.Gator1 16:56, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Don't forget the last phrase in the passage. paul klenk ^talk 16:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Kate cannot block BD777, because she is involved in an editing dispute with him - that's where you suggested she break the rules. You say that you have tried to steer BD777 right, but there's no evidence of that anywhere - so you ask that we take you at your word. You say that "BD might reasonably think otherwise, even if he has done so mistakenly.... it gives me a chuckle." He's stupid, in that you think he regularly believes things mistakenly, but you laugh, because he's funny. If you want to correct me - go right ahead. If you want to turn your formerly civil talk page into a little party between you and Gator1 here, go ahead also. It's pretty clear to everyone reading what your real motivation for your ongoing defence of BD777 was. Hipocrite - «Talk» 17:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm glad you've noticed my talk page is civil, and will point out that your ugly remarks and snide, sarcastic analysis is what stunk it up in the first place. Now on to your deft (sp?) "analysis": 1] I guess you conveniently overlooked where I suggested "So block him, or have another admin block him." Learn to read. Nothing is stopping a responsible admin from taking whatever steps with BD are required. 2] I have said I have made remarks to him in private. Again, learn to read. And if you haven't seen any of my public remarks to BD, all you have to do is read his talk page and its history (after you learn to read, of course). 3] People can make mistakes without being stupid, Hipocrite; your suggesting otherwise is fiercely insulting. I've met many people here who are twice as smart as you; e.g., they can read. People can even have different opinions than you, without being stupid. Your name calling is getting more and more overt all the time. 4] As for turning my talk page into a party, if I choose to, I damn well will whether you like it or not. If you insist on demonstrating that every party needs a pooper, I guess that is your privilege, too. 5] My motivation to other users, of course, depends completely on their ability to read. I trust others are better at it than you. Now please leave me alone, and don't visit my talk page again unless you have actual business to transact, and can do so without being ugly, snide, insulting, obtuse, condescending, hostile and humorless. If I missed anything, Gator, please let me know. paul klenk ^talk 18:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What is it? I must be stupid because I can't see it and it's SO clear. Don't tease us, please tell us. What is PK's real motivation here? And don't forget about that good faith thing. ;)Gator1 17:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

es.wiki: From Sister Ray

HI!! You left a message in my page requesting for help, but i can see you are a experienced Wikipedist!! Well, I would like to help you in everything you need (even though I'm an amateur) or want, specially if your most serious problems are related with spanish languaje. So,what can I do for you? Write me in my page, and you could start to fill your own page in wikipedia spanish, not only receive message in this one. I'm really sorry for my terrible, horrible english, you can help me out with this too. So, now we are connected, the process is now working. The big question is: What can I do for you?

Here I am. Hasta luego!!

(I cannot leave a signature because I'm registrated in Wikipedia spanish, and if I try to redirect you to my page, you will end reading about some star and about the velvet underground (of course). I understand that one of your "rules" is that everyone must put their signature on the messages that they write to you, but now you will have to apologize me because I cannot do that. I'm no mistery, you already found me. Now you can start using the other account in wiki spanish so everyone can sign your book of visits. I´ll be seing you. I apologize again for my english. Sure you understand.)

Wikipedistas de Argentina: Usuario: Sister Ray

I´m FAR from es: I have to give you bad news: there is a vandal who use yoyr nickname. do you know something about this? (unsigned)

In es: there is an user with your nicname (Paul Klenk) he is writing wrong things and saying in teh summary that his you. (Sister Ray for example has received an message from him). ¿The count is yours?

Apologize me, but ...

1. Have you already create the account? There is one
2. Have you only write aboyt the interview? Something with the account I´ve named up, has write en several User Discussión
3. Some users have talked about vandalism un the café. Please read again points 1 and 2 and if you have done it, please, spend a minut to tell me it. I´ll give your answer in the café, before anyone think in bann you.

No problem: I´m a administrator. The accounts is already banned. If you need more, help, ask me as you need.

Vandalismo

Soy Fernando Suárez, llevo poco tiempo aqui, pero te recomiendo que cambies tu clave en preferencias. Solicita una clave nueva. Es posible que se evite ese problema. 212.51.52.5 22:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

pt.wiki: Welcome

Welcome to the Wiki_pt!

Password

• Sorry I don´t have anhother idea from this problem. Excuse me for my english. 212.51.52.4 22:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Requested

Per community consensus, Arbitration has been requested against BigDaddy777. Please add any details or comments you feel are appropriate. Mr. Tibbs 03:09, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Message in es:

I'm an admin on es:, my native language is English, and I left you a message on Temporary_User's talk page.--Orgullomoore 05:58, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And what do you intend to do with this username? Yes, the password can be changed.--Orgullomoore 06:54, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It can be done, but based on the responses in the café section, it doesn't look like they want to do it. Okay, some of them do, but most of them are asking (1) How do we know you don't have a plot and (2) Why can't you just use another name and link to your en: page, and have Paul Klenk in your signature? FYI, this guy has been blocked forever on es: so there is not really the risk of him stealing your identity--Orgullomoore 07:22, 1 October 2005 (UTC) PS: Yeah, use my es: cuz I check it more and am more active in es:[reply]

Thank you, you are also being exceptionally patient. However, I must say, I don't own the Wikipedia and we try to go by consensus over there. I can't just change it while others oppose it. Also, these aren't just little buggie other users, we're talkin' other admins here. Several users cite that the same thing has happened in our wiki before and they have just had to conform. It's a nice idea that you have, registering in every wiki and what not but, as I said, I'm not the boss. I've been trusted with the authority and I'm not going to go against the grain just because. If you want to, you might stop by #es.wikipedia on freenode's IRC server, both of the opposing users tend to hang out there (though I'm not sure they are awake right now..) It sure would make things alot easier on me. Wikis are great, but they aren't instant messaging. --Orgullomoore 07:54, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I hear everything you're saying. I have left messages at Chwely (sp?) and angus asking them to visit this page and read my "plea" and my reasoning behind it. I really am encouraged that we're halfway there, Orgullo. One more "case" for me is, this all did happen instantaneously -- it is a pretty extraordinary case. It is not like I "happened upon" a user name today that I wanted. Do keep in mind that this user did some vandalism -- something I have never done on any site -- so that gives you some more ammunition that if there is a plot, it is he and not I that is plotting. He was obviously watching my English page and jumped in ahead of me.

I'll keep my fingers crossed and make a point to buy you all beers when you visit NYC for Wikimania 2006.

By the way, can you believe my German and Dutch pages are already translated? Go take a look at them. In fact, the German guy who translated my page is a first-time user today -- my page was his 2nd or 3rd edit! Give me faith in people. I'm a pretty experienced Wiki and sometimes even I'm surprised. paul klenk ^talk 08:02, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I see Orgullomoore has already answered your questions. I cannot do anything more until there is a consensous in the café.--User:FAR

nl:userpage

translated. Aleichem 07:13, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

Hi! Thank you very much for your barnstar, Paul. I hope you can finally fix your problem at es:wikipedia. Regards. --Kokoo 09:35, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

no:userpage

Hi! I just wanted to tell you i translated your userpage on no: to Norwegian:) OPus- :msg

Your pt user page translated

Hi. Just to let you know that I translated your page in wiki-pt, as you requested on it. --Daniduc 19:05, 1 October 2005 (UTC) PS. Just read New York's Village Halloween Parade, it´s really cool, congrats! ---Daniduc 19:18, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was my pleasure! :) Drop me a line if you need anything. Thanx for the star ;) --Daniduc 19:51, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

nl.wikipedia

Hi from Dolledre in Bruges (Assebroek), Belgium

Thanks Paul for registering with nl.wikipedia and your feedback on my talk page. Since we still don't use welcome bots, it's always nice to get some response.

Sorry if I hardly ever log in to en.wikipedia or fr.wikipedia. I'm thinking of redirecting my talk pages in other languages to the Dutch talk page.

I Included the Babel template you requested on your Dutch talk page.

Stop by anytime.

Kind regards,

Dre

Dolledre Overleg 1 okt 2005 22:24 (CEST)

pl New User Log

Hi again Paul.

Hmm... Funny thing, actually. We don't have a New User Log. I guess nobody thought about that. :P You seem to be all over the place so tell me, is this (the New User Log) a common international practice? I hardly stick my nose outside plwiki and enwiki so I haven't the slightest clue. Do the Germans, the French and others each have one?

Best,
TOR 21:01, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. We can continue this discussion here on en.

Always nice to see a community spirit. Espcially an international one. :) I cannot promise anything but I'll try to get your user page translated somewhere around tommorow (CEST tommorow, i.e. Monday). And I will talk to the others about that New Users Log thingy. Who knows, maybe we'll have one soon. Cheers, TOR 22:41, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Klenk, International Man of Mystery!

Dude, I love the idea of copying a user page to other languages! Brilliant! I'm afraid that I'm limited to basic Spanish and Italian, but not enough to be able to contribute in a way that'll make grammatical sense. - Lucky 6.9 22:15, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am truly speechless. If this isn't the best possible way to contribute to this site, I don't know what is. Absolutely marvelous idea. I may just ask Spanish to translate my page since I can read it fairly well. This will be fun! - Lucky 6.9 22:35, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You bet. I have to sign off for now, but I'll sneak a peek when I get back if it isn't too late. See ya! - Lucky 6.9 22:38, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

nice. are you aware of the commons? It might be useful to host images there if you tranlate your parade article. Derex 19:47, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Directions, please [English message]

Where can I find your New User Log, the page where new users can introduce themselves to the community? You can reply on my English or Finnish pages, or this page. Thank you. paul klenk ^en:?!

I did some digging on both the Finnish and English wikipedias and noticed that we don't yet have a page like the en wiki's new user log. I think you could use the fi:Wikipedia:Kahvihuone for this purpose. --Joonasl 09:14, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch Grammar

hi, i'm in the process of translating this Dutch Grammar into english. should this be placed on the en: or made a reference to it? tnx Aleichem 09:53, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS maybe the same in 16 languages? + shortlist of words? Aleichem 10:08, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dutch Grammar

Such an article already exists (en:Dutch grammar) on en:wiki (Note: we only capitalize the first word of an article at en:wiki, unless it is a proper noun. Also note the :en: and :nl: method of creating links between sites.) Of course, the current article could work in any language. If the English version is of high quality, translators of other languages can be invited to take it to any wiki they like. I think this is a good model, too, Aleichem, for many articles: 1] See if an article already exists at en:wiki; 2] If not, write a new Dutch article, or translate an existing one into English; 3] Work hard to polish and perfect it; 4] Then invite others to take it world-wide.

We should see if other similar non-English-language grammar articles exist on en:wiki, to use as models. (You're going to have me speaking Dutch if you're not careful!)

Speaking of which, 1] are you familiar with the international phonetic alphabet, and 2] do you have a guide to Dutch pronunciation in that alphabet? I could start learning to pronounce Dutch before I know what the words mean (I've done this in Italian, French and Spanish). paul klenk ^talk

Message on sv:Wikipedia:Hjälp

Hi Paul, welcome to sv!

There is no specific New Users log on sv. You could try the village pump instead. I also reverted your edit on sv:Wikipedia:Hjälp which really didn't belong there. /probell (Talk) 19:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]