User:Doc Tropics/Archive One

Timrem, I've realized that I need to learn a lot more about formatting and adding edits before I make a serious effort to contribute anything. I sure hope I didn't screw up your Talkpage too badly. Thanks for your patience with a silly newbie :) Doc Tropics 19:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I'll fix my talk page. If you start a line with a space, it won't indent, but put all the text in a box. To indent, you can use a colon (:). I started making a list somewhere of editing markup, I'll see if I can find that and give you a link to it.

I looked at Interorbital Systems, they seem to be a valid company. The German Wikipedia has an article on them, and doing a simple internet search on MSN gave me a link to a page on the National Geographic website which references them.

If you have any other questions, don't be afraid to ask. I won't always be so quick to answer, though :-) Timrem 19:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I found that markup page I mentioned, it is here. It's not done yet, I might be back to finish it some other time, but it should help a bit. It is, however, on the "Test Wikipedia", not the main English Wikipedia. Therefore, your login won't work there unless you create an account on that Wiki, as you would have to for any foreign-language Wiki or a sister project such as Wiktionary. The entire test Wikipedia is like a giant sandbox, so feel free to do any experimenting there if you want. Hope this helps, and thanks for trying to improve Wikipedia! Timrem 19:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

You can see Wikipedia:Barnstars for all types of barnstars. From there, all you have to do is copy and paste, then replace the word "message" with whatever you want. Timrem 20:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey doc. Remember me? I'm your cookie dealer. I read your talk page and since most of the major articles I work on are translations of Spanish featured articles (in Spanish: ), I was wondering if I could call on you if I get stuck or need a second opinion. I am currently working on this translation. Oh, and feel free to drop by my talk page if you have any newbie (or other) problems—this place can be daunting for newcomers.--Fuhghettaboutit 22:46, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. I would love it if you reviewed the article for errors but note that some text has been modified and added to with outside research. I wasn't necessarily requesting this however; rather I was hoping to add you to my list of people to call on if I get into trouble with difficult passages in the future. I just posted the article as an example of translation efforts.--Fuhghettaboutit 23:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

• Hi again F, looks like we just posted to each other at about the same time, heh heh. I'm replying here but you can copy this to your page if you prefer. What I was trying to say was feel free to contact me if I can help (yes, put me on your list), but I'm probably not competent to do more than check spellings, etc. Also, please let me know about any issues that you think I should be aware of, or which might be interesting. I want to make serious and useful contributions to WP, but I'm also interested in learning more about the community here and how to get along in it. For example, I'm intentionally limiting myself to noncontroversial userboxes and a simple sig due to the influence of certain Admins whose opinions I respect. Plus of course, Jimbo said so :) One of the things I quickly realized when I first started reading WP is that people skillls are at least as important as editing/writing/academic-type skills if someone wants to be able to make serious contributions and not waste their time in revert/edit/flame wars. Also, (despite my familiarity with WP:Bold), I've decided to adopt the first line of the Hippocratic Oath "Before all, do no harm....". Until I've learned a lot more, I'm only going to be WP:Bold in sandboxes :) Happy Editing! Doc Tropics 00:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Indeed. Would that we had more new users like you. I have no userboxes as the whole debate, both pro and con, disgusts me. Let's build an encyclopedia! (and waste no time at all arguing about the drapes). I have a few suggestions for pages to check out to learn about the community and that at the same time you might find interesting (of course policy pages are de rigeur for learning about Wikipedia): AfD; WP:RFA; WP:RFC; WP:FAC and WP:FA; WP:PR; and Special:Newpages. --Fuhghettaboutit 03:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

• Well said Fugh, and I might just steal that quote: Let's build an encyclopedia! (and waste no time at all arguing about the drapes). I do like that :)

Thanks for all the great links to policy and procedures. I hadn't seen Special:Newpages before and I'll be sure to spend some time there. I also took the time to re-read through the other links since you clearly think they merit attention. Once I am more experienced I look forward to participating in many of those areas. And on a happy note...I've noticed some Botany related articles which might benefit from the inclusion of Climate Zone info. I'm going to dig through some reference books and see if I can actually make a real contribution! Doc Tropics 06:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Doc Tropics. I hope you like Wikipedia and choose to stay. Cduffner 03:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Greeatings and Welcome. While I certainly apprecitate your keen interest in me, I do have a few questions about your post if you could spare to answer at your leisure.

I was watching WP:RC and noticed an exchange between you and 'Grape Ape'. I just wanted to compliment you for being so WP:CIV in the face of what amounted to vandalism. You managed to be firm while admirably restraining yourself when provoked with foolishness. I just wanted to let you know that someone had noticed and taken the time to say 'thanks' for your efforts :) Happy Editing Doc Tropics 09:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Sir (or miss?) I am wondering why you think I provoked this gentleman? You say he showed great civility in what amounted to vandalism. I said nothing ill of him, and I stopped any edits he found to be not of his liking as soon as I received his request. What restraint did he show? I was blocked for three hours after I asked him to explain why South Park reference on Global Warming was not welcome and/or vandalism.(again I did not re-post any matters after he asked me too) Please note that I will not ask his permission for he is well above my status on Wikipedia and I will dutifully follow his orders to the letter, I am troubled that you think I personally attacked him and caused him to bite his tongue for my evils. Again I really appreciate your interest in my interests and in me so please don't hesitate to leave a message at your complete leisure.--The great grape ape is straight out of the know 14:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Grape Ape, thanks for taking the time to express your concerns in such a civil and well-worded fashion. I believe that this kind of constructive dialog between individuals acting in good faith is one of the great strengths of the WP project. As a brand new editor here I'm looking forward to this exchange as a learning experience, and I'd like to thank you in advance for helping me to become a better editor. You have raised a number of points which I'll try to address individually.

• • Provocation - I absolutely did not mean to imply that you had personally provoked or attacked William M. Connolley. In point of fact, all of your Talkpage edits were extremely civil and I'd like to compliment you for that :) I used the term 'provocation' in reference to an act that would be considered vandalism (which I'll amplify on below, see Global Warming header). Honesty compels me to admit that I used the term 'foolishness' in reference to a comment which I regarded as specious (your South Park defense). In retrospect, I should not have used potentially inflammatory language and I apologize for that. It was not in any way intended as an attack.
  • Original intent - I have noticed that the editors and admins who put lots of effort into Anti-vandalism activities tend to draw a lot of heat on themselves. My original intent was really nothing more than to compliment William for his efforts and let him know that they had been noticed and appreciated. I try to give contributors a 'pat on the back' whenever I can since so much good work goes unnoticed otherwise.
  • Global Warming - is an extremely controversial topic and the current article represents some very hard work by editors with different views who are working together to make the article a better entry. Most of those editors would probably regard the insertion of an essentially irrelevant cartoon as vandalism. If your intent really was to enhance the quality of the article then your efforts might have been better received if you you had discussed them on the Talkpage first. However, I suspect that your real intent was to inject some humor into an often terse and contentious dialog (and please do correct me if I have the wrong impression). While I might support the use of levity to defuse potentially hostile eruptions, I don't think that the article's main page is the best place for that either. Again....the Talkpage is a great place to discuss these issues and any contributions that other editors might take strong exception to. While we are indeed admonished to be WP:Bold in our efforts, I have seen that the very best articles are the ones where editors work together to achieve concensus rather than taking unilateral actions that will inevitably lead to reverts.
  • Status - I think WP generally tries to avoid or minimize issues of status. The perception seems to be that all of us, even Admins (sometimes refered to as janitors) are equal contributors to this exciting project. Please don't feel that you are somehow a 'lesser' editor simply because William has more experience (than either of us) or an Admin's tools (mop and bucket). For whatever it might be worth, I've noticed that you have a longer history (chronologically) than I do on WP, but I have no doubt that we can both make valuable contributions to the project if we try to focus on adding useful content.
  • I'm going to stop now because this response is getting so long that even I am getting bored with it; I hope I haven't put you to sleep :) I hope that you will find my input to be constructive and useful, as that is my only intent. Please do feel free to respond if you think that my perceptions are incorrect or if I have missed some important point. If you could post any such response to this page, I think that will help keep the dialog coherent and easy to follow. In closing, I would like to add one completely personal (and possibly biased) observation:

I saw the episode of South Park that you referenced, and in all honesty...I laughed my ass off! It was hilarious. However...that still doesn't mean the cartoons belonged in the article's main page :) I do hope that this can be a learning experience for all of us (myself included) which will ultimately lead to more and better contributions to the project which we are all a part of! Happy editing! Doc Tropics 17:08, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I must also thank you for your professional response and your own unequalled civility. I truly look forward to seeing you out there in Wikipedia.--The great grape ape is straight out of the know 21:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

First, thank you for the compliment, which this wiki-gnome doesn't deserve. :) As for the issue at hand, you have stumbled on to one of those small editorial disputes that, despite utter triviality, manages to inflame the passions of several of our regular editors. There is a setting in Wikipedia preferences allowing users to specify whether they prefer American (January 20, 2003) or European (20 January 2003) date-styling. Wikipedia is smart enough to display dates according to these preferences if they are wiki-linked, ex. January 20, 2003. Irrespective of how any editor types a date, a wikilinked date will display according to the individual reader's preference. NB: the Manual of Style says that, notwithstanding this, editors writing an article should type dates as appropriate for the topic (American dating for "American topics", eg. George Washington; European for "European topics", eg. George III; and either for "neutral topics", eg. Earth.)

However, these preferences matter only for full dates; there is no agreement about whether dates like 2003, or March 2003 should be linked. Some argue that all such links are distracting; some, that only the first instance in any article should be linked; and some, that every date should be linked for user-ease. I don't care personally, but I suppose I am most happy with the third camp. Some serious editors really care about this, though, for reasons I don't grasp. In general, a large middle-ground agrees it is bad form to edit an article only to add or remove date wiki-links. Editors adding true content to article may do as they wish with linking.

Although this is the middle-ground's "truce", very experienced editors will occasionally actually "edit war" over linking and delinking. Most people think this is a bit loony, but at least one respected admin I know of, User:Quadell, left Wikipedia over the tension stemming from a date-link edit war.

So, there you go. My advice is that you should never edit an article just to link or delink dates, but do as you wish when adding content, and certainly in spaces outside article-space. Ignore date edit-warriors, and maybe stifle a secret giggle about how silly it is for people to waste such emotion over such minor detail. :) Best wishes, Xoloz 02:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Even though this isn't even my talk page, and I can't be bothered to tell Xoloz, I have to say that taught me a lot. A lot. It also reminded me of how silly Wikipedia is... o_O Jobjörn (Talk | contribs) 00:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I made a point of telling him what a great response that was (it's on his Talkpage). One of the fascinating paradoxes of WP is that it contains both mind-boggling silliness and truely profound wisdom, yet through some kind of bizarre intellectual alchemy the two elements synthesize and distil down into nuggets of pure gold. I've seen one article after another caught up in a conflagration of controversy before finally emerging stronger for it in the end. Have I mixed enough metaphors yet, or shall I go on? :) Doc Tropics 00:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It was a great amount of metaphors indeed, but it was all very true. On a sidenote, all pages have been speedily deleted now, leaving only our Timeline of space exploration. It needs information incorporated from Space exploration, though. Jobjörn (Talk | contribs) 01:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

WOW! You are fast. Great start on the new page, it's a huge improvement over the previous version. I'll put more specific comments on the Talkpage for the article. Happy editing :) Doc Tropics 01:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

No, not really - there wasn't much to put in there, was it? Tabbed browsing helps, though. Get Firefox if you haven't already. ;) Jobjörn (Talk | contribs) 01:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't got Firefox yet, but it seems like I should. I'll see you in Timeline after I've done some research. Doc Tropics 01:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure thing. :) Jobjörn (Talk | contribs) 01:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

You got a hole-in-one on the quote :)

Next time I'll be trickier, but I want to see if anyone else can tag the quote you left behind Doc Tropics 02:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually I just googled it, found some vague Indiana Jones links, and then checked it on imdb.com. You should see [User:Raul654]'s challenges, THOSE are hard... Jobjörn (Talk | contribs) 02:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

It's all tidied up now. You probably used the [edit] box following the section rather than at the top of the section; easy enough to do. Minor edit glitches are no big deal. (I didn't just move your edit the first time because some consider that poor form.) -R. S. Shaw 03:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow - that was actually unintentional! Is it possible that, if the first one to call his opponent a nazi loses, then the first one to call himself a nazi wins? I enjoyed your comment, but it was a good hour and a half later when I made those grammar edits, and had forgotten. "Lamentable"... that works I think. :) -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I knew there was a sense of humor in there somewhere :) Coincidence or not, it really made me chuckle because, chronologically, they did come in sequence that way. It's a good essay, although I didn't bother to say so (I thought that part would be obvious). Are you planning to expand on it, or to keep it short and simple? I agreed with the Anon IP section too, and I'm glad you cleaned it up. I guess I'm not bold enough for that yet. Happy editing. Doc Tropics 04:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

It's actually my first Wikipedia essay, and I'm not sure where it'll go. If the response continues to be positive for a few days, I'll try adding it to the "See also" sections of WP:AGF and WP:VAND; that'll get it more views and more feedback and more improvements. I've got some other thoughts I've been chewing on that I may try writing up as well. -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

I do think it's worth drawing attention to it, but maybe something subtle like...HEY LOOK AT THIS!!!. I'll keep an eye on it. Anything that reduces wiki-stress is a good thing :) Doc Tropics 09:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC) (oops, i forgot to sign this at the time, so I added my sig later)

Hi Doc Tropics - happened on your note on SBJohnny's page, I've expanded on the species a bit (and moved it to its sci name, as all the other iris species pages are). On your hardiness zone query, generally if they're added I don't remove them, but personally I don't tend to think they are particularly useful, as the system is not too good a predictor of successful cultivation (see the para I added on the hardiness zone page, re Shetland and Alabama: same zone, but very different climates). Up to you whether you want to add them or not. Hope this helps! - MPF 18:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

As I mentioned on my talk, I like having them there... though it's true that the low number (minimum survivable winter temps) is probably the only universally useful one. There are also the AHS heat zones, California Sunset Zones, etc., to make things more confusing (and/or useful). SB Johnny 00:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorta related to the hardiness zones thing... feel like joining a project (Wikipedia:WikiProject_Horticulture_and_Gardening)? I started it a few months ago but it hasn't gotten a lot of play as yet. Hardiness zones, soil/sun/shade preferences, etc. are among the things I'd like to see added to articles (maybe even a "hortobox" to compliment the "taxobox"?

A lot of people use the 'net in general to find information about gardening... I think WP (and WB) could go pretty far in meeting the need! SB Johnny 15:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, my first invite to join a project! Thanks SBJ, I'm really looking forward to working on these topics, but let me offer a caveat: I am a rank amateur! I lack the depth of knowledge that you and your horticultural compatriots have, but I'd be happy to help where I can. Regarding your suggestion, I think the idea of a "hortobox" is excellent, and modeling it after the "taxobox" would go a long way towards giving the articles a certain consistency and completeness. Count me in :) Doc Tropics 16:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

There's been a lot of that going around. Thanks, though! --EngineerScotty 22:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The best way to help is to join RC patrol; you need not be an admin to do so. But be warned--most of the vandals you revert will be bored teens, curious users, and such who will quickly go away (or become upstanding Wikipedia citizens). Occasionally, you will run into a user (as I apparently have) who takes extreme offense at undoing what he considers to be a fine contribution (and everyone else considers vandalism); and tries to make your life miserable. (For details on this particular individual, see WP:LTA#Unemployed, living in basement).

Good luck! --EngineerScotty 22:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Aye. :) --EngineerScotty 23:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, the Brya stuff has nothing to do with the hortibox (note the "i"... probably better?). Best way to help get it done is to add moral support to my requests on WP:TOL and WP:PLANTS (on the talk pages in each case).

The plant and gardening sections of WP are relatively quiet, actually... this is the first time I've run into a serious troll since I started editing here last autumn (other parts of WP have packs of them running about, ducking under bridges, etc.). I'm hoping to keep it that way by keeping after him until the problem is solved. SB Johnny 16:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Here's the box! SB Johnny 12:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Still needs some work, I think... Might actually belong here instead, so we can feel more free to add details on cultivation.

Thanks for your good work on this article! It is really appreciated. pschemp | talk 03:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to you, too pschemp. I got so excited that someone noticed me, I went and posted on your page before I saw your note on communications. sorry. Doc Tropics 04:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello Doc, I feel highly pleased to meet you. You are msot welcome. The matter is engaging the attention of several editors of wikipedia. Sometime bacl I had started a page: Better than the Best. I am still working on the issues which we should resolve to ensure that we emerge and continue to become the Best. I shall inter-act more with you. You are msot welcome to offer your suggestions, I shall continue to offer mine - others shall join, and we may surely be able to formulate a system. Regards. --Bhadani 16:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I personally feel that it's long enough. I mean it's one thing to say it's long enough to have its own article, but it's another to say it's too long to merge it into Periodic table. It would be a bit of an eyesore, with the full table and everything. Also, it might be a bit inappropriate, figuring it's basically a strictly-scientific page. Perhaps a "See Also", or a small subsection discussing translations with one of these

. So, I'd say don't be afraid to change your vote. If you've been convinced by other arguments, you're a better person for not sticking with something you feel is wrong. AdamBiswanger1 22:28, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello Doc.

Thank you very much for your kind words that are much appreciated.

As you can see, I am back. I was persuaded by friends on here that the best way to fight political correctness and "deletionist interference" (which in a nutshell is what the issue is all about) is from within.

I'm going to try and obtain a total membership control facility of sorts to protect our projects from the negative elements with and the IP address vandals without. Basically, all decisions re categories and deletion of articles to be taken and implemented by registered members subject to group consensus. I would also want any article changes made by an outsider to be approved by a member before they can be displayed to the world. With the technology available, that is not impossible to achieve.

Other than that, I shall continue to be positive and try to produce informational work that helps to improve the knowledge of the readers. That is what it should be all about but unfortunately there are people on here who see things in a negative light. Do you know there is one inhabitant of the Deletion Cavity (they sound like Morlocks, don't they) who proudly proclaims himself on his userpage as a "deletionist"? How negative is that?

All the best, Doc, and I hope we can stay in touch. --Jack 08:50, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the cookie!  :) --Fang Aili ^talk 20:45, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes! Thanks so much for my cookie as well! (And as for your spelling-have no fear- I'll never tell! Shh!)  :) --Cabiria 05:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your consideration. It'd be fun to have ribbons on my cookie. ;) The Kill Bill quote stumped you? --Fang Aili ^talk 15:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe I didn't recognize that! What's really horrible is I own both volumes on DVD. I'm going to plead "Stupid by reason of insufficient coffee", it's the only defense that stands a chance. --Doc Tropics 15:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

LOL. --Fang Aili ^talk 17:17, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

When you see an article that seems to you to be too short, please consider adding the comment {{expand}} or one of the stub types from Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Stub types, rather than suggesting that the article be deleted. At the same time, try to expand the article a bit, even if you don't have the time or information to do a thorough expansion. See Wikipedia:Stub for more information about stubs. Regards --TruthbringerToronto 18:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking at a redlink purge from the article, firstly, do you think Institute of Design refers to Institute of Design IIT? Also, you might want to check out some of these. There must be something useful. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 18:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Your Grace. I suspect that Institute of Design has either changed names or disappeared entirely in the last 50 years. I'll dig deeper when I get a chance, but let's kill the redlink for now. Maybe the same should apply to Dearborn Glass Company. They are actually located not too far from me and I was planning to create an article for them after I wrapped up some other things. In general I don't like redlinks except as a reminder that we need to add more content. --Doc Tropics 18:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Does the Dearborn Glass Company still exist? A link to their website would do nicely. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 18:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it was Tony Grove that I was asking about. I can't find out anything about him, either, even on the web site of the university where he supposedly taught, Nottingham Trent University. You were correct to add the prod tag. --TruthbringerToronto 18:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Left a note on his talk page - again. He has been warned a number of times about page blanking. I'm afraid next time it happens, a note will have to be left on WP:AN - I would prefer to have dealt with it nicely, but it just happens time and again. :S Viridae^Talk 13:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for jumping in. I was leaving a message for him and had an edit conflict with you. I didn't realize he had done it before so I let your message stand alone because you were firmer with him. Maybe you could answer a question for me on a related topic: I noticed a user who continually blanks his Talkpage, which has the effect of hiding the various warnings he's been issued multiple times. Is their either policy or guideline relating to that? --Doc Tropics 13:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Reply on my page - to keep it in one spot Viridae^Talk 13:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

And again. Viridae^Talk 14:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a heap :) I don't do it for the praise - but its a bonus when someone appreeciates your work. And I reciprocate - I had a look at your contribs too and was very suprised to find you only had 300 (exactly at the time of this post) I thought you had been here much longer - you are way more involved than I was at the start! Viridae^Talk 14:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the cookie :) Viridae^Talk 15:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Haha thanks. I love how he called the periodic table "fancruft". Does that make any sense to you? haha wow. Oh by the way I was just browsing along and I noticed some kid who wrote an article on transliteration into Chinese characters, and I asked him if he could help us. We'll have to see if he actually does. AdamBiswanger1 16:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I think "cruft" may be one of the most abused words on WP. People will use it to describe anything they regard as trivial...and sometimes anything they don't understand :) --Doc Tropics 16:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes. You are most welcome to invite them. Thank you. --Bhadani 17:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the cookie! Yes, I'm also pleased with the way things worked out with Ken. This has restored my faith in the process of trying to work with those who start out inserting undesirable content. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 18:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes that was quite amazing. Take care --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 20:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I left a reply on the Wikipedia:Better than the Best page. Cheers AdamBiswanger1 19:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment on my talk page. Essentially, Wikipedia has a pretty low bar for notability. We haven't had an article on a primary school or a train station deleted in I don't know how long. I tend to believe that, since shopping centres are likely to be used by a fair few more people than either a primary school or a train station, that it can't hurt to have articles on them - and I for one find the occasional shopping centre article interesting to read. Not everyone agrees, of course, and the last few shopping centre votes on AfD have been quite close, but most of them have, IIRC, resulted in either a straight keep or a no consensus keep. Rebecca 01:12, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

If you think it should be deleted, you're welcome to nominate it - don't let me put you off! As for expanding it - something like Chadstone Shopping Centre isn't a bad example of a local shopping centre article if you're interested. Rebecca 01:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Greetings. If I could join in. Altona Gate is my local shopping centre and I like it because it is very small unlike Highpoint Shopping Centre. I hate crowds. This means that pretty well anything that can be written about it has been written in the brief stub already. It is a lot smaller than Highpoint or, I believe, Chadstone. But nevertheless, have a go. Reply here if you want to reply. --Bduke 01:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi Bduke, input is always welcome, especially from a native of the area. I'll compare all the mentioned articles when I have a chance. You said that you like Altona Gate but don't think there's much more to say, so let me ask you this: Speaking as both a customer of the mall, and a Wikipedian, do you think the articles merits inclusion here? I'm very interested in your opinion, thanks in advance for sharing. --Doc Tropics 02:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

First, you might be interested in the discussion on this Mall at Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board. I started that and that is how I came to follow the debate you had with Rebecca. I really hate deleting material on WP. I much prefer to leave stuff unless it is total crap and against our policies. I think this one is marginal but I would leave it. Maybe there is more to say. I note by the way that there is little on the Highpoint article and that Shopping Mall is massive. However, it might be better to add the material to Altona North which is a pretty small article. That would keep the material. --Bduke 02:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the info Bduke, especially the pointer to Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board. I dropped a note there hoping to generate more discussion and it seems to be working. I'm interested in the suggestions of either including these items in a list or incorporating them into articles about the local area/region. I concur with your views on "total crap" and clearly these types of articles don't fall into that category. However, it does seem that review and concensus regarding individual articles would be worthwhile. The Chadstone Shopping Centre that Rebecca pointed out seems to be an excellent example of a good article on the topic. As a minor aside, I'm somewhat taken aback to find myself in dialog with someone who has such outstanding personal credentials as well as a history of WP contributions like yours. Plus, you have a very distinguished beard which is a well-known sign of high intelligence and intellectual prowess :) Thanks again for taking the time to be so helpful. --Doc Tropics 17:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your note. I appreciate it. I changed the tense of the article to future tense. I also added the images and some references and did some expansion and re-wording. I haven't yet been able to substantiate all of the original authors informaiton, so I left him a message asking him for his sources. I figured that is a lot easier than me finding them all over again. I'll gladly take a look at your new article and see if I can make any suggestions. Thanks again, Johntex\^talk 06:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I've noticed that the best articles are always a team effort with each editor bringing different skills and talents to the project. --Doc Tropics 06:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Cross posted:BTW - No need to bring Captain Kook to anyone's attention anymore. He recently called himself to the attention of our legal counsel Brad Patrick with an...interesting...message titled "Hi Brad". I find myself harboring some sadly non-wiki sentiments probably best not elaborated on here :) --Doc Tropics

What on earth? Seriously, what the hell is that about! Sounds like he has lost it. I now know who you are talking about by the way - I had never seen him user the signature Captain Kook, but I have seen IMHO around. Viridae^Talk 08:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he started in the Half-life article and he's been posting to almost every column in The Village Pump recently. I have to admit that tagging him as Captain Kook was my idea of a joke, but probably poor wikiquette. I try to be a good boy but sometimes...it's just hard. I've made a point of never, ever engaging him or responding to his comments because I don't think I could do it without turning into a troll. Sometimes when I need a break from more serious editing I follow his recent contribs just for a chuckle :) --Doc Tropics 08:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes I feel that I am harrasing users, because everything they do vioolates something and I pull them up on it. Can't be helped, I tell them what they did wrong then politely point them in the right direction. No point in being annoyed with them. Viridae^Talk 13:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Regarding new users, you're quite correct; getting them pointed in the right direction without causing bad feelings requires a gentle approach, patience, and tact. I hope you aren't considering IMHO as a new user though...he's been here longer than you and has a similar (but slightly lower) number of total edits. I don't want to seem like I'm attacking anyone, it's just that when I see behavior like his I tend to wonder...how long until they self-destruct? In this case I think the answer is: not long. On a seperate topic, I see that you're 'acquainted' with Bduke, apparently through the AfD re Periodic table (Chinese). Do Aussies use the phrase "...it's a small world"? :) --Doc Tropics 16:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the sandwich! CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 13:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You earned it and I just wanted to make sure you knew that your efforts were appreciated. I think we're getting close to seeing some comments at Template talk:Did you know and I'm anxious to see what needs improvement. BTW - I certainly learned a lot from you just by watching your edits to see how things should be done, but I think I lack the patience for the kind of detail work that you seem to excel at. --Doc Tropics 16:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

On June 29, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Higgins Glass, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Thanks for your contributions! ++Lar: t/c 17:27, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

 

Nice work, dude! CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 17:35, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that was some good teamwork. I think I'll add this to my Userpage brag section :) --Doc Tropics 18:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Congrats! Doing some good work. Viridae^Talk 06:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Check my userpage - the cookie is now enshrined where it should be :) Viridae^Talk 06:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Google the quote and you will be able to find where it comes from. Feel free to change it though - it's a little obscure. Viridae^Talk 06:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

"...it's a little obscure."? A little? You've clearly mastered the art of understatement! But I'll leave it as is and make someone work for their cookie :) --Doc Tropics 06:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

On the DYK! --Fuhghettaboutit 06:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Not a prob. It may have happened during the WoW attack the other day, someone might have thought it deserved an AFD but luckly didn't complete the procedure. Happy Editing Aeon 15:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Not at the moment, Just had an Anom IP vandalise my user page because I submitted an article for AFD (on one that is very political so you can get the picture of what has been going on in that AFD) so my level is up a little. Other than that everything is fine thanks for checking in Happy Editing Aeon 16:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Oh don't worry. That article needs to go, look what it is causing? Not to mention the Sockpuppets, Anon IP and Meatpuppets oh well, lets hope the closing Admin makes a good decision I would hate to go through this again. Aeon 17:10, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Same here going to the Hurricane portal to find an article to work on. Aeon 18:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey, just noticed you've added a bunch of wiki-links to Earl Strickland but most of them are red. Are you going to write the articles required to turn these red links blue or find appropriate links existing in Wikipedia to link to, or (3) none of the above? Budgiekiller 20:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the note. I had been editing the page when I had a minor RL disaster involving a cat and a large stack of boxes. I think I must have hit save as I jumped up, even though I hadn't finished. I probably would have forgotten the article if you hadn't dropped a note on my page. I killed all the redlinks for now and the article looks good again :) --Doc Tropics 20:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Wow, sounds disastrous! Remind me to place the cat and the boxes in a spare room and close the door before I edit pages!! No problems, thanks for pleasant discussion. Budgiekiller 20:33, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

That's a lot of anons. I don't have a lot of experience with this type of thing. My understanding is that the closing admin sorts through it. And whoever wants to get involved can put in comments like "user's 1st edit", which helps the closing admins determine consensus. I would do something with it right now, but to be honest I have already done enough on the comptuer today and I'm ready to do something else. Let me know if there's a delay in closing this one. --Fang Aili ^talk 22:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

For reverting my user page :) Viridae^Talk 23:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

No worries --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 01:04, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It is a hard quote but it's from a classic. Hint that will probably give it away The first real champion of great tech work. Yanksox 05:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Now that is Cool! Aeon 20:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I bet 10$ and the admin rights to one of my forums that they bring it back by the end of the week. Aeon 23:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

yep lol....it is good, boy that was a hard AfD to get through. Aeon 12:31, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Someone is now trying to get it undeleted. [Link] Aeon 15:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

That "someone" would be me, User:Tiamut. And I don't appreciate you making threats. To recap, you said,

"Wow! That didn't take long. I think we need to put that article down with a stake through its chest and stuff its mouth with holy wafers...--Doc Tropics Message in a bottle 15:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)"

And then Aeon wrote the sentence which appears here:

• Falls out of chair becuase he is laughing so hard* I know a catholic chaplian, you get the stake I will give him a call Aeon 15:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Now, why would that be so funny? I know I write and edit articles late at night on Mary's Well, Palestinian Christian and Nazareth. I've mentioned my Christian background on talk pages there. And I also know I have a tendency to verbosity. But I don't think talk of forming a double tag team to drive a stake through me and stuff holy wafers in my mouth is remotely funny. It's actually totally offensive and threatening. Could you explain or clarify for me in case I have misunderstood? Tiamut 19:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

We (myself and doc Tropics) did not make any threats. We are just sharing a joke about that AfD. Sorry if it has irratated you but you must understand that that was a rather stressful AfD for all concerned and a little release was needed. The article in question in mine and several other opinion needed to be deleted, it was not notable enough to be in wikipedia. Please in the future not accuse anybody of making threats, it was a simple joke about the AfD (the fact that it wasn't until the next day that is was nomed for undelete.) and not ment to be anyhting but a joke. Aeon 20:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Tiamut, I'm sorry you were confused about my remarks on Aeon's Talkpage and took them the wrong way. If you'll just reread the sentence of mine that you copied here you'll notice I said: "...That article..."needed to be put down with a stake. It was meant as a joke after a difficult AfD, not as a threat. I'm aware that you participated in the AfD but we've never had any contact; I assure you that our jokes were not aimed at you and they were jokes, not threats. Personally, I think everyone, including the 3 of us, is still just a little wound up about that contentious article. Frankly, Aeon and I were pleased to see it deleted (for reasons we made clear in AfD) and we were somehwat chagrined to see it brought back for review after less than 48 hours. I felt like it was rising from the dead...hence my reference to killing it like a vampire. I can understand that you wouldn't find our comments funny because you worked hard to preserve the article; I respect the work you did, and your position, even though I disagree with you on that particular topic. In short, I think this was just a small misunderstanding and I hope it won't affect any work we might do together in the future. Regards, --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 21:29, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Doc Tropics, I do appreciate that you recognize why I would not find your "joke" funny, and agree that we all might be a little wound up over that article. Do consider though that an article does not renominate itself for deletion, and your comments came directly after I voted to overturn the deletion, and this is something you both could not have failed to notice since Aeon linked to the Deletion:review page, just after I made my vote to overturn. I am, however, going to take your explanation at face value. You were attentive in addressing my concern and I'm not looking to make any enemies.Tiamut 09:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Do worry about us Tiamut, hope you stick around on Wikipedia. Remember allways assume god faith in things. Aeon 01:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Note to self: Don't ask Aeon to spellcheck my work for me :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 01:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Aeon, either you are a very bad speller and copy editor, or you think that continuing to make subtle threats and jokes about religion is somehow funny. Perhaps you really do want to threaten me, but prefer to be subtle. As an Administrator, I would think that you have a greater responsibility to both good copy and good conduct. But if you prefer to take this matter lightly, that's your perogative.Tiamut 09:16, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Tiamut Please stop accuseing me of making threats I'm not, ok. I don't wish this to go any farther. Please understand this please stop, If this contiunes I may submit a Request for Comment or Mediation to resolve this. My reply to you had a wording prblem and was not how I intended it so I fixed it. Note: That I have replyed to you on your talk page as well (posted this one over the old one, the old one was a little Fiester and not how I wanted to come off) Aeon 18:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Forget about it. I guess I misunderstood and was tracing patterns out of coincidences. Truce? Tiamut 18:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh BTW I'm not a Sysop (Admin on Wikipedia) nor do I wish to be one, I'm a system Admin at my weather office. Aeon 18:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Correction: per the terms of our bet, I am now an Admin at your weather office, plus you owe me USD$10. Pay up buddy! --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 18:22, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Correction to the Correction: That was for one of my Forums (hands over 10$USD) Aeon 18:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

The two of you have surpassed my expectations of the kindness and good humour that can come out of a heated Afd debate. I look forward to your return. Enjoy your vacation! Tiamut 10:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm in a little debate with a few other editors about a page move. Do you think you could add some outside insight? Some of us think that Syracuse, Italy should automatically retain the page "Syracuse" with a link to the disambiguation at the top of the page. Others, myself included, think that "Syracuse" should link to a disambig page because "Syracuse, New York" is actually larger than Syracuse, Italy, and the notability difference is too small to not need a disambig. So, if you could add some input that would be great. Also, don't feel like you have to side with me--I'm not trying to gather support--There's just not enough people to form a fair consensus. Thanks alot! AdamBiswanger1 14:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help AdamBiswanger1 15:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what I should make of this guy. He's really pushing this "Alcoholism as a disease" viewpoint, and he has good sources to back it up. He claims to be an eminent physician, and Google brings up a several pages relating to him. Half of me wants to back down to the expert and recognize that Truth is not found by consensus, and the other half of me wants to recognize that popular sentiment is that this issue is unresolved. But in the end I have feeling that Gitlow (If he is indeed Gitlow) is just flat out wrong about there being a definite consensus. Check out the Alcoholism page. Medical Man added an absurd amount of sources to counter Gitlow. It's pretty hilarious AdamBiswanger1 15:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

User_talk:Lindsay658#Ownership

On July 5, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Forbes State Forest, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--BRIAN0918 19:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

 

Bloody hell, another one! Well done! Never saw you submit that one! CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 22:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I hope my disagreement with you did not suggest you are not wanted, we are in great need of experienced editors such as yourself there. The most active editors (including yours truly) are mostly freshmen (first year Wiki editors). We have lots subject matter experts there but very few people who are experts in Wiki policy and standards and in my opinion, that is what is causing the delayed resolution and contributing to the hostilities. As you can see simply getting editorial consensus on a definition is a major undertaking but in spite of all the debate and contention I think we're slowly making some progress. Again, I hope you'll stick around and lend us a hand. Mr Christopher 22:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

You were actually very considerate in your reply Mr Christopher, especially when you reworded your first response to include me specifically (yes, I noticed that and appreciated it). I'm still a newcomer to wiki, and certainly no subject matter expert, but I have observed the processes involved in writing a strong article and I'm familiar with the policies and guidelines of WP. Since I'm not really qualified to comment on content, I was hoping that my views as a layman would help keep the article accessible for "average" readers. As for disagreement...I think that can actually be an important part of the process. When editors disagree, but work together through honest dialogue to achieve consensus, the result is almost always a better, stronger article and a "victory" for WP. IMHO, Alcoholism has the potential to achieve Featured Article status, and I'd like to work towards that goal. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 23:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for your note about Forbes State Forest, Pennsylvania. Sorry I didn't reply sooner - I have been travelling. I did a little searching for a photo for this article, including the use of my two favorite photo sources. The first of these is yotophoto, which searches for free images (interestingly it was created by someone to search for free images here and at commons, though now it searches other places as well). The other is to do a Google image search with "whatever"+.gov The premise is that US govt works are in the public domain. This works especially well with topics related to the US govt, including anything NASA or the USGS would ever have put a hand into. Alas, so far I have come up dry. You might try putting a request on relevant articles, such as Talk:Pennsylvania to see if any local Wikipedians may have a photo. Good luck, Johntex\^talk 23:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks, sorry I haven't been more successful so far. If I get another inspiration I'll try again. Happy editting - Johntex\^talk 00:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Since Tiamut mentioned our misunderstanding at Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance) I've created this section so that anyone who has a concern about my behaviour or a comment on the situation can post it here. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 07:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I will also be checking here as well. Aeon 18:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL, I need to make that userbox! yep mine is bad to. I only wish Tiamut would stop accusing me of making threats. Hopefully he will relise that I'm just an harmless insane Weather Guesser in the US Navy with SYTEM (not Sysop) Admin Privilages lol Aeon 18:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey Doc this is for you Aeon 19:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Good Humor
		Thanks for handling that issue. You have had a great sense of humor about it Aeon 19:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

METAR KNLC 061855Z 32008KT 7SM SKC 27/11 A3003 RMK SLP169 T02780111

Basicly the weather is great (Sky Clear, No Weather and hot with a nice breaze).

Thanks for the sandwich! I needed that. I have been to Singapore, Japan, U.A.E, Bahrain, Austalia, Italy and Hawaii Aeon 19:48, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

That's quite a list of countries. If travel broadens the mind, your brain must be leaking out your ears :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 19:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep..opps need to get a drip pan there it goes again. Thanks again for the Sandwich! Aeon 19:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the cookie and thanks for reminding me of that awesome line! I got to goJulia we got Cows!Aeon 23:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL, that's the one! --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 23:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Copied from my talk.

Thanks so much for your brief but lucid contribution to the Talkpage. I feel better knowing that an experienced Wikipedian has their eye on things there, especially someone who has the good taste to quote Blake's "Tyger" on their Userpage :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 17:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Your welcome. ; - ) I've been watching "the tyger" to see if he is after my peace dove. So far the tiger is staying in place. Wiki peace still reigns. Take care, FloNight ^talk 06:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, as long as wikipeace still reigns then I can sleep easy, or I would if I could tear myself away from WP :) But I'm curious about "Tyger"; I seem to recall it opened with "Tyger, tyger, burning bright/in the forests of the night/O what mortal hand or eye/could frame thy fearful symmetry?" It's been a couple of decades since I brooded over Blake as a college Freshman; am I remembering wrong? --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 06:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

 

You remember correctly. I skipped to the meat of the poem. I put it on my user page to use as a visual representation of a Wiki-dude that is harassing me in real life. Not knowing what he looked like was adding to my frustration. It worked great. I'm pretty good at using imagery and relaxation techniques to handle my stress. I did not use Blake's actual work because the tiger looks too meek. Take care, FloNight ^talk 19:09, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi Doc- I really appreciate your highly effective work on the Alcoholism page. I had recently grown very frustrated and discouraged but now think we have a good shot at making this page a good one. There's clearly a lot of good faith effort on the part of everyone involved.

Don't apologize for not being an expert, which has little or nothing to do with bing an effective editor.

There are many controversies surrounding alcoholism, it's often a very emotional subject, and is even a life-threatening problem for some people. We have a big responsibility to create a page that is accurate and, at the least, does no harm to people. With everyone's cooperation we can do it.Medical Man 14:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Doc, I have made two comments in on the talk page, one I think you missed one and one I wrote after you had left the building. Would you take a moment and read my latest two entries there? In short I feel we are doing a disservice to Robert by moving on (changing the article and starting on the next section) without his consent. I also think this could set a bad precedent and could be interpreted as mob rule. On a lighter note I very much appreciate your efforts which may in fact have lead to a concensus, at least on the first sentence/paragraph. You bring a valuable enthusiasm and fresh viewpoint to the article. I'm glad you've joined us. Cheers! Mr Christopher 19:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Got your note, saw your revert, we're on the same page. Life is good Mr Christopher 21:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the butterfly. I hope you enjoy your weekend...perhaps all of us can take a breather for a day or two. The alcoholism entry won't vanish in the meantime. Your efforts have been very much appreciated. Drgitlow 14:01, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

The quote itself comes straight from The Simpsons, specifically the episode where Homer goes into space, although there is one very similar in Pyramids...

The telling off was for a sarcy edit summary when a beligerant editor felt that astrology didn't belong in the category pseudoscience, and sadly it wasn't as witty as the first comment. Anyway, glad I can lighten the day. :) Jefffire 14:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

There you go! I just made it enjoy! Aeon 02:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Not a prob.....lol Aeon 22:35, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Not a prob! Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 00:24, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I am working on making the 21 PA state forest articles more uniform in style. After I get them all to a certain point (3 to go), I was going to work on state parks and make PA Scenic River stubs. Do you have a state park article to use as a model? Ruhrfisch 11:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your answer. I 've just expanded this article as Pharos suggested --15:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC), could you please check out the text ; I'm aware of a en-3 only level about my fluency. I also tried a sentence there but I'm quite sure it's not properly written so I daren't publish it in that form. Yet, the idea is there (it is highlighted in bold caps).

Regards,

The Lilliputian.

Hey there, just spotted your edit on the old watchlist. Sorry I can't join in at the moment, I'm busy with the RuneScape subpages mess. I'll grab some of those screenshots in a bit, in the meantime, I'll nuke that clansite link, as they are clearly not allowed. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 17:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Good move. I was going to ask you about that, and I have a couple other questions whenever you have time (no rush, we're not on a deadline):

1. Do team members really use both the MP5 and the MP5SD? I don't know the game, but in RL I suspect the latter version is in near-universal use for any tactical team.
2. The infobox currently states it is a single-player game; should this be changed to reflect the multi-player versions now available?

More questions will probably be forthcoming, I just thought I'd start with a bit of cleanup and clarification. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 17:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

1. In the single player game, there is a choice for each team member of using the M4, the Benelli, the MP5 or the MP5SD. They can be selected freely in the premission loadout screen, and each officer can carry and use only one long weapon at a time.
2. I suppose it can changed to, say, "single player, with multiplayer mode".

CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 18:02, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for swift response, I know you're preoccupied. I left in MP5, bluelinked MP5SD, and tweaked infobox per your suggestion. I also killed the redlink for "Opti-wand" since there's little chance it will ever have its own article. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 18:26, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I'll go and grab some screens then; one of the loadout screen, and one of multiplayer. Can you think of any more, such as one of the Opti-Wand? I might grab a couple to replace the ones that are already in, they have a lot of JPG artifacts. Oh and by the way, C2 wasn't used in error, it really is C2, a similar but not the same compound to C4. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 18:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I goofed on the C2/C4 thing...good catch. I can't think of any other specific screenshots needed at the mo' but I'm sure your additions will be useful :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 18:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay, new images in place. What do you think? CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 21:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Erm, slight problem here. Can you check Image:Swat 3 0004.jpg? The new version I uploaded doesn't seem to be taking effect, no matter how many times I clear my browser cache, or purge the server cache. In the article, I'm still getting the same old image of two officers pointing guns at a flashbang-dazzled terrorist. On the image page itself, i'm getting the image I uploaded; a view down a staircase, with two terrorists, one in the process of collapsing to the floor. Is the same happening to you? If so, I might try reuploading the image, and if that doesn't work we might need to get an admin or developer involved. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 02:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for helping me with trying to resolve the dispute over this article. I guess I did get carried away with my part in the bickering. Maybe I've been dealing with "the happiest talk page on Wikipedia!" too long. I really don't mean to come off as a jerk or a loose cannon -- sorry if I'm making you question your previous support of my actions. At least I didn't get reported to AN/I yet, though, right?
Thanks again, and have a good one! -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 04:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Omi, the fact that you have as much patience as you do is a source of wonder to me. I never meant to imply that you were on the verge of running amuck; my references on the Talkpage were for the benefit of a newcomer who was obviously getting frustrated. I didn't want to make a comment that would seem like an attack, but I did want to steer him towards some basic wikiquette. If he weren't such an obvious newcomer then comments like "get a life" would merit a more sternly worded reminder about WP:CIV. I actually admire your effort to clean up the article; I hope that Wizzler2 will realize you're helping and start to work with you. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 04:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You are very kind and yet very insightful, sir. Now, by request, Dinosaur Boy (contribs)! (Also posted on my talk page.) -- Omicronpersei8 (talk) 05:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, and Wow! What a great article; I've got it watchlisted now, and I'll be watching it too. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 05:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the cookie - I meant to leave a message here yesterday and got caught up in the quotes instead. I will leave a quote when I decide one one to leave. I think we have fairly similar philosophies on red links etc. in Wikipedia. I started on PA State Forests to turn a red link for Tiadaghton State Forest blue (in White Deer Hole Creek). I will work on State Park articles as time permits - I will make a start article for Little Pine State Park as I have a decent picture of the lake there (for the Little Pine Creek article, when I get to it). I think I could use a PA locator map in the PA State Park articles infobox (as opposed to the USA locator map for the state forests). What do you think? I will let you know when I get the Little Pine article semi-done and then would appreciate feedback (what basics need to be in each article). Maybe we can set up a model / style for the rest. I was also thinking of adding all state parks in the Forest District to the State Forest articles (I started doing this on Lackawanna State Forest). Keep up the good work - love your user name. Ruhrfisch 18:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Doc. I think that we're in agreement on this, baring some semantics. The objective of the move was to give those interested in that topic a place to discuss the issue and present their findings, where it wouldn't overwhelm the other discussions about alcoholism. Essentially I entirely split off the disease discussion to its new home. Leaving the elements of that discussion on the Alcoholism page would only serve to encourage the discussion to continue on BOTH places, which would not be good for that discussion OR the alcoholism discussions.

This move is equivalent to archiving the discussion, except that we're archiving it to its own topic where it can grow and flurrish (and maybe produce a decent article) instead of archiving it to a little-referenced sub-talk page off of the existing talk page.

We still need to leave reference to that discussion on the alcoholism page for three reasons. The first is that it'll prevent people from continuing to discuss it on the alcoholism page. The second is that we need it as a pointer to the new page. The third is that the topic of alcoholism isn't really complete without it.

Does that make sense?

I definitely want to thank you for providing your insights to the alcoholism page. You've been of great value in providing alternate viewpoints when we've been at odds. 216.241.42.70 03:15, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that makes perfect sense to me. Starting a new article was probably the best way to get things moving again, and judging by the Talk:Alcoholism page, there was more than enough material to warrant a seperate article. The last time I checked on Alcoholism itself I thought it was looking a lot better, although as you mentioned, there might be some minor semantic issues. I'd be very interested in seeing the "Mediation Request" removed from the Talkpage since I think that it's ancient history now, but as I wasn't involved originally it wouldn't be appropriate for me to remove it (The Cabal actually assigned a mediator, but as far as I know he never got involved either). Thanks for the compliment; it's been a rare pleasure working with such educated and rational editors! --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 16:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW nice user page. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 04:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

 

Thanks, but I have to confess, I copied the format from Adambiswanger1. Still, that doesn't mean I'm going to give back the Barnstar ("my precious...mine!). Like you, Adam tends to get involved in some very...interesting...discussions :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 15:56, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

OMG, this is what happens when I edit before my first cup of coffee! I stole the format from you, not Adam. Wow, do I feel silly. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 16:19, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't wory about it. and as for interesting discussions I was just the advocate (resigned after that one,became a Medation Cabalist) and whound up having to help both sides. LOL should be interresting. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 16:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting...yeah. Why didn't you ask me for something easy, like turning a stub into a Featured Article in one day? Seriously, I'm still reading (just completed a review of UCRG's RfC) but I need to visit some other RfC's so I can learn how to comment intelligently. I really admire your work in the various aspects of WP:DR and, with your permission, I'd like to "follow" your ongoing efforts as a silent watcher. I think I'd like to get more involved in Mediation because it seems like a great service to the community, but I'm not sure I've really got the temperment for it (you've seen that my attempts at humor aren't always appreciated). Anyway, thanks for giving me a pointer to these; with so much to do on WP I'm in little danger of developing a Real Life :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 17:13, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I may have cause some more trouble with UCRGrad with this but we (everyone) needed an outside view of these. Thanks for taking the timeAeon ^{Insane Ward} 20:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

The Post is in the right format for the RfC. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 21:10, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I feel like I just lit a cigar and dropped the match in a barrel marked "Gunpowder". My two major concerns were the formatting (splitting my own comments into two parts), and the tone of the second part which I felt was harsh but accurate. If it's not appropriate for you to comment further, well...I understand. Also, thanks for the positive comments about my own contributions to WP. I do it for my own sake, but it is nice to be noticed :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 21:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is the reason I asked for your input lol. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 21:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey Doc I think you would be a perfect fit for Esperanza. It is a Wikipedia Porject aimed at helping members, sending the message of Hope and reconsing Uses for good deeds. They have a wonderful reach out program for stressed members. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 21:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm aware of Esperanza and hold them in high regard for their stated goals. So far I've refrained from joining any of the groups on WP because I still don't have enough experience, but I have tried (informally) to behave like an Esperanzan and a Mediator (with somewhat mixed success). I really appreciate your support and I will continue to follow your own "career" with...interest :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 21:29, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

In that case join the Mediation Cabal. Don't need much experiance and it is a low key project. But if do don't want to that is cool to. I just join Esperanza myself and so far like it a lot. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 21:36, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Hello Doc Tropics, Copied from FloNight:

I was just wondering if you were aware of any policy, guideline, or community consensus about citing other encyclopedias on WP? I couldn't find anything, but it seems that if anyone would know...you would :) Thanks --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 02:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure, they are used all the time. Some of our starting articles came from 1923 EB. Most of those have been replaced, for good reason. ; - ) Up to date encyclopedia articles can be used as a source. FloNight ^talk 02:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Just passing by - hope you don't mind if I chime in. The 1923 EB was used as a starting point for some articles because the copyright on that encyclopedia has expired and it is in the public domain. Therefore, we legally could actually copy and paste information with no re-wording. There has been some discussion that along the lines of it being a good idea to avoid referencing our current "competition" too much, such as Encarta or the current EB. There are two reasons for this. One is that we don't want to give them the opportunity to say that we just stole their content and re-worded it a little. The second is that encyclopeida are supposed to be secondary or tertiary resources, as opposed to primary resources. Since this applies to other encyclopedias as wel as us, it means they got their content from somewhere else. That means it would be better to go to those original primary sources than to cite other encyclopedias. I will see if I can remember where this discussion occured and give you a link.

I also sent you an e-mail on another topic. Thanks very much, Johntex\^talk 02:36, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:RS which is a (currently somewhat disputed) guideline states:

When reporting facts, Wikipedia articles should cite sources.[1] Wikipedia is a tertiary source. Wikipedia cannot cite itself as a source—that would be a self-reference. There is a wealth of reliable information in tertiary sources such as the Encyclopædia Britannica. Note that unsigned Encyclopædia Britannica, World Book, and Encarta articles are written by staff, who may not be experts, and the articles may therefore not have the same level of credibility, but they are regarded as reliable sources for Wikipedia's purposes. When wikipedians have the ambition to write a better encyclopedia entry than those extant,[2] it does not suffice to rely on the content of such tertiary sources. Therefore, in general, as primary sources are also to be treated with caution (see above), secondary sources are the stock material on which Wikipedia articles depend for their references.

Johntex\^talk 02:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks to both of you for responding. I knew that EB would be considered reliable, but I was wondering about the "secondary/tertiary" aspect. And I guess I have to admit, there's something about citing EB's website in a WP article that just bugs me :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 03:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Sure give a a second let me find it so I can pass it along. Remember calm deep breaths...Remember your a joke not a threat....and you like the Pearl Neckless Girls...eyes Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 05:21, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL, I'm not even the one who needs the tea...I'm just hoping that other folks will take a breath or two before the next time they hit the "Save" button. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 05:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

 

There is the tea and here is the policy Tea! lol Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 05:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW you should see the Pearl Neckless AfD.....boy did it go south. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 05:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Link to the AfD

A lot of articles up at once. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 13:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL you are funny you know that? Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 02:23, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

nice image that article has....comented on in. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 02:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes I noticed her.....eyes were nice big and round. :-)) Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 05:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

 

LOL I try! helps when you have an insane attitude to everything....occupational hazard of being a weather guesser. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 05:54, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

And here is a prefect example. A user wanted his userboxes sorted. so I spent the last 1 and 10 mins sorting them! Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 05:56, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I had noticed that. Good work BTW. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 05:58, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep....I think I need a life...and I'm now sick of user boxes....lol Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 06:02, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL, if you can get a life tell me where I can find one and how much they cost! For me, it's the time of night where I can't walk away from WP, but I know I can't make serious edits :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 06:04, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL, I'm about to go Vandal Hunting in a minute....all hail Vandal Proof! Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 06:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I think a life is about 24.95...oh wait that is the game nevermind. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 06:06, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

OH.....yes it is....so is Vandal Hunting to. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 06:11, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh I just saw your comment to User:Sleazy-pantz, I agree it is inrestsing. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 08:24, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

You are correct on that one (in the Pearl Necklace Afd) Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 04:15, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Heh heh, for some reason I just can't stop adding comments there : ) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 04:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Doc you need a hobby, other than that AfD that is lol. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 04:51, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

LMAO, yeah, but it looks like I'm not the only one! --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 04:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL true I just can't look at it at work. lol and I'm not the one that replied ot the user thanking him for his intresting choice of topics (I almost gave him an Oddball Barnstar however lol, it was a...odd....article). You are one of a kind Doc, it is good to have someone with your sense of humor around. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 20:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

You are to kind Doc. I'm just someone who does what is need here. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 20:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi- Actually I wasn't working on the alcoholism page itself but on the Discussion page. I'll try to come up with a revised sentence and see if ppl. find it acceptable. Thanks.Non-smoker 00:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, we had so much going on at once that I just got confused :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 00:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edwin Thanhouser

Welcome to the dark side, oh hater of articles, oh destroyer of valuable knowledge. If I had created this nomination, a couple of things that I might have done differently:

• Avoid abbreviations whenever possible. They are quick and tempting, but we want neophytes to be able to contribute intelligently to the debate and acronyms can be offputting. I try to say "guideline for inclusion of people" or something like that.
• Always show that you've done some research, even just a quick Google or a link to his IMDB entry. This both helps out those who want to make an informed decision and stops those who might claim that you haven't.

I'd guess that this article will not be deleted, but only time will tell.
brenneman ^{L} 06:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for the tips brenneman, I'll remember. thanks especially for that warm welcome to the dard side; perhaps later we could go burn down a library or something? --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 07:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

We have got to stop shopping at the same AfDs...Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 15:04, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL, not a prob lol. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 16:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Afd Here is one I did, needs more input. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 16:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL I have the missiles locked an loaded, but righ now they are targeting Vandals Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 16:36, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Carry on soldier! --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 16:38, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL roger that. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 17:11, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

RfC

I know you havn't edited tha article looking for an outside view on the matter. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 19:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

RfC

This one to? Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 19:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Not a prob take your time, I need someone with an outside and netural opinion on these matters, your where the first I thought of (lol). Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 04:12, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your excellent comments on both RFCs concerning the UCR article. Currently, while IB has shown signs of reasonableness and diplomacy in his recent activities on the UCR article talk page, he has not gone against any prior held positions or against UCRGrad. UCRG seems to be repeating the same behavior/arguments as before. I'm begining to agree with you that one RFC should have been filed instead of 2, but oh well.--Amerique 19:52, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I haven't done much "editing" recently... I've been meaning to do that but my activities pursuing WP:DR, which I've been pursuing out of curiosity and not out of any animosity against those 2, have taken up a lot of time.--Amerique 20:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I try to do some useful work on articles every day, but I often find myself distracted by community-oriented activities. I think that both can be valid contributions, but it can be hard to juggle between the two. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 20:43, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The Barnstar of Good Humor For persistent and unflagging good spirits, cheerful commentary, and upbeat attitude the last few days. -- nae'blis (talk) 22:10, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding 'fessing up', I've seen you at KM's talk page as well, plus sometimes on AFD (notably the one for pearl necklace). Not sure how long you've been around the project - looks like maybe as little as five weeks - but your attitude is great! -- nae'blis _(talk) 00:36, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

GOOD JOB DOC! Nice one! Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 01:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The Surreal Barnstar You are the very definition of this Barnstar. You make the Wiki a special place for us indeed. Aeon Insane Ward 01:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

See WP:STAR for the Definition of it...lol. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 01:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL you are welcome! lol....while you been gone I nailed several vandals..lol. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 03:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Doc! Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 03:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

For you!Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 03:20, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

And Willy on Wheels is trying to make a comeback tonight.....going to be busy! Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 03:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice image! Have fun hunting Willy :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 03:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

He's stoped (Oh well, but good for the Wiki). LOL Vandals are slowing down for the moment. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 03:46, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

haha, thanks. Don't worry about it. I always keep votes separate from people =D. αChimp ^laudare 05:19, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Good philosophy. Every once in a while I found myself "opposing" someone that I usually agree with but "What happens in AfD, stays in AfD". --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 05:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Doc, I have to hand it to you you sumed it up nicely. My feelings have now started to mirror yours on him. IB in my opinion can and has really started to become a productive member of the Wiki and he will no dought soon have a brigt future here. UCRGrad has not and is slowly draining in my opinion communintiy Pateince. I would expect it to go to ARbCom soon. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 16:49, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Aeon, I wouldn't normally respond to a comment directed at someone else, but that was over the top. Especially given the current circumstances, it struck me as a totally vindictive and mean-spirited attempt to provoke more bad feeling rather than move on and be productive. I'm glad to hear that IB has taken the higher ground is is attempting to play well with others, that's a positive thing! UCRGrad on the other hand, can almost certainly look forward to official sanctions in the future. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 17:10, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm Afraid so. It is sad when that happens, but sometimes it has to. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 17:42, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm always down for an AfD scuffle. I think I'm actually down for anything that isn't fixing typos or stub-sorting about right now. Also, don't forget about my favorite tool: Template:adw. You just go through the history of the page and send it to everyone (especially if you think a huge injustice is being done by nominating it.) And by the way...when have we disagreed? AdamBiswanger1 18:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the handy tool! I'll remember that. Re: disagreement, I was recalling our first interaction at an AfD. Based on your comments and then a talkpage discussion I ended up changing my position, after I had initially "opposed" your stance. That's one of the reasons I'd value your input now; if I've missed something important, I can count on you to point it out :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 18:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not appropriate to do, especially if you are a party in the debate. I once advised someone to do it, and they were reverted and admonished by an admin. so yeah, please don't do it. You really do remove comments. αChimp ^laudare 19:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I forgot to say. I really do appreciate the fact that you came to me before you did it. αChimp ^laudare 20:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, no worries. As I said, I once got someone to do it, and I did think it was OK. αChimp ^laudare 20:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar For you going out of your way to defend a fellow Wikipedian I award you this smiling star Aeon Insane Ward 20:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL I know the feeling mine is starting to get up there (Mine set at 4 now) Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 20:39, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Pollyanna. AdamBiswanger1 21:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Now I need your opinion:

You know you're obsessed when you're lying in bed thinking about Wikipedia. So anyway, last night at about midnight it occured to me that the images in articles of cities and countries are really biased--theyr'e like brochures. No death, no pollution, no violence, no smog, even in Pyongyang. Check this out and let me know what you think. I'm probably obsessing on something trivial (not a suprise), but I figure while I'm obsessed I might as well do something productive... hold on I just noticed that someone replied to my message and I have to fire a rocket-launcer at him. AdamBiswanger1 21:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I for one like your opinion on this, maybe we could add a few images that are more along the lines of the real world. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 22:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I just started the new talkpage for it here. Sounds like fun :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 22:05, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey Doc check this out....this set my Wikistress to 5 (almost 6)

User talk:JakGd1

User talk:Triddle

These are to editors that I'm in a mediation case with.

I have requested that Alphachimp take a look at it. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 22:18, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Mine is GONE! I have also complained the the Acting AMA CoOrdinator. I think it is time to depense with the pleasantres and go to ArbCom. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 22:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

As mentioned on your page, I have requested that an Admin look into this and I left a similar note for UCRG. I don't know if ArbCom would accept yet or not, but I'm willing to find out. Start the friggin' paperwork. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 22:45, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I ment for Amerique's issue. I could add this to it, and give it one hell of a boast. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 22:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Right, good plan. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 22:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok I need to calm down here.....think rationaly.......think calm cool stream......its not helping. Going to get a cup of tea. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 22:53, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok Rational now, I have requested an Advocate to talk with him in my place from now on. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 23:04, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Good move. Let's have a drink together and get over this nonsense :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 23:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Opens Bottle, an dpours out to FULL glasses (Check my WikiStress! lol)* Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 23:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Good thing I'm not on Vandal Proof right now, because it would be Test 4 warnings all around instead of going test 1, 2, 3 then 4 lol Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 23:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL, maybe take the night off from that, you need less stress, not more :)--Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 23:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

True but in a way Vandal Hunting is fun, but nto tonight, might cause more harm then good. Tomarrrow maybe. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 23:27, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Alphachimp has posted hopefully it will settle the matter, oh and your presrciption has droped me to 3 Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 23:37, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Went for a walk and feel Better. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 00:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep My Page gets hit from time to time. Since Vandals hate to be warned I get hit every now and again. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 00:29, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Kind of like the Vandals I nail. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 00:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey Take a look at UCRGrads Talk page now....he is replying...lol Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 00:41, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

And My talk page he is now accusing you of being 'not Neutral' Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 00:56, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

And he is still WikiStalking. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 01:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Uh, Doc you might want to ummmmm take another look at you last post on my talk page. I think you were a little fiestier than you intended. (thanks for defending me) Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 01:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh gosh, I hope you don't think I was farting in your direction? Feel free to edit me as you think appropriate, I need to step away from the keyboard. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 01:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

don't worry about him. A SYSOP got involved and blocked him if he does it again tell this User RyanGerbil110 and he will take action. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 01:31, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey Doc you might want to archive some of this it is getting a little long. Use Werndabot it is an Automated process and is very useful! Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 01:46, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I was thinking about that the last couple of days. I'll archive the early stuff. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 01:48, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Need help with the Code (BTW I'm about to take a 24 Wikibreak myself) Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 01:58, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok I have fixed the code. It should work sometime in the next 24 hours and move several of hte old messages to your Archive (Named it One). Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 02:02, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, thanks! that was quick. I appreciate the help, it probably would have taken me hours to figure it out. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 02:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

It took me 30 minutes when I first did it. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 02:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL I put yours on 5 days, mine is set for one day in order to clear out some of the older messages. Shortened my page by half. 02:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, plus you get more vandalism than I do. 5 is probably good for me; It's handy reference for ongoing projects. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 02:11, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL I made aminor mistake with the code and it sent your messages into My Archive Alpha. I fixed it so it should work. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 02:18, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

LMAO, I should have remembered that free advice is worth what you pay for it! No problem, really; thanks again for your help. --

LOL....I'm feeling more stress free now. Time to read an article or two (And make minor edits to fix typos and such). Hmmmmm lets see light reading....I know Hurricane Katrina! Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 02:26, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for encouraging new users to cite sources. Articles that cite sources are rarely brought to AFD in the first place, let alone deleted. It is the right way to avoid AFD. Uncle G 10:33, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I have been thinking to changing my vote to conditional keep (I was in a rush). Only if they are cleaned up, and I don't mind people disagreeing with me it adds some Varity (I fulked english once is high school) Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 17:07, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

lol nice....Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 17:17, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Changed my "vote" (for lack of a better word) to Very Weak Keep All. Changed my mind but still feel it is cruft in away. It all needs a rewrite. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 18:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

I will be glad to help this weekend....we might be able ot merge some of it. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 19:06, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Same here plus admin duties on my forum. I can make time to. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 19:23, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to give you a heads up I will be taking a short wikibreak. Need a little time away from Wikipedia. Aeon ^{Insane Ward} 22:20, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh it's okay, I placed it on the backburner because I'm juggling through a bunch of articles and projects of my own. Perhaps we should wait until we both have some free time to work on it? — Deckiller 03:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice to meet you too =) — Deckiller 03:21, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm Back. Wikipedia is like potato chips you can't edit just one. the break did help Æon ^{Insane Ward} 17:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL! Glad you're back Aeon :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 17:51, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL, yep Æon ^{Insane Ward} 19:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

 

Since you like suckers :) Æon ^{Insane Ward} 21:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

OMG, how did you do that so fast? --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 21:36, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

not telling! lol Æon ^{Insane Ward} 21:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Such Language! LOL for you! lol ;) Æon ^{Insane Ward} 21:42, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

You to....have a few! Æon ^{Insane Ward} 21:45, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Getting stressed out again (You can figure out what is causing it) Æon ^{Insane Ward} 00:16, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Doc, Steve is handling the issue with pur favorite editor. Æon ^{Insane Ward} 04:04, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes I saw that, the Thermostat got set to a lower setting now. (Thanks to you, Natalya and Tiridae) hmmmmm I'm thinking a nice first person shooter or Command and Conqure type game is in order right now. Æon ^{Insane Ward} 04:20, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Yep and I dug out my copy of Jedi Knight 3 time for some Lightsaber mayham! Æon ^{Insane Ward} 04:24, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Doc you know how I am with Vandalism! ;) Æon ^{Insane Ward} 05:53, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

No, no test templates tonight, not on patrol.  ;) Æon ^{Insane Ward} 05:55, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL, my stress is going away! redoing a User Page is just what I needed! Æon ^{Insane Ward} 05:58, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

That is good, I would have a drink right now but out of Vodka and Tripple Sec (I love Kamakizes) Æon ^{Insane Ward} 06:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Nope, Wireless over here lol Æon ^{Insane Ward} 06:06, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

LOL.....it is ok. Æon ^{Insane Ward} 06:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I just saw your post on our UCRGrads talk page, Thanks! Æon ^{Insane Ward} 07:01, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Wow, it took me a while to notice that. :P Thank you! =D Yanksox 07:28, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey Doc.....you should see my user page now it is amasing what happens when your bored. Æon ^{Insane Ward} 00:00, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

So, my friend, when should we start with this project, to make good on our promises? I'm in Pittsburgh now but I'll be home late monday to put some serious elbow grease into this. AdamBiswanger1 01:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

They got deleted! [1] The closing admin said they were userfied but I have no idea where they went AdamBiswanger1 12:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, it seems an anon reacted to the sentence we checked together, after I added it to the article. It's here. Can you handle the proper action ? That would be kind of you, since I'm better at reacting in WP:FR.

I could go further explaining things ; yet I guess answering the question is a troll trap that may lead to a flaming behaviour as expected by the IP (at least I guess so).

I let you deal with it.

Yours,

Lilliputian 14:47, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
P.S. As a matter of fact I went further : this leads to a stub about religious feeling over time. Would you like to get on with me about such an article ?

I made a page for Little Pine State Park which includes my PA locator map. The map format and colors are as close as I could get to the US locator map. Let me know what you think. My idea is this could be a model for PA State Park articles in terms of style and organization. Ruhrfisch 20:08, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks - I thought the map turned out well, but I am not NPOV on it ;-). The problem with using the map for locating everything in PA is that the red locator dot is generated by the infobox, but I am not sure how to do this when not using Template:Infobox protected area. By the way, since you have done a lot of PA things, did you know there is a Wikiproject:Pennsylvania starting up (if you want to join)? Take care, Ruhrfisch 21:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, Little Pine, Susquehanna State Park (Pennsylvania), and Upper Pine Bottom State Park are all done, with pictures for the first two. (Upper Pine is a mystery as to why it is a State Park - it is a parking lot and a picnic area with 3 tables). Let me know what you think of these in terms of style, organization etc. If these are OK I will work my way through making more articles (and will even work on some of Forbes State Forest nearby parks if you want, after Ravensburg and Shikellamy). Thanks, Ruhrfisch 04:07, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Thanks for the fixes on Little Pine - I did mean to link to travel trailer but for some reason missed it. Found two more typos when I looked at it again too - sigh. What I might do is go through and put the Protected Areas Infobox on all of the existing PA State Park articles and make them stylistically more uniform, before making tons of new articles. I too have a backlog and much else to do in my real life. By the way, I think the US locator map is better for the State Forest articles given the more geographically diffuse nature of the forests vs. most state parks ( there is already one substitution of the PA map on Bald Eagle State Forest‎ - I will talk to VerruckteDan about it). Ruhrfisch 14:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

If you get a chance, would you mind looking at Larrys Creek and putting any comments on its peer review page here Wikipedia:Peer review/Larrys Creek/archive1? It is my model article for creeks in PA and I am trying to see if it could become WP:FA (it is already WP:GA). If you are too busy I understand, but it has been up for review for weeks and only gotten the automated comments (which were quite helpful). Thanks, Ruhrfisch 15:10, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The following articles have been "userfied" into my namespace for further work, per their AFD. Maybe I should have just voted "Delete" :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 19:15, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• User :Doc Tropics/United States health reform 1912-1920
• User:Doc Tropics/United States health reform under FDR
• User:Doc Tropics/United States health reform under Truman
• User:Doc Tropics/United States health reform under Nixon
• User:Doc Tropics/United States health reform under Carter
• User:Doc Tropics/United States health reform under Clinton

I had a nice e-mail discussion with the guy who created those articles. He is actually a professor at Duke, (this guy) and if I understood him correctly he commissioned his students to write these articles, with him reviewing and editing them. So, he was a little upset b/c he thought they were deleted, but I explained to him that they were here, and you and I were going to edit them. He was more than willing to help, and I told him what the key problems with them are, such as OR and weasel words, and maybe a dash of POV. So anyway, his suggestion was that we highlight or mark any passages that seem OR, and he'll be able to source them (and hopefully make them sound more encyclopedic). Anyway, let me know what you think, and don't feel rushed about the whole thing-- no one else even knows (or remembers) they exist AdamBiswanger1 02:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey Doc Tropics looking to increase my edit count mind if I help with these? Aerographer ^{Wind Sock} 18:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Doc tropics, who frequently sends me a telepathic messages, approves your request. AdamBiswanger1 18:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice! Thanks what needs to be done? Aerographer ^{Wind Sock} 19:55, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's a very complicated job. Mainly, we need to make the articles have a more encyclopedic tone. Then, we need to bolden all text that sounds like original research or strange. That way, Chris Conover can come and fix it. But, if you see any formatting errors or other ways that they can be improved, feel free to do so. AdamBiswanger1 19:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Got it! Aerographer ^{Wind Sock} 19:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey Doc, your insane paitent is back! Æon ^{Insane Ward} 16:52, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Check this one out

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bellypunching

It is a fairly interesting one. Æon ^{Insane Ward} 20:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Doc, I wanted to thank you for your supportive comments on my talk page and helping me to regain confidence on WP. I've been in my field for over 20 years and built up a fair bit of expertise along the way. I'm glad that I now know how to share that expertise with others and be of greater benefit to them and the WP commuity. My focus has always been to share with others, and in pioneering new approaches I guess I got a little lost along the way in thinking that people expected something that wasn't required. I've already changed my style completely and made further contributions of a highly neutral and impersonal manner. I really appreciate your comments and I would welcome taking up your invitation to coordinate writing an article when the time is right. Thank you again. --Kenstandfield 12:57a, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

The history page at http://www.id.iit.edu/profile/history.html discusses various name changes for the Institute of Design. So yes, it's the same one. -TruthbringerToronto 18:59, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Nice one. Added. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 19:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It looks ready to me. All I can think of is to cite a specific issue of The Christian Science Monitor, add any more you can think of, and to track down the Dearborn Glass Company. The stub tag can probably go now. I'm checking against the list at Wikipedia:Did you know here. Once thats sorted, we can take it to the fabled Template talk:Did you know! CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 19:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Strike that off the list, found it! CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 19:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

HA! I was just about to add that link. The website is NOT Dearborn Glass though, it's the Higgins site. I just concluded that Dearborn is defunct. --Doc Tropics 19:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. Shame that. Whats left? The Christian Monitor cite for one thing. The DYK reviewers should pick up anything else. I've copied and pasted into MS Word, the character count is nearly 2000, far surpassing the requirement. I think its time to get rid of the stub tag now, at least. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 19:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, you're too fast for me...I was going to remove stub but you beat me to it. I'll go digging for the CSM info. Doc Tropics 19:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Also posted at Talk:Higgins Glass: Right-o, I think i've fixed the link, just check that from your end to make sure, I think there's a dodgy cookie somewhere. The article looks about ready now. Do you want to submit it to Template talk:Did you know, or shall I? CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 20:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Where would we tyros be without folk like you?

Ravpapa

Given your interest in conspiracy theories surrounding 9/11, I thought you might be interested in one that was up for review. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of songs deemed inappropriate by Clear Channel following the September 11, 2001 attacks I urge you to carefully examine Wikipedia's policies and rules, and then carefully consider whether you have an opinion on the matter. Your friend.  Morton Devonshire^Yo

If you are trying to promote articles to featured status, please consider joining WikiProject Featured articles, a project where users around Wikipedia work together to promote articles. We hope to see you joining the project. Æon ^{Insane Ward} 19:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Did you die? It's a terrible thing to say, but I'm sure we'd both have a good laugh at it if I was right. AdamBiswanger1 06:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi all, sorry I was out of touch. My father was unexpectedly hospitalized and had to undergo open heart surgery. The operation went well and he seems to be recovering slowly but steadily. I'm back now and will be checking in regularly, and hopefully making some useful contributions again soon. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 12:58, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

wb and best wishes for a speedy recovery for your father. ++Lar: t/c 14:35, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back Doc I woul dcheck yopur Archives! Æon Insane Ward 15:27, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey I'm glad everything's ok (for the most part) with your father-- we were afraid we'd lost a valuable wikipedian. AdamBiswanger1 16:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Hey doc whave not heard from you in a while is everything ok? Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 09:26, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The hortibox is working now, if you're interested: b:A_Wikimanual_of_Gardening/Iris_sibirica.

(not on wikipedia, but it's there) :). --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 16:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

please look again to your comments and judging at the new article 'interreality', as now i have contributed also the sources and attributes. i am new here and did not understand the procedures well. sorry. thanks, allthebest, --User:81.207.182.13 10:33, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Gald to see your back Æon ^{Insanity Now!}_EA! 18:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Looks good, now get some sleep. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 04:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No worries. :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 17:08, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Just doing routine RC Patrol, but happy to help :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 22:19, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Thanks! --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 02:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Ha! Want to see a great edit summary? Look at this one I was going out all prepared to revert and warn the user about abusive edit summaries [2]:-)--Fuhghettaboutit 05:34, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well, I think we should allow time for more comments on the talk page, and we can both continue to make small edits for NPOV and balance in the opening paragraphs as we find necessary. I was thinking about editing the second paragraph to include the fact that 33% of the world is Christian, which is also factor in the popularity of Christmas. But if more edit conflicts do continue maybe an RfC would be appropriate.— OLP 1999 18:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't want to start a new thread — so I'm just going to post here. Usually, when I'm on a WikiBreak or busy, I stop by, check the first few items on my watchlist, and make minor changes if I see there's a need. But I usually don't have the time for in-depth discussion or involvement, that's all. Nonetheless, if you have a question, don't feel dismayed from asking. I'll put it on my (admittedly very long) Wiki to-do list. :-) -Severa (!!!) 21:22, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Severa is claiming that those people are Catholics.

Even though they have been excommunicated from the Catholic church.

Which means they are no longer Catholics.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I think it's because it was added in the edit previous to yours, which also added the erroneous text that I think you intended to remove. Or something. Powers ^T 19:52, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I have not looked into all the ins and outs of this, but I have restored the material I added, which is properly sourced, and warned Paul venter not to delete it again.[4] [5]--Runcorn 13:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

However, real legal practice, popular sentiment and political positions stray far from this apparently clear-cut decision ^[1]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The link is Wikipedia_talk:NPOV (Comparison of views in science) The text is Perhaps some of the people here might want to look at the way Thomas Aquinas dealt with presenting opposing ideas in Summa.--There's a good PD edition at [1] --He set forth his view, encapsulated the opposing view in as strong a group of arguments as he could devise (often clearer than any actual argument to be found) and then explained why it was wrong point by point. It was his book, so he stopped there, but when he presented this material in oral debate there were several more rounds, and I'm sure things did not stay quite so controlled. But I suggest that the key to a useful debate is to limit the number of rounds, or it continues forever.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You've got a supporter in me should you ever have an RfA. -Severa (!!!) 08:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

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

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

hey hey hey. I admit not all of my contributions have bin exactly as formalicized as you'd like it, but there's no need to pull out the brass knuckles!

and I quote: "do you really want to go there?"

y'know, I've tried to stop doing it, because I do mean to make a positive contribution to wikipedia, but this THING inside me...I want to escape, to escape from myself! but it's impossible. I can't escape, I have to obey it. I have to run, run...endlessly. I want to escape, to get away! always, always, always!, except when I do it, when I...then I can't remember anything. And afterwards I see these comments and read what I've done, and read, and read...did I do that? But I can't remember anything about it! but who will believe me? who knows what it's like to be me? how I'm forced to act...how I must, must...don't want to, must! Don't want to, but must! I can't go on! I can't...I can't...

so, please get off my back over one little observation on the usual state of affairs in Hollywood. if it means that much to you, at least catch me on something that makes sense —Preceding unsigned comment added by WAS (talk • contribs)

It sounds like it's past time to adjust your meds. I appreciate humor as much as anyone, and probably more than most. However, "jokes" need to be limited to talkpages and edit summaries (feel free to review mine, I've got lots); it is totally inappropriate to insert false statements into articles, even when it seems funny. I reviewed your Contrib History, and you do make useful contributions here. That's why I warned you rather than reporting you. Still, the number of "nonsense" and "vandalism" warnings on your page are disturbing. In fact, I've never seen a regular editor with so many warnings...you've got more than a lot of IP talkpages, and that takes some effort. How does this sound: I'll put away my brass knuckles if you'll get a firm grip on your 'urges' and keep them under control. Is that fair? --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 17:54, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

thanks. you just sounded a bit too much like my DARE cop after I'd just...but that's a different story entirely. as a matter of fact, I am in the process of adjusting my meds with my psychiatrist right now.

also, although I know it wasn't exactly true, I think you could easily defend the view that the screenwriting business in Hollywood tends towards the meretricious (see Barton Fink), and that was actually meant to be serious social commentary (though the style was rather informal, and I know you always say opinions are invalid)

so, I'll try to keep my urges of vandalism confined to the real world. as I said above, most of these 'vandalisms' are merely my idle comments on the subject at hand, without the least of malicious intentions

P.S.--I look upon my many warnings as a red badge of merit; the more mistakes we make, the more we learn from them. look how much I've learned from my mistakes! —Preceding unsigned comment added by WAS (talk • contribs)

My personal POV about Hollywood is so dim it resembles a Brown dwarf, but opinions really don't belong in articles, just verifiable facts. While it's certainly important to learn from our mistakes, there are some easier ways to do it than collecting warnings. I really wouldn't have addressed you so firmly (perhaps even harshly?) if your page wern't so littered with those red tags. They make it difficult to distinguish between a troublesome vandal and an honest editor with an errant sense of humor. Since I appreciate your dialogue, let me make another offer: the next time you're tempted to comment in an article like that, post your comment on my talkpage instead, along with a link to the article. I can always use a good laugh, and it will save you some difficulties in the long run. Thanks for engaging in discussion rather than just ranting at me...rants tend to get boring after a while (and I've collected several, see above). Good luck with your efforts and let me know if I can help. Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 18:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank for you for the note! Just busy in RL life — nothing serious, thankfully. Great working with you and look forward to working together in the future! -Severa (!!!) 01:07, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

You can play whatever game you like. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 06:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, that's a bit cryptic. You must be refering to my recent comment "defending" User:standonbible? I certainly didn't mean to sound snippy or critical of you, and I hope it didn't sound that way. I was trying to highlight how polite and reasonable SOB is compared to many of the editors who have "contributed" (feh!) there recently. I was also trying to be humorous, and sometimes that doesn't translate very well. I've apparently offended you, and I apologize for that; I respect you and appreciate your many efforts. If it was my defense of SOB that got your dander up, then please accept my apology; If that wasn't it, please tell me what the heck did : ) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 06:44, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the apology, and no problem. :) - Samsara (talk • contribs) 06:48, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I posted a comment here, but came late to the discussion, and it might be overlooked. I am extremely interested in volunteering to assist at DYK, in whatever capacity a non-admin might help. --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 19:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that you had. I'm not intending on using a clerk to do my user talk messaging, but certainly ALoan, Gurubrahma are reluctant to do DYK and message userpages, so you could contact them to see if they would like you to be their assistant. I also saw that Allen3 skipped the talk page notes a few times, so if you offer to help them, they may update more frequently. Aside from that, there is a list of regular updates on Template talk:Did you know that you can pester. Aside from that, we could always do with more scrutineers on the nominations (anybody has the right to comment). Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 07:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the names and tips. Since you had suggested it in the takpage, I contacted you first, but I'll ask the others as well. Thanks again and happy editing! --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 07:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey Doc - Samsara is becoming painfully aggressive at the Talk:Evolution#sprotection page and your assistance would be appreciated. I don't want to make a big deal out of this - maybe you can calm him down. standonbible^Talk! 07:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

• In re your suggestion that the discussion over at Talk:Evolution be archived: I agree entirely that it should be archived but we should probably wait 10 hours or so just so that everything settles down. Samsara might get upset if he thought I tried to get this archived when I "had the last word". Just a thought. standonbible^Talk! 07:47, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Dear Doc Tropics,

• Please take look here, that you included in this discussion before.
• These users were cleaned from the accusation of puppetry and unblocked.
• I posted a message to User:Karcha after unblock;here
• I posted a message to admin User:Khoikhoi; for mediation and request good faith,here
• Karcha was blocked again indefinitely by Khoikhoi.
  • Please note that other users didnt take nor any punishment neither any warning which they took place Rv-edit war with Karcha.
• Please take a look.

Thanks in advance. Regards Must^TC 11:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to say i frowned confusedly when i saw your reason for reverting then laughed out loud when i saw what you were talking about. Good stuff WookMuff 12:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

OMG... laughing my ass off too :). --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 16:30, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I know I was a little bit punchy by the end of the day; I'm glad I was still coherent enough to make people smile. Thanks for letting me know, it's nice to be noticed :) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 17:29, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

That is one damn fine sandwich. Thank you very much!--Davril2020 01:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Glad you enjoyed it, I really appreciated your great work. There is discussion now to convert your original format to a table. I like the new form for reasons I mentioned on the talkpage, but none of this would have happened without your contributions. After days of sometimes tedious discussions, it can be a breath of fresh air to have an editor come in and actually do something! Thanks again : ) --Doc Tropics ^{Message in a bottle} 01:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Why did you revert me here? That part was highly unclear ("density" makes no sense in that context, or how would you define that term for a black hole? and the fact that an event horizon would arise ist quite obvious, as that belongs to the very definition of a black hole), so it's hardly me who is acting ignorantly. I was trying to help clean up that bloody mess of an article. Best regards. 91.64.30.17 21:30, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

There were a couple of reasons for that revert. First, I'm sorry to say, but I do scrtunize edits from IP's much more closely than those of "named" editors. It may not be fair, but given the levels of vandalism on wikipedia, it's effective. Second, your Edit Summary did not explain your edit, it merely expressed your dissatisfaction with the current text. Finally, you added some very specific info to the middle of a section without providing any sources or cites at all. Lack of cites was the central issue, and if you can provide a verifiable reference, I would not revert the material. Cites are critical, especially in science articles that are frequently edited by non-scientists or editors with a personal agenda. In retrospect however, my Edit Summary was both less informative, and more sarcastic, than it needed to be...for that I apologize. I hope this explanation helps. -Doc Tropics 16:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Apologies accepted; for the record I'd like to note that I did not add anything to that article, I merely removed a redundant and unclear piece of text. But I am aware that watchlist patrolers can make mistakes of that kind and please let me stress that I feel no grudge about this. Happy editing, 91.64.30.17

Thanks, no hard feelings. And yes, mistakes are certainly possible; I guess this was one of mine. Please feel free to replace/revert as needed. Also, thanks for coming to my talkpage to discuss the issue. You are only the second IP editor to question one of my reverts, and the first to actually make a coherent well-reasoned response. Happy editing! Doc Tropics 16:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

...Why on EARTH is the Creation-evolution page so damned coy about mentioning any of the masses of evidence for evolution? Sheesh! Mind lending a hand? Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:19, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Always happy to help. I have several projects going on, but I'll wander by and see what I can do. Good luck : ) -Doc Tropics 16:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Some (Serbs) stated that Bosniakophobia is not an English word? Well, Serbophobia is also NOT an English word. It's not located in English dictionary. In the beginning, Serbophobia returned only 2 matches at Google. When Serbs introduced this word to Wikipedia, thanks to thousands of scrapper pages, Google now returns close to 3,000 matches of this word (all copies of Wikipedia content!!!). Serbophobia was also nominated for deletion etc, but nobody deleted it. Bosniakophobia should also NOT be deleted. If you want to delete Bosniakophobia, then delete both Bosniakophobia and Serbophobia! NONE of these words are found in English dictionary! Why do you want to keep Serbophobia? Please tell me your reasoning. Thanks Bosniak 07:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

The reasons behind my comments were clearly explained in the two AfD's, but I will repeat the salient point here for clarity:

Your actions appear to be an attempt to disrupt wikipedia to make a point. Please stop.

Doc Tropics 16:11, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks much for looking into that. :) Wrote their apparent contact a pretty big note about things, so hopefully they see that and things settle down a bit. On a somewhat related note, have you considered a run for adminship? >_> Luna Santin 11:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Seconded. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Happy if I could help Luna, and thanks to both of you for the vote of confidence. The short answer is, "yes". I'm interested in running, but I need more experience first. I've tried to branch out recently, spending more time at ANI, and 'lurking' around admins that have been very responsive so that I can learn from them.

Also, I let myself get carried away with the Election Day Revert Wars this year and got a 3RR block on Nov. 7. From what I've heard, most folks would "forgive and forget" a single block, if I can go a 3 months or so without another black mark. Needless to say, any comments or suggestions from either of you would be most welcome! Doc Tropics 18:22, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

A tag has been placed on Esveld Aceretum, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article seems to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable (see the guidelines for notability here). If you can indicate why the subject of this article is notable, you may contest the tagging. To do this, please add {{hangon}} on the top of the page and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself.

Please read the criteria for speedy deletion (specifically, articles #7) and our general biography criteria. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Doc Tropics 06:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

• Update: I reverted myself and removed the Speedy tag after carefully reading the article again. The reason I hadn't realized this "family owned nursery in the Netherlands" was notable, is that the really important bit "...largest in the world" was buried in the second para. So, to atone for my error, I yanked the tag and moved the sentences around to emphasize the notability, but I didn't change any of the text. That left the last two sentences a bit awkward, so you might want to do a little touch-up. I would do it myself, but I wouldn't blame you for being sensitive about the article and not wanting me to touch it. Sorry about the confusion! Doc Tropics 06:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • No worry. I think I organized the info that way so the citations could be placed more neatly; I'll take another look at the article and see if I can do a better job of organizing it. Thanks for your thoughfulness in this matter. - ◄HouseOfScandal►12:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking an interest, i have been a bit lazy recently with my edits and the like (i seem to have been enjoying myself far too much on the WP:Lamest edit wars ever page and have fallen behind on any plans i had for actually making contributions!) I have been working on an expansion for the megazostrodon article but can't seem to get the wording right for some reason-hopefully i'll get it sorted out at some point!! (I may ask you to take a look at it when i get round to actually making the edit, a fresh pair of eyes may help the situation-if you have time...) Thanks again for the interest. Greebo cat 13:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, as an update on my last comment-you did actually give me the incentive to finally finish my expansion of the megazostrodon article, yay me! As i said above, i would be grateful of any opinions on it as i'm not at all sure that i have the wording right. Would appreciate any input-even if it's to tell me it's rubbish! Thanks. Greebo cat 16:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Yay for Greebo! I wasn't even sure that you were around any more; it's great that you're still contributing. I will be happy to review the article and offer my comments. I do have several projects going on right now, so be patient with me. I'll make an effort to check it out within the next day or two. Nice to hear from yoou : ) Doc Tropics 18:27, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Is that the kind of linking you were thinking of? Hope i didn't put too many in-too much or not enough! Thanks for taking a look at it, i'm glad it seems ok-as i said, i wasn't sure that the wording was right but i may have been looking at it for too long! Thanks again. Greebo cat 02:09, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you're absolutely right about the sources i've used which is one of the things that i was worried about (the source i used to obtain information on the crompton and jenkins paper is particularly poor!)Like you said, they're all informative websites and that's where i got all of my information from but i don't have any which are academic references. That will be my downfall for a while i think, as i'm not sure of where to get hold of properly sourced references like that and most of my information comes from links i find on various search engines. Not particularly encyclopedic i'm afraid! I have no objection to you or anyone else tweaking the article-in fact i would welcome the assistance. As i said, i desperatley need to improve my source materials! Thanks for taking a look. Greebo cat 03:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC) (er, also-just as a note-i wouldn't bother trawling through all of the links i put on the page as many of them are repeated. i was just trying to show which of the websites particular bits of information came from-that's why there's so many of them! Just to save you a bit of time, they're all of about the same caliber too!)

Yes, i've looked at the couple of sources you've added and there does seem to be some wierd obsession with teeth going on...teeth and jaw bones to be precise! Thatnks for your help and, for what it's worth, i have been looking for some other sources myself but as i said before i'm not entirely sure where to look to be honest. i shall endeavour to fix the problem though. One question-can books be cited as sources? i mean, obviously you can't link to them or anything (!) but most of my knowledge comes from my slightly geeky obsession with textbooks and the such (i'm assuming you'd already gathered that i'm by no means a professional and have no formal scientific education! Just a geek i'm afraid...) so i'm going to have to rethink my self eductaion techniques if that's going to be an issue! Greebo cat 15:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Yay-i shall spend some time in the library tomorrow in search of said sources (i get to spend some time away from my laptop-hooray! Just to prove to everyone that i *can* go for more than 5 minutes without it being on!) Hopefully i'll manage to find something appropriate-i know that i have come across megazostrodon in one or more books in the past, it's just finding the right books that may be the problem... Greebo cat 22:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC) PS, your talk page makes me laugh btw-there seems to be advantages and disadvantages to being on vandal patrol! People are funny. :)

That's why I only delete nasty vandalsims from my page, and leave the rants; so they can amuse future generations of wikipedians for years to come : ) Doc Tropics 22:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Right, i've spent my day in the library local to where i am at the moment and have discovered that it's officially rubbish-it's paleontology section consists of 5 or 6 'fossil hunter' books and a book on the evolutionary development of primates. Hooray. I did find one book with a reference to megazostrodon but it doesn't mention anything about it being the first mammal-just an 'early' mammal. So, my question would be-being as i can only reference slightly dubious websites should i remove the claim that it is widely accepted as the 1st mammal? Also, i do have details on the book in which i found details of megazostrodon but on attempting to edit the page to include it i realised that someone did something funny with the references section so i don't know how to add it! (yes, where computers are concerned i am a bit thick and i apologise in advance for not understanding what has been done-unfortunately this is not one of the areas where i am a geek!) Also, although i will visit a larger library at some point soon to get the references that the article needs-at the moment it is slightly lacking in that area and i won't have time to fix it before the deadline for the nomination thingy-will that cause a problem? Greebo cat 19:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Nomination sounds good to me-as long as the refs are fine...Thanks again for your help! ;) Greebo cat 20:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Doctor Troctopus. I have managed to evade every single little trap you evolutionist fanatics have laid out for me, and they used to keep me caged but I managed to escape due to the fact that I was far more intelligent than they were. Remember, Wikipedia is not the place to insult other users. So stop making stupid little asshole remarks like the one you make here: [6] Ratso 20:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

LOL, thanks for a new nickname, I like that! Based on what I've seen of your Edit History, this is quite possibly the most valuable contribution you've ever made to wikipedia. Thanks again : ) 20:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)Doc Tropics

You like eet, yah? I got a tousand little more vuns like eet! (You might not like some of them so much, though.) My most valuable contribtuion, huh? I teenk not! Ratso 20:30, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

 

User:Wjhonson reverted your last edit 3 minutes after you made it and has reinserted the name into the article. Also, the name has now been stated on the article talk page. (I have studiously avoided stating the name in all my communications about this matter; the fewer things to have to clean up, the better). I've responded to the latest accusations on my talk page with the faint hope that at some point something that is said will sink in and the matter can be concluded. In the meantime, I leave any other dealings with the user up to you and yours.

Thanks for your assistance in this matter. Take care.—Chidom ^talk  06:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

"I leave any other dealings with the user up to you and yours." - Gee, thanks. I'm not quite sure how to express my gratitude, but it will probably involve leaving a dead fish in your mailbox : ) Doc Tropics 06:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

You're entirely welcome, I'm sure. Before approaching my mailbox, why not enjoy this nice cup of tea and then have a bit of a lie-down?—Chidom ^talk  06:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

LOL, thanks; that's nice. I'll cancel the dead fish. Doc Tropics 06:46, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

All kidding aside, I wasn't going to send thank-you cards, but the emotional impact of hitting WP:100 (and doing so unanimously!) changed my mind. So I appreciate your confidence in me and my insane reading skillz, and hope you'll let me know if I can do anything for you in the future. Cheers! -- nae'blis 22:34, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I enjoyed supporting you every bit as much as I enjoyed mocking you. You're a good sport, a good editor, and you're going to be a great admin. Rather than blocking troublemakers, you can just recite The Wheel of Time to them until they give up and go away : ) Doc Tropics 22:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Wait, I think that's more punishing on the admin... RJ repeats himself too often. -- nae'blis 23:08, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I managed to stay calm, polite, and reasonable through the first couple of rounds of that discussion, but then something happened to my patience. It snapped. I'll just refrain from further comments in that section, but if you choose to respond further, I'll be watching from the sidelines : ) Doc Tropics 04:30, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, and your attempt to remain calm. I honestly have never understood the various pseudoscientific theories put forth about dinosaurs; no worries, though: since the page is currently under semi-protection, it won't be edited by a creationist IP anyway. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester 04:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Three cheers for Sprotect! And three more for sensible admins : ) Doc Tropics 04:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Heh. Actually, it was protected a while back. But it certainly doesn't hurt right now. Anyway, happy editing! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 04:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, Doc. I don't think these talk page comments warrant a block, and s/he's not actually touching any articles. As long as the POV-pushing is limited to the talk pages, it seems, as you said, pretty harmless. I'll try to keep an eye out, though, and if this stuff starts making its way into articles do let me (or someone else) know. Thanks again, Firsfron of Ronchester 05:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the answer and explanation Firsfron. I know that some admins are probably willing to issue short blocks as an "attention getter" when this kind of pattern starts to emerge, but I agree that for now it just bears watching. With luck, they will get bored and wander off. I do intend to keep an eye on that IP though, and I'll let you know if things get out of hand.

On a pleasantly unrelated note, if you have time would you take a quick look at megazostrodon? It was recently expanded by User:Greebo cat, and I'd like to nom it for DYK. If you'd be willing to add a bit of polish or make a suggestion, it would be much appreciated. Thanks again. Doc Tropics 05:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. I'm just headed home from work, and will take a look at it there. :) Firsfron of Ronchester 05:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Right. Well, Doc, it looks like I missed all the excitement. I apologize; I drove home, then ate some dinner... and missed everything. You are always free to contact me about any issues that arise, but as you must have noticed, if I'm not on, WP:AN/I might be much faster. Good catch, BTW. I took a look at Megazostrodon, and, aside from some minor formatting issues (WP:MOS, etc) which I've fixed (they're just temporary ref tags; the full ones are available at WP:CITE), the article looks really good. I hope it can be listed on DYK. It's been a pleasure "meeting" you, too, and feel free to drop a note by at any time for any reason. :) Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 08:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Presumably 136.183.154.18 (talk · contribs) is Ken, evading his block. Have a look at his edits and let me know what you think at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/Kdbuffalo_2 Guettarda 05:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh and thanks! Guettarda 05:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Joshua has raised the issue of a community ban at WP:AN/I. As for being an admin - I have an admin userbox on my user page - I just don't happen to have my "real" user page (or either of my "real" talk pages up).  :) Guettarda 06:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I have always meant to ask you - why "tropics"? Guettarda 06:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll repsond at RfC and ANI. "Tropics" is due to the amount of time I spend on small tropical islands. I'm a big fan of hot sun and warm sea; the rum drinks are just a bonus. If I call you a "twit" for using fake pages will you block me? : ) Doc Tropics 06:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

While I have gotten yelled at for incivility, unblocks and page undeletions, I don't think I have ever made a controversial block...so no, you can call me whatever you like without fear of a block. As for tropical islands - I've spent 21.5 years on one of them, and a total of 9 months (over the course of three years) on another - and I'm a tropical ecologist, hence my question. Guettarda 06:40, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

FYI - around my house, the word "twit" is practically a term of endearment. I found your real page once you pointed it out, and noticed that we have a lot in common, except that I'm an amateur. Is it safe to assume that you dive?? I'm working towards my PADI Master certificate so that I can teach young people the glories of the reef. It would go faster if I remembered to log all my dives : ) Doc Tropics 07:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Sadly I'm not a diver. I snorkelled for the first time in 2004 (Buccoo Reef, Tobago), and it was one of the greatest experiences I have ever had. Guettarda 07:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you're interested, and you ever have a chance to visit the conch Republic, I can certainly arrange for you to dive the reef. It's an experience all right...Doc Tropics 07:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It's definitely on my list! Guettarda 13:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You're in the Keys???? ooh. KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Sometimes, it'ds good to have access to a large collection of Victorian Journals at a large reference library, eh? =) Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I can't believe you found that ref! I was just going to ignore it as more nonsense, but it's even more fun when you can prove that it's nonsense. well done! Doc Tropics 17:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Happy to help out, and no worries. It was apropriate to put down. Normally, I'd just not comment on it, but I thought it helpful to show I really had looked over the issue and wasn't just saying "whatever doc says!". Plus-- one of my rants is that there's too much tortophobia in the world.  :) --Alecmconroy 21:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Tortoise-phobia? I'm ain't afraid of turtles! Heck, I could probly whup a dozen of 'em with my eyes closed. Besides, there's some good eatin' on one o' them. Doc Tropics 21:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

No problem, as long as you stay and either defend your article or figure out your wrong you have nothing to worry about. We have a deletion process for a reason and sometimes nominators are wrong, people miss things or haven't quite understood everything. Thanks for making that one clear to me. Good luck. --Simonkoldyk 21:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a good nomination—for one thing an edit war page doesn't really help Wikipedia. If Scherf were notable enough, there are ways around edit wars (locking, blocking, etc). But here, it's just not worth the effort–Scherf's notability is only marginal at best. Anyway, thanks for wanting my input. Dallben 22:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations on a successful (and I think well-warranted) AfD nomination! It's nice to know there are some admins out there that listen to reason. You probably noticed that the Bryan Brandenburg page was kept—thanks mostly to the recruiting efforts of those SPAs. Oh well. I'm off to work on less debate oriented projects. Thanks again for your help and good attitude. Dallben 20:05, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what happened with my listings on the AFD page. I use the automatic afd tool which should do it all for me... Maybe I should do it manually in future. Thanks for the heads up.-Localzuk^(talk) 18:13, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, RFD is a new one to me too.-Localzuk^(talk) 18:36, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

My lord, I'm a vegetarian, but I'll do my best to finish it! (As soon as I finish the huge amount of take-out North Indian food I ordered but couldn't finish earlier.) Seriously, though, it's nice working with you. Now check out Adam Plack. Badagnani 05:26, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Doc! I just wanted to get your input on a few odd things I've been noticing related to the Brandenburg AfD. I've found two questionable new users who contributed in different ways. Look at the contributions of Smurf noodle and those of WatchedHim and let me know what you think. I guess maybe I'm a little paranoid that an administrator will only look at the votes and not the reasoning. Do you think it matters that most of the "votes" are to keep the article? Dallben 07:43, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Ideally, the closing admin will review the comments and weigh them according to their merit, not their numbers. In reality, there can be huge backlogs and at times admins are rushed. In order to assist them in assesing all factors of the discussion, it's permitted to add a comment under the initial posts these editors, something like:

• This editor has made few or no edits prior to this AfD.

It's not a way of telling an admin to ignore the comment, it's making them aware of possible biases or POV issues. It's definitely warranted in this case. If I were to guess about the outcome of this one, I would expect the closer to look at the numbers and facts that you've cited and delete it. There's never any gaurantees, but editors who do little more than say "I agree with X" don't count for much in the final tally. Doc Tropics 08:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the FYI—it seems pretty likely that something fishy is going on. So far we have four users who've only ever contributed to this discussion: WatchedHim (contribs), Stanlys212 (contribs), Stanlys212 (contribs) Linux monster (contribs), and Smurf noodle (contribs). Anyway, I'm sure that if the administrators give this one a fair assessment, they'll see through the smoke and mirrors. I'm interested to see how this plays out. Dallben 16:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Duh—I neglected to add this other suspicious new user, because I forgot to replace a copy/paste. Sorry if you're getting a barrage of flak about this. I noticed that Stanlys212 is being a bit malicious. Thanks for being such a good sport and supportive. Dallben 22:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

As you've seen, I'm more than willing to engage in honest debate, listen to reason, and modify my stance when appropriate. However, I have a low tolerance for bullshit. Stanlys212 clearly falls in to the latter category : ) Doc Tropics 22:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

So, Lostcaesar has suggested we convert the bullet point to prose paragraphs. On the one hand, the bullet points allow the article to be a little more NPOV-- I wanted to keep the criticism very brief, and the bullet points allowed us to retain that extreme brevity but still be NPOVed balanced against a rebuttal section that was 3-4 times as long. On the other hand, we don't use bullet points elsewhere in the article, so perhaps we shouldn't here either, but should just create a longer prose form of the criticism. What do you think?

He's worked on a replacement controversy section here. As of this moment, it's basically just the sentences with the bullet points taken out. I think it sounds a little schiziophreni (though he may have fixed that). Do you think bullet points are acceptable, or should me replace them with a longer prose section? --Alecmconroy 16:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much for all your help with the Opus Dei. IF you would, try to keep a close eye on it- you an excellent educator, and I greatly value your insights. For example-- there's a discussion ongoing about whehter the article complies with "Articles Structures Which Imply A View"-- can you think of any way we "fold criticism" into the article? I don' think it can be done, but someone with more experience might know a way. --Alecmconroy 18:59, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Alec, I've been watching the discussions, even when I'm not participating. I haven't weighed in on the "criticisms" issue yet because there are advantages and disadvantages to doing it either way (a discrete section vs. interwoven). In general I think it would be better to seperate it and make sure that criticisms and responses are carefully phrased and properly balanced. This should help keep the rest of the article cleanly focused on specific topics. You've done an absolutely incredible job of improving this article, mostly I've been watching from the sidelines and cheering : ) Doc Tropics 19:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

So, here's the latest on Talk:Opus Dei. One issue is on whether it's acceptable to have section entitled "Criticism and 'cult' allegations". It's undisputed that notable cult allegations are being made and are the #1 criticism of the organization. However, one school of thought holds that referring to the "cult allegations" is so prejudicial that we shouldn't mention it in the title of the cult allegations section. I say that if the allegations are notable enought to have section, they're notable enough to have a title that reflects their mention-- but some good editors have made points in opposition.

A second question going on is whether the article complies with NPOV. Are the "criticisms" and the "support" section 'balanced', or are we giving undue weight to one side or the other. Anything you can do to help us strike the right balance and get to FAC would be much appreciated!

Thanks for all your advice help, Doc. --Alecmconroy 19:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Megazostrodon looks so nice there on Wikipedia's main page. Congratulations, Doc! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 16:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Can you help me again doc? There's a problem with one of the links on megazostrodon-the link in the line It is thought that it was nocturnal as it had a much larger brain leads to number 3 in the references section where it should lead to number 1 but i can't figure out how to fix it which is annoying me a lot. Told you i was thick...;) Greebo cat 21:28, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I fixed it. I just copy/pasted ref#1 over ref#3. This left the proper numeric sequence in the text, but replace the ref/link under the "References" header. Is that what you wanted? Let me know; I'll try again if it's not. Doc Tropics 21:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, thanks-that's what i was aiming for but when i tried the same thing it didn't work when i previewed it. I think maybe my machine's having problems at the mo anyway cause when i try to click any in-line links like that one they're just not working. But the one you connected it to was definitely the right one so at least it'll work for other people! Thanks again... Greebo cat 23:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I think the best way to report this is on the WP:AIV page or to an administrator since it is more than one issue that it concerns. Most likely they can sort through the matter, since its more complicated than sockpuppetry.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 21:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Also one last thing, if you ever feel high suspicions of sockpuppetry you can tag their page with this template: {{sockpuppet|name of user that is using the account as a sockpuppet}}. If you ever need to make a case file regarding the sockpuppetry get back to me on that and I'll walk you through it, but first check with admin on this. Hope this helps.¤~Persian Poet Gal ^(talk) 21:53, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

crossposting my original comment for reference. Doc Tropics 07:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for this block. I backtracked and cleaned up after him. Doc Tropics 07:03, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I blocked for 15 minutes based upon the attack in the edit summary. if I'd known they had been performing a lot of other vandalism, I would have blocked for longer, but maybe 15 minutes is enough. However, their edit history shows similar edits from a while back, not just tonight, so it might be a static account. User:Zoe|(talk) 07:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Needless to say, I'll be watching both the account and those articles. I thought I'd seem him before; those Edit Summaries are fairly distinctive. They'rs always quite formal, right up until his blood pressure boils : ) Doc Tropics 07:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

DocTropics, can you explain how Zoe acted correctly even though policy states that sysop's involved in a content dispute should never block someone else within that dispute? Why should they not have contacted another admin? I am trying to learn the processes admins follow and it seems that the written word is sometimes not the same as reality, so leads to confusing situations like this one. Cheers -Localzuk^(talk) 20:07, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

My explanation and the ongoing discussion are at ANI, here. Very briefly, Zoe blocked him for policy violations, not an edit dispute, and the block was more than justified (although some disagree). Doc Tropics 21:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

How was that nonsense? Did you click my links? Steve is telling (another) bold faced lie! 06:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC) anon

His userpage is there for use in project-related matters. Your harrasment of him is personal, not related to the project, and does nothing to improve the encyclopedia. Doc Tropics 06:50, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry I haven't been helping out as much on the Christmas article recently. I have had a massive Japanese test (that I just got home from! Yay!) so I had to drop wikipedia in favor of studying. I see you pretty much single-handedly defended the article from a couple of recent attacks. You are doing a great job! Time for me to jump back into the fray! MightyAtom 08:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks MA, that was intense. I hope your exams went well; I'd be happy for a bit of help with the article. Between vandals and POV warriors, there is a lot of activity there. Glad to see you back : ) Doc Tropics 16:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I take it the goal is FA by Christmas, if possible? Weel, direct me at where I can best be of benefit. Adam Cuerden ^talk 16:35, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, FA by Xmas was the goal, but it has been a case of "two steps forward, one step back". One of the biggest issues right now is citing some of the secular/pre-Christian tidbits because they are being attacked by...well, you-know-who. Also, you are a master when it comes to writing in neutral language and removing POV; anything you could do along those lines would be helpful. This article actually has a lot in common with Evolution, except that we don't have the 'home court advantage' here. Thanks so much for offering to help : ) Doc Tropics 16:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I think we are making good progress. BTW, with respect to Jesus' actual birthday (!) I did enjoy "If you can provide a verifiable ref for this, we would love to have it." My favourite recent edit was the one suggesting that early census records show that Jesus was indeed born to Mary in Bethlehem. (As to the "top five prophets of God" claim, that always makes me wonder. Is there a list somewhere? A Billboard Hot 100?) - Eron ^Talk 23:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and Casey Kasem is "counting them down!" (I'll be back after dinner, to help with the article more). Doc Tropics 23:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Per your previous interest, here's a link to the updated proposal: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Replace "Editing help" with "Cheatsheet" link. Please comment/support there. Thanks :) --Quiddity 21:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I actually had to take a short time-out and step away from my keyboard because I was starting to lose my cool. Sometimes I'm just at a loss how to respond to certain types of behaviour. I appreciate your intervention, and if we ever meet in RL, I'll buy you a drink (quality stuff mind you, none of that cheap booze). : ) Doc Tropics 02:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Deal! :) Firsfron of Ronchester 21:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

May I ask why you reverted my addition to the evolution article?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pbarnes (talk • contribs).

Of course you may; I'll start a new section in the article's talkpage. Please stand by : ) Doc Tropics 21:26, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Ugh, you delete my article first because it was not scientific enough for the evolution page and then because I'm not allow to cut an paste. Seriously, just let it be! It's in the right place now and it's not duplicated anywhere else, so what's the problem? Pbarnes 22:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Even if the material you have tried to post is both accurate and relevant, it would be necessary to discuss its inclusion on article talkpages. You inserted the material, it was reverted by myself and others, so now you need to justify adding it, not just keep reposting it. Please remove it from the article and discuss it on the talkpage. Doc Tropics 22:44, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

You reverted my addition yet again, now it's your turn to discuss it (Talk:Creation-evolution_controversy#Proposed_Section). Pbarnes 23:06, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Snapped a bit at GuilliameTell earlier, so I'm not checking my talk page again tonight until I'm a bit less grumpy. Sorry! =) Adam Cuerden ^talk 23:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

No worries; the Doctor says, "Take two Martinis and call me in the morning." Doc Tropics 23:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Dang, you just me to the punch on two reverts in about 5 minutes. I lost the edit conflicts to you at both Rosa Parks and Evolution. Keep up the good work  : ) Doc Tropics 16:45, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Heh. That's one of the advantages of building your own custom software to fight vandalism, I gather. I'm going to head to bed soon. Enjoy the hunt! --Brad Beattie (talk) 16:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

 I would like to take the time to thank you for voting in my unsuccessful RFA. I greatly appreciate your vote and comment. Have a nice day! -- Chris is me 16:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Why did you revert my edit to Prussian Blue (duo)? Over zealous editing perhaps? 151.203.15.96 01:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

My apologies! Upon further review I realize it was a foolish error on my part. I can't imagine why I considered this edit about your Grandpa's spunk to be vandalism. Please feel free to replace the info as soon as you can provide a good ref for it. Thanks for your inquiry; the participation of editors like yourself is part of what keeps WP...interesting.  : ) Doc Tropics 02:06, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

See my followup to User talk:151.203.15.96. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 02:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I had to step away for dinner; thanks for the followup. It seems we share a similar attitude about blatant vandalism, and Husond resolved the issue quite neatly. 31 hours should be about right. Doc Tropics 03:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Joan of Arc. Have a look. Durova^Charge! 03:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, interesting indeed. I got an overview, but want to look into more of the details. It's a fascinating little case-study. Thanks for the pointer : ) Doc Tropics 03:33, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Having looked a little deeper, I'll definitely be keeping an eye on this. I'm not qualified to comment on the academic points of contention, but my BSR (BullShit Radar) is flashing a "Yellow Alert". Doc Tropics 04:31, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'd appreciate your opinion on the notability of this. Yes, some creationist terms are notable enough for an article. But I'm really unsure about this one. Adam Cuerden ^talk 04:57, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Adam, I had actually been looking at Baraminology and Creation biology already, and thinking about various options. I was considering the possibility of merging Baram into CB, then renaming it Creation biology (religous belief), or something similar. The useful info (what there is) in Baram would be preserved, and the article more accurately named. I think it's important to clarify that CB is not actually a science, but a belief system with the trappings of science. The current version of the article is rather misleading in some respects, and a good rewrite would be in order. Let me know what you think. Doc Tropics 05:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey doc, I just put an edit into the Christmas article (before I signed in) referencing the date for the first use of 'xmas' in place of Christmas. It looks like you just undid my change and got rid of a date altogether. Because I don't edit all that much, perhaps I referenced things incorrectly, but I'm going to reinstate my changes. It's midnight and I've done about an hour of research into this, so I've got to justify my efforts somehow. If there are issues with my post, please respond to my thread on the discussion page or, if I've just screwed up the technical parts of the citation, please feel free to fix that.

Thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Coreydaj (talk • contribs) 07:09, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

I responded on the talkpage. The text got changed but the ref didn't, so I blanked it all, then went back and matched up the proper bits. I tweaked the text a bit at the same time, but I wanted to compliment you on the ref itself; nice job! Doc Tropics 07:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Saw your changes, and the verbiage does look better like that. Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Coreydaj (talk • contribs) 07:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC).

Although I doubt anyone would block you for it, it could be argued that the anon is making a good-faith attempt to insert information into the article (even though it's POV and false, if it'd done in good faith it isn't, strictly speaking, vandalism). Consequently it's probably better for you to not revert the article more than three times. There are lots of eyes on that article anyway. While most people would not block you for it, it's better not to have to depend on people making a judgement call if it were to happen that someone would report you for a 3rr vio. Guettarda 20:44, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know; I'll take your advice and refrain from reverting that IP's contributions anymore. I assume 3RR would not apply if I revert some other case of actual vandalism; is that correct, or is it best for me to avoid the page for 24 hours?

By way of explanation, I noted that the IP's first edit here deleted sourced info (and its ref.) and replaced it with unsourced POV which was factually incorrect. While I personally consider that type of editing to be vandalism, I realize that my interpretation may not be correct. It's also true that his second edit didn't delete the refs, but simply replaced factual info with unsourced and erroneous POV, so I understand that it should probably be considered some kind of attempt at good-faith editing.

Sometimes it's necessary to make judgement calls in gray areas, so I thank you for your advice; hopefully I can use it to improve my judgement : ) Doc Tropics 20:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually inserting factually inaccurate information into an article repeatedly should probably be considered vandalism. But some people might disagree, and even an anon can report a 3rrvio, in which case it becomes a debate. While the discussion is almost certain to go in your favour, it's generally better not to put your fate in the hands of others. There are lots of pedantic idiots here. Guettarda 21:10, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Heh, I agree completely, on all counts. Thanks again, I really appreciate your "intervention". Doc Tropics 21:16, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Hold the presses! The IP has been replaced by User:Realknowledge who is making the same edits. I won't intervene, but I will be watching, with interest. Perhaps now that he is "named" we can engage him on the talkpage? Doc Tropics 21:00, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep, I noticed that. I also told him that the 3rr applies to both his edits as an anon and now as a registered user, so if he reverts he can be blocked (most people, once they see the diffs, are likely to read it as the same user). Guettarda 21:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

i wrote before, mr "Doc Tropics", that i quit Wikipedia after withdrawing my contribution, but i was reported that some here are passing again all respects to my personal privacy by public accuse!
being a newcomer and being repremanded, i deleted all my text, and quit, so there is no reason to keep on making public comments that relate to my privacy, like real name et cetera. i never realized what you guys could crusade novices, and i regret trusting WP.
i am not interested at all anymore, i do not want any reply, just keep off my privacy!!! otherwise i have to escalate.--81.207.182.13 19:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Please provide a diff, and refrain from making threats. If you don't know how to post a diff, or what I'm talking about, ask here and I will clarify. Thanks - KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:03, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

• NOTE: 81.207.182.13 posted "personal" info about himself on his own userpage 81.207.182.13, inviting wikipedians to peruse it. He create the article Interreality and cited himself as a source. Frustrated when the article faced AfD here and his credibility was challenged, he "quit" the project. Well, except not quite...before he can leave, he feels the need to erase every instance of his name from the WP record, including its usage in the AfD which is still active. His post above comes after several deletions and reverts at the AfD here. I'm not going to get involved in a revert war on this, but I'm pretty sure that tampering with an active AfD is a no-no. Doc Tropics 21:13, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Curious - his userpage has been Speedy deleted as having contained "personal information disclosed without permission", yet the edit history makes it clear that he posted the info himself. I suspect the message is somewhat generic, and an admin decided the page was problematic regardless of who posted it. I know that there are some fine points of policy I don't understand yet...Doc Tropics 21:23, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

You can request a speedy deletion for your userpage, it's a valid request even if the rationale is kinda weird. Guettarda 21:25, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for removing that. I was looking to see where I actually referred to anyone on the "black people" talk page as difficult. I was not able to find the quote that I supposedly had made. Of course, I have thought that people are being difficult, but I do not think I ever stated that in public. It is not such a terrible thing to say anyway, since I think it is not that far from the truth.

I have also thought about leaving the warring groups to fight it out among themselves; black supremacists, white supremacists, many types of racists, black pride advocates, Afrocentric types, Eurocentric editors, Americocentric contributors, those with global viewpoints and those who want to reserve the term "black" for American use only and get foreigners out of the article, people that think the word "black" is an ugly racial slur, people that think the word "black" is a proud label, people who think black is a scientific term, people who believe in racial boundaries, people who think race is a myth, people who think race is a social construct, etc. We have had some NeoNazis on the page as well. I am trying to encourage the production of an article with ALL views, including some science if possible, and these groups are fighting me tooth and nail. I have been called stupid and ignorant over and over and much worse as well. It gets wearing after a while.

I have debated just leaving the page. Before I got there, the article was locked for weeks on end and these groups just fought and got each other banned. Huge amounts of good material were written and then deleted. The history and archives is a gold mine of all kinds of interesting stuff.

I responded to an appeal for assistance at the community pump and that is how I came to the page originally. The senior editor that had called for help eventually left the article in disgust. I must be hard headed because I am still there, but I am not sure I will stay. Thanks again for your support--Filll 17:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand your feelings; the Black/White pages are an absurd mess. I had once considered nomming them both to AfD, because I don't think they can ever be made factual and neutral in an open-editing format. Personally, I would withdraw from those pages rather than immerse myself in the dreck, but you must indeed be "hard-headed" if you're still willing to try improving them. Whatever you choose to do, good luck! Doc Tropics 17:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you an admin? Are these comments not incivil?

"And I think some things are finally penetrating into your skull however."

"I was not aware that A. W. F. Edwards was contributing to the discussion above. What esteemed company, but if he wrote some of what we see above, he might be getting a bit senile." (Referring to my points without realizing I was directly quoting Edwards...)

"You can sit there pleased with yourself that you are racially "pure" and you have an eagle eye for detecting those "filthy" blacks who are so different than you, but I think we all know what your agenda is. You have revealed it in ample measure here." (Feel free to read all my comments. I've never said or implied I'm pure or blacks are filthy, etc...) Lukas19 17:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I'm not an admin, but I think it would be more productive to assume good faith and try to move past the difficulties rather than focusing on them. If you really feel that his comments were incivil, maybe you could ask an univolved editor or admin to review the situation. This is obviously a contentious subject that involves strong feelings for many editors. Doc Tropics 17:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Please...I'm supposed to assume good faith after those? If you are not an admin, please undo your deletion. If you think my warnings were bogus, you should contact an admin. Or maybe have Fill contact the admin. I dont know. It'd be more productive for the person in question to see my warnings and decide what to do...Lukas19 17:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I also note that you reviewed the whole material in 15 minutes. You must be a really fast reader...Lukas19 17:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I am a speed reader (no bullshit). I'm not willing to personally replace the warnings, because I don't believe they were warranted. If you wish to replace them however, I won't revert again. I still think it would be best to have a 3rd party review your concerns. Thanks. Doc Tropics 17:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I also refer you to above section where Fill said:

"I have also thought about leaving the warring groups to fight it out among themselves; black supremacists, white supremacists, many types of racists, black pride advocates, Afrocentric types, Eurocentric editors, Americocentric contributors, those with global viewpoints and those who want to reserve the term "black" for American use only and get foreigners out of the article, people that think the word "black" is an ugly racial slur, people that think the word "black" is a proud label, people who think black is a scientific term, people who believe in racial boundaries, people who think race is a myth, people who think race is a social construct, etc. We have had some NeoNazis on the page as well."

It's hard not to take offence in some of those statements since Fill said to me:

"You can sit there pleased with yourself that you are racially "pure" and you have an eagle eye for detecting those "filthy" blacks who are so different than you, but I think we all know what your agenda is. You have revealed it in ample measure here." Lukas19 17:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I would be glad to account for all my comments, and apologize if I stepped over the line. However, what has been presented so far by our young white European teenaged friend is a bit one-sided. One has no idea from what he has written what the context was that produced these "evil" quotes.--Filll 17:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

• While I would encourage the two of you to discuss the issues and try to work out your differences, I'd really appreciate it if the conversation took place elsewhere. I was willing to discuss the civility warnings here, but I'm not involved in the article, so my talkpage isn't a proper venue for further discussion. Thanks. Doc Tropics 17:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

That is a very good point. This is not the place. I do not want to fight about whether white Americans or black Americans are a "pure" race. I do not want to deal with more racist religious creationist types who believe people were made black as a punishment by God or something, and do not believe in natural selection's contribution to color differences. And so on and so forth. I am sorry you got splashed with a bit of the mud from this ugly squabble. I do appreciate you standing up for me however.--Filll 18:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

So Doc Tropics, what do you think about this comment?: "He rants, he raves, he huffs he puffs. It gets a bit tiresome after a while however." [7]

I also note how he misrepresented my views...Lukas19 23:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem, you can look in the (deletion log) to see if there is anything recent, but you can't tell if aything deleted was substantially the same. I wouldn't worry too much about it though, there is a judgement call on anything and we aren't clones. As you say there is a difficulty between wanting to welcome/assist new users and wanting to "protect" the encyclopedia. WP:AGF, WP:BITE et al. but ultimately the project is about building the encyclopedia so sometimes we might inevitably feel we are failing the former in achieving the latter. I guess the best thing to do would be to outline the problems with the article, point them to the conflict of interest policy and the autobiography guidelines. The biggest mistake I think you made was not doing the move properly, you moved the users talk page into article space (which shouldn't have been done) and you left the redirects from user to article space in place (which you could have blanked or tagged for speedy deletion) --pgk 07:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, and sorry again for the confusion. Now I understand better about page moves and redirects. I'll also be a little more willing to trust my initial judgement; if I had done so here, there wouldn't have been a mess to clean up. Thanks again, I really appreciate your help. Doc Tropics 14:34, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Stanlys212 (talk • contribs)

• I suspect Stanlys212 (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) is a sockpuppet due to disruptive editing at Bryan Brandenburg and at the Brandenburg AfD. I expect him to disappear when the article does, but I'll report any further disruption at AN/I and at Suspected Sockpuppets and let admins deal with it appropriately. Doc Tropics 22:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
• Update: This alleged newcomer filed a report on me at Wikiquette alerts. After 6 months on wiki and over 3,000 edits, I've never seen this page before. But he manages to post there (and cite policy against me) on his 9th edit? What a talented newcomer we have here : ) Doc Tropics 23:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

• Hi Doc, I just thought you might be interested in knowing more about who attacked you, just look here. You may want to read the suspected sock-puppet case too. Just an FYI. Dallben 00:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Doc, user Kauffner has been making several changes to the pre-Christian and origin of Christmas sections. Some of these changes are reverting back to previous incarnations (heh) of the article that were changed as a result of the peer review. He's making changes to stuff that I wrote, so I don't want to just dive in and revert it, but I'm not sure that it is all constructive. I'd appreciate it if you could take a look. (I'd also like it if he would join our discussion on the talk page before going at the article quite so enthusiastically.) Thanks. - Eron ^Talk 14:13, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Hey Doc - are you up for admin coaching? Lemme know if you'd be comfortable with me as a coach. I'm on wikibreak rite now but I'm sure we can do this comfortably. Rama's arrow 00:32, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I'd be quite pleased! I reviewed your userpage and part of your recent contrib history, and I'm sure I could learn a lot from you. I'm not sure how to proceed, especially since you're on wiki-break, but just let me know how you want to do things. Thanks for taking me on : ) Doc Tropics 01:26, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Doc, I was refering to this new version of Alec: "its jurisdiction covers the persons in Opus Dei wherever they are, rather than being defined by a specific geographic region like a diocese". Not to the version you restored Louisar 21:11, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict, I stepped away before saving) Oops, I thought the "new" version was what I restored? Sorry if I got the wrong one. I was trying to help because I noticed that you and Alec are at 3RR, but it seemed you finally agreed about the version. If you'll give a diff to the version you were refering to, I'll try to straighten it out. I may need to ask Bish if a self-revert would count against me towards 3RR...oh the confusion...  : )

After seeing your clarification, it would definitely be best to show me a diff to the "right" one to avoid more confusion. Doc Tropics 21:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

NO problem Doc, you were in good faith, and anyway there are so much versions, thats a mess. The "good version" was that of Alec dec 6 18:59. Any way I think - not sure, maybe someone else - he later changed his mind and revert to the "bad one". Check my explanation/discussion with him under OD jurisdiction. I'm pretty sure it's just a matter of wording. A mistake may be clear and subtle at the same time. We will work at consensus. Louisar 16:11, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Louisar, I think I'll limit my activity to the takpage from now on...changing the article seems to be somewhat dangerous and confusing : ) Doc Tropics 16:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with Bigfoot's opening sentence. It's a big improvement.  :-) Steve Dufour 06:19, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Make that, "it was a big improvement".  :-) Have a great Christmas, or whatever holiday you celebrate this time of year. Steve Dufour 16:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the kudos Steve! I'll be getting back to that article to see what else I can do; I hadn't noticed it until you mentioned it at the Pump, so thanks to you for that as well.

I've gotten so confused by all the options aavailable at this time of year that I just call it the holidays. "Happy Holidays" to you too : ) Doc Tropics 17:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Heh, not everyone agrees with Steve. My "big improvement" was reverted with the very next edit : ( Doc Tropics 17:07, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

At least Bigfoot's feelings will probably not be hurt because his article has a lame opening sentence.  :-) Steve Dufour 02:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

You know what I really enjoy? Waking up in the morning, pouring my first cup of coffee, logging in to WP, and finding a new message that makes me chuckle. It's such a nice way to start the day; thanks for the humor : ) Doc Tropics 17:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Here your edit summary implies you're removing the link, but you're putting it back in? - 152.91.9.144 07:11, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Heh. Thanks, good catch. I had been backtracking the linkspammer. It looks like you removed the link from that article, then I accidently reverted you instead of him. sorry, good work. Doc Tropics 07:13, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

What's your opinion of this article? Sounds as WP:OR as this did. Nashville Monkey 08:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for removing the speedy delete Subwayguy 01:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem; it didn't seem to be a good-faith tag, and Google showed sufficient hits. I took an extra minute and added a partial list of scores, hoping it will help. Interesting subject...composers rarely get sufficient recognition. Doc Tropics 01:14, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI, the same person tagged a couple of other articles I created for Speedy Delete as well Subwayguy 01:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Bah. Clearly a sockpuppet in action; I've removed all the tags. Which account is the probable puppetmaster? I could track it down, but I suspect you already know. Both accounts should be watched and any further activity like this would merit a report at WP:SSP. Thanks for bringing the other tags to my attention, I should have followed up more in the first place. Doc Tropics 01:31, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I see. Not a sock. I just assumed that he was, because his contrib history showed no edits except the addition of the Speedy tags. His article had already been deleted and didn't show in the history. Not a sock, just a disruptive DICK. My mistake : ) Doc Tropics 01:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Excuse my formatting liberties; I can't stand edit conflicts. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 08:45, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I know the feeling; I can't believe I actually "won" an edit conflict :) Some wheels certainly are squeaky...Doc Tropics 08:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, I know you were doing routine vandal patrol. Still, once again, Doc, I offer a very sincere thank you. Please, don't get tired of me saying it. Honestly, when I see your Wiki i.d., I think of Key West and the Jimmy Buffett song Margaritaville.  :-) I am not a drinking man, but the vandals and how sneaky they are becoming makes want to try a large margarita ;-). Maybe I will just settle for a trip to Key West.TonyCrew 19:12, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Call me when you get into town; the very best Margaritas are the ones we drink on my boat while lounging in the sun and watching the dolphins frolic : )

I'm really happy to help protect the articles that get that kind of negative attention, especially after you've done such great work. Let me know if there is anything else I can do to help...it's been a pleasure to "meet" you. Doc Tropics 19:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The Keys, dopphins frolicking in their natural habitat, and the Earnest Hemingway look-a-like contests... very nice!TonyCrew 17:06, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Please sign your posts. -- Zanimum 14:39, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Doc. I did a bit. When do the bowls start so I can slow down my edit count? Johntex\^talk 08:59, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I havent seen on the evolution talk page for a while. Taking a break?--Filll 21:54, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

I have to admit I got a bit distracted. I've still got them on my watchlist, and I'm following the discussions, I just haven't been participating as much recently. I was quite happy to see the progress made on the seperate intro for Evolution; maybe I could actually contribute a bit to that article : ) Doc Tropics 22:04, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Doc Tropics, I wholeheartedly accept your apology. I never had any hard feelings against you in this issue. You did what you thought right based on what you saw and your action were entirely fair-minded and appropriate. I must say that I cannot say the same about the other user that got involved in this, spamming talk pages while not being interested. Not that he surprised me. But your record is spotless in my book. Cheers, Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 22:55, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, you're very generous. I still feel like I owe you something for having precipitated this. If you ever want a bit of help with an article, or if you'd like me to watchlist specific pages for anti-vandalism efforts, or whatever else, just let me know. Doc Tropics 23:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you know of a species list for the Florida Keys? Specifically I am wondering about palms. Thanks. Guettarda 15:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a list handy, or even a good reference book, but I could probably put something together. As you might know, there is an issue regarding native vs. invasive (non-native) species. Would you prefer a current inclusive list, or an exclusive list of native-only species? Native-only might be best since there is currently a lot of effort to cut back and eliminate invasive species. I'll start looking and see what I can come up with. Doc Tropics 15:24, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm only interested in natives, but it's easy enough to pick out natives from exotics. It seems like local DNRs and the like are obsessive about making lists, and given how interesting an ecosystem the Keys are that there would be lots of species lists around, but a quick google didn't turn up anything. For the moment I am only interested in palms (for the list of palms of the Caribbean), and my refs don't separate the Keys from south Florida as a whole. There's a Trees of South Florida in the library, and it's only 2 buildings away from mine, so it isn't a big deal to walk over there and grab that...I was just being lazy. Guettarda 15:38, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Heh, lazy-boy! I couldn't find anything definitive online with a quick search, but I could always call one of the local nurseries. I'm sure they'd be happy to provide a basic list of native species; let me know if that would help. Doc Tropics 16:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I hate to bother you, but, an issue has arisen at Talk:Abortion over some recent changes I made in trying to eliminate redundancy in order to cut the article down to WP:SIZE. Being that the drive to streamline the article sort of begun, however inadvertantly, with you, I'd appreciate your input. Thanks! -Severa (!!!) 16:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

on your user page, but I am too busy laughing at the general stupidity of these characters. Do they think that is the way to win an argument?--Filll 18:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, they make me laugh; I can always tell my anti-vandal work has been successful when I get obscene vandalisms to my userpage : ) Doc Tropics 18:41, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your help with that vandal as well. My page took a beating along the way too... all in a day's work! :-) Hiberniantears 18:45, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Better late then never! Æon ^{Insanity Now!} 17:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		I Aeon award you Doc Tropics the RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar for quickly reverting vandalism on my user page. Good Job. Æon Insanity Now! 17:44, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I know we haven't talked before but I saw your comments on the colo(u)r talk page and you seem to know a lot about the issue, so I figured you'd be the most likely to know this. I see a lot of people refering to an "International English" - is British English called int. english or vice versa - because it switches up at times (I didn't even know there was an Int. English). I appreciate any help you can give! --Daniel()Folsom ^T|_C|^U 01:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hiya Doc, best not to subst: these cleanup tags, makes things a little obscure. See WP:SUBST for more details. Cheers, Rich Farmbrough, 23:21 19 December 2006 (GMT).

Hi man! Remember SWAT3? Since I can't think of any more ways to improve it at the moment (not helped by a probably lethal dose of Chili con carne and Tiger Beer), I've filed a CVG peer review request for the article. Enjoy your holiday! CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 22:58, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

I tried to archive the talk page for Mary Kay Cosmetics. I did something wrong. Can you please correct it? Amber luxor 00:52, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Doc Tropics is on holiday at the moment. You've done nothing wrong; when you move a page (for example, to an archive) a redirect is created from the old location, pointing to the new. All that needs to be done is use the leftover redirect as the new talk page. I'll sort it out for you. Crossposted here and at User talk:Amber luxor. CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 16:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I put an article up for peer review, Date cultivation in Dar al-Manasir, and found your name in the horticulture wikiproject list of people. If you have some time, I think it would make a great FA and wanted to get some expert advice. cc: user:SB Johnny, quercus robur, user:NoahElhardt, Cas Liber, User:Doc Tropics, Lynnathon, Benjamin, HelloMojo, Strobilus. Thanks, Rhetth 01:39, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to blank it. It was the Popup revert tools colliding, I used mine, but another user got there first and reverted it, unaware. It still went on reverting to the vandalised version, apologies. Telcourbanio Care for a talk? 20:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

No worries...User:DerHexer actually beat me to the punch on several reverts in the past hour and it looks like he did the same to you : ) Doc Tropics 20:57, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey he just beat me to another revert. :). Must drop an antivandal barnstar on his page. Telcourbanio Care for a talk? 21:18, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Gave him one, and I've just relised how many he's been given in the past week. :D. Telcourbanio Care for a talk? 21:21, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, I guess he's been busy. BTW - Keep up the good work : ) Doc Tropics 21:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi, I've been away a long while, but I noticed some shenanigans with the main Dinosaur article. You are much better at expressing things factually and appropriately, so I hope you'll join the discussion. Doc Tropics 22:11, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Doc!

Good to see you! Thanks for your message. I've weighed in on talk:Dinosaur, but I'm afraid it wasn't the response you were hoping for: I'm in support of keeping the section, as helps keep the Christian groups satisfied that were are at least trying to maintain a NPOV encyclopedia, and if anyone adds Christian POV to any of the 1,000 genus-level articles, we can divert that to Religious perspectives on dinosaurs, and keep the religious aspects to two dinosaur articles: the aforementioned Religious perspectives and (if a Christian ever notices it) "Unicerosaurus".

This has been the compromise for quite a while, and I think it works pretty well. When Religious perspectives came up for deletion, we were all worried that the article's deletion would cause some problems. As long as that article remains, and as long as there's a (very) brief intro to it from the main dinosaur article, I think it will help keep the peace. I could be wrong, of course... Firsfron of Ronchester 23:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

No worries my friend. I may have succumbed to a temporary bout of sputtering indignation for no good reason. I'm sure you understand my frustration when certain types of editors start mucking about in the articles that I take an interest in....Regardless, it's good to "see" you again. I hope all is well for you. Doc Tropics 23:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I certainly understand the need for a scientific basis for Wikipedia articles on scientific topics, yes. And all is well here. Firsfron of Ronchester 23:31, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to my talk page was pretty funny. I doubt the editor will get the subtle sarcasm however. LOL Orangemarlin 00:08, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad it got a chuckle. I've got nothing against the occassional "fuck" myself, but using it 3 times in 8 words indicates a rather depressing lack of imagination. Doc Tropics 00:13, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem, and thanks for the kind comment. I haven't contributed much to the Dinosaur article, because my research background is invertebrate palaeo not vertebrates, but I do stop by from time to time It's nice to see the article so well looked after, and by so many knowledgeable people. Keep it up! Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 18:01, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Y	Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): There has been an issue with autoblocks today; it should be fixed now. Request handled by: —Ryūlóng (竜龍) 22:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

This appears to be collateral damage and I would greatly appreciate unblocking. Thanks in advance. Doc Tropics 21:50, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I knew it. You are an evil person.  :) Orangemarlin 22:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Well yeah, but I didn't think that being inherently evil was a blockable offense. I was trying to respond on the Dino page when I found I'd been blocked. No doubt God is punishing me...Doc Tropics 22:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

The block should have worn off - please re-request if not. Martinp23 22:15, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me. If I am going to insult you, I should do it in an appropriate manner. Scum!!!!! Oh wait a minute, let me be more creative. My dear Doctor Tropics. I find you to be a reprehensible character, hardly worthy of intelligent commentary, save for the fact that I take pity on individuals who have less cranial volume than Australopithecus, who learned to walk upright only in the past year, and who sense of humor is less refined than a Three Stooges slapfest. However, you only deserve my deepest derision and I heartily support any block henceforth. Better?  :) Orangemarlin 22:23, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

LMAO! Now that's an insult! Just don't waste all your good stuff on me, save some for the trolls : ) Doc Tropics 22:36, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Doc,

Sorry I wasn't online when you posted your autoblock requests. I had to put out some fires elsewhere and didn't get your messages until now. Seems like you're able to edit, now, so I'll be on my merry way. If it happens again, please let me know. Autoblocks are evil. Eeeeevil! Firsfron of Ronchester 22:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

No worries Fir, I figured you were either off-line or busy with something more pressing than my personal problems. You've always been very responsive as an admin. Now that you are available however, I'd like to request that Orangemarlin be perma-blocked from WP. I've just found out that he's Jewish, and you know that if those people are allowed to edit here it will lower our property values, children will be led into drugs and prostitution, society itself will begin to crumble, etc., etc. Please, act now before it's too late! Doc Tropics 23:06, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I can't block him for being Jewish, but I noticed his userpage says he "thinks different". The Apple usage could well get him blocked, but the bad grammar ("thinks different") is worth a good banning, methinks. ;) Firsfron of Ronchester 23:42, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I believe that all the polls say (my own polling) that owners of Apple Computers are the most intelligent, funniest, best-looking, best-dressed, and all around the best at everything Wikipedia editors. Just thought you should know. Orangemarlin 23:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I'm sure the owners of Apple Computers are intelligent and all that. It doesn't explain the "thinks different" gaffe. ;) Firsfron of Ronchester 23:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'm missing the humor here. He "thinks different." I must be dense, thereby contradicting the point made above. Orangemarlin 00:25, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

"Different" is an adjective. "Differently" is an adverb. You can substitute a synonym for different, such as "distinct" to see the effect of using an adverb where an adjective is needed: "This user thinks distinct." More here. And now I have revealed that I'm a grammar nerd. :/ And, yes, I'm aware it was the motto of Apple Computers. It was just a joke. But now that I've had to explain it, it's not nearly as funny... :( Firsfron of Ronchester 07:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, I certainly will never ask a question like that again.Orangemarlin 08:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Drugs and prostitution? Come on, I want to make real money. Pornography. That's where the money is. Orangemarlin 23:41, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, by the way, any political correctness cops, please realize all of the above is humor. Well except for the part where the editor infers that the Jewish cabal lowers property values. That's just offensive, and has caused me undue psychological harm. Orangemarlin 23:43, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Also it was blatantly untrue; everybody knows it goes the other way, right? BTW - I'm only making fun of your religion/ethnicity because I don't have enough info to properly mock your appearance or choice of pets. Still, you're a businessman and apparently a coffee addict, so we have some things in common : ) Doc Tropics 23:52, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Addict is not the correct word. More like obsessive-compulsive. I'm pretty thick skinned about my Jewishness, because there are more serious issues in the world than making a humorous comment about one's religion. Holocaust denial pisses me off, however, just so you know there is a limit. Oh, yeah, picking on my Apple technology is just plain mean. Orangemarlin 00:24, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Mean indeed; and someone using an Apple has enough problems that we really shouldn't add to the burden. Seriously though, I only started on the Jewish thing because I was pretty sure you'd understand it as humor and not be offended, but there are any number of things I won't do, even for the sake of humor. Holocaust denial is so far over the line I can't even fathom it; that kind of crap is even worse than Creationism. On a lighter note, if you want to make fun of me on personal grounds, I'm a middle-aged white male so there's no shortage of ammunition available. Go ahead, blame me for global warming! Doc Tropics 00:37, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Why pick on you, when there are so many Creationist trolls that show up. And of course, our friend from yesterday who couldn't even use the word "fuck" creatively. I actually started watching the Dinosaur article because I noticed many months ago that Creationists would occasionally vandalize the article. It lead me to an interesting observation--there must be 100,000 different articles on Wikipedia, innocent ones like Hawaiian Islands that mention ages that are well before Creationist timelines, yet no one ever edits them. The Creationist POV pushers seem to focus on about 20 articles, Charles Darwin and Evolution at the top of their list. By the way, I'm heading out to an Atheists meeting at the local Charles Darwin "Evolutionists" meeting. I'm trying to find a Christian virgin to sacrifice. Orangemarlin 00:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm, good luck with that. I was having so much trouble finding sacrificial virgins that I finally bought a breeding pair in order to grow my own. Doc Tropics 00:51, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Damn, that's expensive. Food. Xbox 360 for entertainment. All that whining and crying. And then there's the fact that good Christians shouldn't be breeding. And I'm not contaminating my Jewish line by helping out on the breeding. Orangemarlin 00:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

It can get expensive, but when you need a virgin in the middle of the night, and all the stores are closed, that's when it really pays off. Sadly, the IRS objected when I claimed them as a perfectly legitimate business expense. Bah. Doc Tropics 01:01, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, the IRS is run by the secret Christian Anti-Evolutionist Alliance. You did know that? Orangemarlin 01:06, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there any evidence of Post-KT dinosaurs (let's set aside Aves for the time-being)? I cannot believe that 100% of species went extinct, because mammals apparently survived. Certainly there were small dinosaur carnivores that munched on a few of our ancestors after the extinction event. Orangemarlin 00:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Honestly OM, I'm not an expert in the field, but Firs is; he would be much better able to give a meaningful answer. As you point out, mammals (in some form) survived, so the event couldn't have been 100% fatal across the board. Doc Tropics 00:42, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

You're useless. Thanks.  :) Orangemarlin 00:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

RE(crossposted to both editors):

I know that things have gotten a little heated here, and I wanted to warn you about 3RR. You and the other editor both seem to be at the limit, and an unfriendly Admin might issue a block if things go any further today. I know, because it happened to me last year and now I have a "black mark" on my record. I can actually see both sides of the issue, and I think that further discussion with more input from other editors would really help. Doc Tropics 02:06, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

That's because you haven't looked at the edits. I count two, and as a matter of right I'm entitled to use my three in instances where I see fit to do so. Thanks for the info. ... Kenosis 02:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I point out the following edit by Doc Tropics to the page of Africangenesis: here which was posted about 10 minutes after the exchange just above. I notice that "Kenosis" quite plainly was intentionally rearranged to "Kensosis". (I arrived at this observation because the edit on Africangenesis' talk page included the following statement by Doc Tropics, which stated: "... In any event, Kensosis seems determined to push things to the limit, so the only one who can de-escalate the situation is User:Africangenesis". Not necessarily disagreeing with the proposition placed on User talk:Africangenesis that "the only one who can de-escalate the situation is [Africangenesis]", I wonder what the purpose might be of intentionally altering a WP username such as mine, specifically as "[[User:Kenosis|Kensosis]]" as appears to have been deliberately written into the thread. And I also wonder what might be the purpose of making the statement that "Kensosis seems determined to push things to the limit", in the context of the article on Intelligent design or otherwise?. ... Kenosis 04:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

(crossposting) "Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by poor spelling". Seriously, it was the middle of the night and I didn't notice that I spelled your name incorrectly; there was nothing sisister about it, I assure you. As for the rest, it was simply my honest evaluation of the situation, based on your own comments above. I have nothing against you K, and I'm not out to get you, I was just trying to defuse a revert war out of concern for the editors involved. Nothing more, nothing less. Doc Tropics 15:48, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

*Wow, look what happens when you make a genuine good-faith effort to resolve a revert war; there's just no helping some people. Fortunately these types tend to self-destruct and get banned for 'exhausting the community's patience'. At least it gives me something to look forward to : ) Doc Tropics 16:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

No sweat. It came across as a 3RR warning, and I responded a bit angrily, so I suppose I deserved it. Anyway, take care. ... Kenosis 20:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if I came across the wrong way, I really was just trying to offer a little assist to two good editors that were kinda butting heads. But since you've come back and explained your response, I've struck out my own somewhat angry words as a show of good faith. I'd be quite happy to see all sides forgive-and-forget; after all, we share the same goals. Thanks Kenosis. Doc Tropics 20:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

You bet. See y'later on. ... Kenosis 20:33, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey! Just saw your name pop up on the old watchlist. Good to see you again! :-) CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 16:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Greetings, Your Grace. I was away for many months due to family situations, but it's good to be back. I've always remembered the great teamwork we did...do you have any fun projects going on? Doc Tropics 16:25, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, I got a peer review for SWAT3 (I left you a message about it actually, in case you haven't found it) to see if it could be got to GA, but I've not been able to do much work on it or anything else. Too much coursework and exams. >_< CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 16:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Good work on SWAT3! I understand about time limitiations; I log in many times a day, but I can only work for a few minutes at a time, then I have to go take care of other things. Good luck with your exams, and let me know if I can help with anything : ) Doc Tropics 16:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! CaptainVindaloo ^{t c e} 16:53, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I am also glad to see Doc return. Welcome back!--Filll 20:09, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Filll, good to "see" you again too. I notice you're still hard at work here : ) Doc Tropics 20:12, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the neat barnstar! I'll try not to make you choke on or spit out your coffee, but you gotta let me know when you're not drinking coffee. Whenever that is... Firsfron of Ronchester 20:54, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Note: I've been trying to cut down my coffee intake and have recently been limiting myself to 2 pots per day...usually  : ) Doc Tropics 16:56, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I caught the greeting you left me in an edit summary at Teenage pregnancy. I'm glad to see that you're back on Wikipedia. It's great to have you around! :-) -Severa (!!!) 22:14, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I see you remembered the reference. Thanks! :-) I must admit that I'd gotten a little worried about your absence over these past few months. So, I'm just glad that you've returned, even if your time is limited. Every bit helps! -Severa (!!!) 19:24, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I mean adding the birth and death dates for Geraldine Innocente. Very impressive! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lottamiata (talk • contribs).

My pleasure. When I saw the new artricle I used Google to look for more info. There seems to be plenty out there, it's just not very easy to dig out the useful tidbits. Good luck and happy editing : ) Doc Tropics 21:03, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

I think I got rid of it all...—Gaff ^ταλκ 01:10, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey Doc, good to see you around. I don't know if you'll remember, but you've helped me out here and there before. Anyway, I see you did some editing on the Henry Alley article. Well, I was wondering if you had time to give a closer look at the formatting and such. Seems my cleanup tag brought a ridiculous charge of homophobia and I'm afraid any legit editing I do on the article will come under fire. Of course I'm just interested in the article being as good as possible, but the good ol' third opinion always seems to help in these situations. Anyway, I'm also concerned the list of publications is overlong, but I don't have much experience with articles about academics so maybe that's normal for them? Anyway, let me know what you think, thanks! Katr67 15:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Katr, good to hear from you; I do remember working with you : )

I just checked in to see messages for now, today is busy for me. I'll be happy to look at the article in-depth as soon as I get a chance, which should be tonight or tomorrow. I saw the Edit Summary about homophobia, that's what drew my attention to the page, but I didn't realize you were involved in editing there. I have no doubt that we can work together and make the article stronger. Thanks for getting in touch again : ) Doc Tropics 18:13, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Great, thanks! If the article has anything to do with Oregon, I've probably been involved in editing it at some point. :) Katr67 18:27, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again Doc. If you don't mind I think I will add you to my posse. (at some point there will be deputy badges!) Katr67 19:41, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Please do! And as soon as I finish organising my secret cabal, I'll be sure to send you an invite : ) Doc Tropics 19:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Mostly, I stay out of the admin discussions, because mostly they're good, hard-working volunteers. But maybe you should take a look at this Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Transhumanist 2. Maybe you have an opinion. Maybe not. Orangemarlin 05:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I never knew you had your dirty little paws into volcano related articles. I just completely rewrote the article above, my first foray into the world of Volcanos, one of my favorite fields of interest. I just nominated it for GA status (it got thrown out once). If you could give it a read and make any corrections that you feel necessary, I'd really appreciate it. It's actually quite a fascinating story. Radiocarbon dating of the eruption may really wipe out a lot of a archeological chronologies in Egypt and Greece. Of course, typical of this type of discovery, everyone is denying it (probably what Alvarez encountered when he first proposed the K-T meteor). Anyways, your help will be appreciated. Orangemarlin 23:50, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course, I'll be happy to vandalize any page that you've contributed to.  : ) Doc Tropics 13:39, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, if it's going to be vandalized, it better be creative and funny. Boring vandalism will get you blocked by Firs, because you know, he is a cool Paleontologist. Orangemarlin 16:11, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

I plan to expose the entire article as a hoax by scientists attempting to cover up the One Eternal Truth: volcanic eruptions are actually Satan's farts.

"...and lo, I beheld a great beast who ateth of the 5 Alarum Chili, which is the fruit of flatucence; and unto him there came a great and fiery eructation."

Doc Tropics 16:28, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Of course. I missed that obviously. You should go over to the Volcano Wikiproject and place your name under that heading. Orangemarlin 17:22, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your edits. Not bad for blatant vandalism. At least you kept that Satan's Fart POV out of the article. I'd give you a C+, but because it is well known that I'm uncivil, arrogant, and recently described as a High School student, I'm going to give you a D-, and tell everyone that you should be blocked from editing once again. Orangemarlin 19:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

High school student? Someone is clearly giving you too much credit, no doubt because they don't know you as well as the rest of us and were trying to assume good faith. But until Firs (or someone else sensible) gets around to blocking me, I'll keep tweaking away at the article. Hopefully I haven't actually rendered it into complete nonsense : ) Doc Tropics 19:35, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Where the hell did this come from? I have been editing on and off this afternoon, and watching the history to keep from conflicting with you, and that edit showed up. Anyways, unsourced BS. Orangemarlin 01:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I know! You and I were conscientiously working away, and suddenly THAT appeared out of nowhere. I briefly wondered if you had logged out and done it as a gag, but it was too incoherent to have been a proper joke. After deleting it, I tracked the IP's contributions a bit, and saw that he had done similar damage to Chronology of the Bible, but on a much larger scale. I left a note for the folks at Wikiproject:Christianity so that someone who knows the subject can try to clean it up. Sheesh. Doc Tropics 01:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

BTW, you can keep in red wikilinks. I read somewhere (and now I don't know where in the mass of Wikirules) that you leave them in to encourage editors to write those articles. Believe it or not, early in process I created a whole new article, Dense-rock equivalent because of a unused link in this article. How cool is that? Orangemarlin 21:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's pretty cool. I know that redlinks can be used to encourage article creation, but when I looked at this one I wondered "What are the chances that someone will be writing an article about this tiny island in the near future?" Since I thought a forthcoming article unlikely, I killed the link. Despite the official tolerance for them, I don't really like the idea of redlinks in articles of Good or higher quality. That being said, it's a very minor issue and I wouldn't object to replacing the link, especially if you think that it would help generate a new article. BTW - you're ugly, and your mother dresses you funny. I could go on, but I'm saving my "A" material for a bigger audience. Doc Tropics 21:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

		The Original Barnstar
		For your dedicated scientific work at keeping Wikipedia scientific. Thank you, Doc. Firsfron of Ronchester 07:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Aw shucks. Thanks Firs : ) Doc Tropics 07:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

...for the Barnstar; coming from you it really means a lot. I'm in the process of adding over a hundred items from the List of dinosaurs to my watchlist (2 random picks from each letter grouping, plus whatever names happen to look interesting). Let me know if there are any others that need extra attention. Also, not that I'm wikistalking you, but I have been keeping an eye on your contribs and watching how you do (and don't) respond to some of the crazy things that come up. Of the many Admins I've seen handling difficult situations, you're one of the best at remaining civil and reasonable, while maintaining a firm no-nonsense approach. Thanks again for the Barnstar, you really made my night! Doc Tropics 07:29, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey, you deserve that barnstar (and probably several others)! In fact, I'm way behind on giving them out... Your work is greatly appreciated, and you deserve some recognition for your efforts. Thank you also for adding so many dinosaur pages to your watchlist. That is a big weight off; basically, around 6 people are watching all of the articles, and there isn't enough time in the day to monitor all of them, especially when a rash of incidents suddenly occurs. Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs/dinosaur articles by size gives an indication of the largest, presumably better known (to the public) articles, which in theory receive the most vandalism. We get a lot of fanboy edits to the theropods, increasing their sizes to make them more "evil" and "deadly" than they really were. Schoolkid vandalism and POV edits are on the rise lately, possibly because school is out in most of the U.S., and the recent comparison article hasn't helped things, either. Thank you for your nice compliments, also. As far as me being civil, that is a policy, and there's no reason for me to break it; it would be hypocritical for me to request that everyone else remain calm while I get incivil. No, I've adopted a "zen" attitude about Wikipedia, and try to maintain it whenever possible. I certainly don't mind the "wikistalking"; everything I do on Wikipedia should be transparent and available in the edit history. An admin is really just a janitor, and janitors don't have (or shouldn't have) anything to hide. Uh... what was I talking about again? Oh, right. Your wiki-award. Well deserved, my good man. Well deserved. :) Best, Firsfron of Ronchester 07:57, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Lol, I figured that it was just a tag, so might as well put it. In my defense, me putting the tag stopped the vandal for one whole minute :) I think I'll actually put it back just to see if it scares him off. For my own amusement :) Rohan 00:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh wait I misread it, I held him off for TWO minutes :P Rohan 00:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Heh, ok, I wasn't sure if you knew how the tag worked or not. Anyway, thanks for such diligent Anti-Vandal efforts, your efforts are much appreciated : ) Doc Tropics 00:22, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I missed your return - it's great to see you back. I had pretty much given up hope. It's great to have you back. Guettarda 12:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

second that. KillerChihuahua^?!? 12:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to both; you know that a true addict just can't stay away : ) Doc Tropics 14:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Good news for Wikipedia, then, if you're confessing addiction. KillerChihuahua^?!? 15:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

How addicted are you? Can we force you into slave labor nominate you for admin? KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

You just can't consider Doc Tropics for administrative duties. I'm pushing to have him blocked permanently from Wiki. He's an evil man. See, he was blocked above? And I think he's a closet Conservapedia user. I heard that through the secret Atheist society meeting yesterday that he survived the Flood with Noah, that he believes that birds are not dinosaurs, but actually evolved from Marsupials, and he thinks Australopithecus is a new breed of dog. Besides that he'd block me on the first day. Oh yeah, the rumor is that Wiki admins get paid a lot of money. And free M&M's too. Orangemarlin 18:07, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

OM, you haven't been paying attention. You must use CAPS when you complain and make false charges. Never say "blocked permanently" say "banned". And the rumors are not about M&M's and money, where did you get that nonsense? The rumors are about censorship, ciber criminals [sic], ABUSE and so on. Sheesh, you have to study more. KillerChihuahua^?!? 18:12, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, if you had shared your steak, I might not be so protein deprived, and I might have used the proper terminology. As for the caps, I'm obviously missed the WHINING ON WIKIPEDIA meeting. Sorry, but I was begging for food. Orangemarlin 18:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• LOL, I love getting the orange banners when I log in; feel free to party on my page whenever you want. As for Adminship, I only need a limited grant...just enough power to block OM (Ol'Motheaten). Seriously, I'm hoping to be an admin one day, and since I've had the advantage of learning from some of the best, I think I might even do OK with the tools. But right now my contrib record has a 4 month gap because of my family situation (my wife and I are caring for her aging parents, and there was a crisis that left me with no time or energy for WP). Things are better now, and I plan to remain active, but it would probably be wise to re-establish my contribs more firmly. Still KC, I'm immensely flattered. Like getting the Barnstar from Firs, it really means a lot coming from you. In the meantime, if there is anything I can do to help out, especially things which might give me an opportunity to learn more, please let me know and I'll be happy to jump in. Thanks for the vote of confidence! Doc Tropics 19:52, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

That was the honorable way of handling it, since you know that I would have to round up all of the usual suspects to vote against you. And we would have to bring up that point about wanting to placing the Satan Fart POV to volcano articles. It would have been messy. Orangemarlin 20:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Satan Fart POV? Is that the long-held and well respected theory that volcanic rumbling is due to Satan's lower digestive tract? If so, I'd give it more credence than Intelligent Design... Firsfron of Ronchester 23:08, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

My Cabal is bigger than your Cabal. KillerChihuahua^?!? 21:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)