User talk:Antaeus Feldspar

Archive 1

Note: if you leave a comment here that you want me to reply to, here's where I'll reply to it. (The one exception, whose comments will be deleted unread whether he signs them as himself or as his sockpuppet, knows who he is.)

I reserve the right to refactor this page as I see fit, and if you are planning to post the exact same complaints to my user page and to the talk page of the article you're upset about, don't be surprised when it's deleted from here.

Gravity, Molecular Reaction Rates, Relativistic Fields and the Hulk: a Beginners Guide

You claim this article is "a handwritten text dump from a Marvel Comics fan guide." That's a lie, no its not! Removing that page is vandalism. -- 68.49.181.138 01:16, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Please see my response at your user talk page. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:51, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Karma

Well, golly! Is this some sort of new-age curse, or what? Mellow out man, it wasn't just you I reverted. I understand reverts are rude, but I found all the edits (not just yours, but the protest warriors attempts to misuse the term "liberal" as well) unhelpful. We don't need to take an editorial stance, if you can find someone to quote criticizing protest warriors for abu grahib, or whatever, cite it, and it can stay. Otherwise it?s just a wiki editor spouting off, which is what NPOV is ment to prevent. As far as my Karma, I imagine my copious volunteering here earns me a bit of favor in God's eyes, but not nearly so much as... say how I treat my cat, or my kids, or the Jehovah?s witnesses which keep dropping in on me ;) Good luck, and God be with you, Sam [Spade] 11:46, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sam, the reason I removed the article from my watchlist was because I was disgusted with your double standards. You claim you are trying to keep things NPOV. That is not correct. Otherwise you would be allowing all sides of the debate to be represented fairly. Instead, you are advocating that the Protest Warriors' opinion that they administer their forums in a fair and open manner be allowed into the article as fact, while insisting that moderate leftists who are being unfairly lumped in with radical leftists must cite an authority simply in order to get their view that they're being misrepresented represented? No, Sam. No New Age curses here. Just saying that I had a choice of giving up the battle, or of continuing to fight it at the cost of sinking to your level. I chose the former and I'm not sorry I did. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:59, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Rex, you are not welcome to post on my user talk page. Not now, not ever. Not under your registered name; not under your sock puppet. I do not care for your excuses, your denials, your justifications, or any of your baloney. You are unwelcome here. That is the bottom line. -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:16, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

David Vetter

cleanup tag; highly suspect copyvio for obvious reasons User:Antaeus Feldspar

What are those obvious reasons? --Alexandre Van de Sande 03:08, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The style it's written in makes it read like materials from a reading comprehension course, the sort of thing a teacher would give a class after they'd watched a movie or read a story, to check if they were paying attention and understood everything they were supposed to. It's things like "David's parents, Mr. ____ and Mrs. ____" and "clothes all were (select which: pasteurized | boiled | chemicals)" that give that impression: questions visibly left unanswered in cases where it would have been easier, and would have made a better article, to leave them out until they were answered (I mean, the article is all about David Vetter; if you simply call his parents "David's parents", is anyone going to even notice?)

I see that you were the one who posted the original and called it an "experimental article". I'm sorry if you were offended, but I have to say in all honesty: I don't think the experiment was successful, and I don't think it's a good idea to write articles in this fashion, with blanks and multiple choice questions. It would be different if MediaWiki had some sort of settable flag that allowed you to say "This article isn't ready yet; don't mirror this one" but, well, it doesn't. What you might want to try is using the comment tags,  Anything you put between those will stay in the wikisource but won't show up in the rendered article. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:38, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Accuracy dispute on Canon (fiction)

Before you put an accuracy dispute on any article it's a very good idea to triple-check your own accuracy. Your changes to the article relegated the definition of "canon" in fiction to a rather ironic "Some say", while you replaced it with the definition of "canon" as it would apply to Biblical canon. But that is why we have one page for Canon (fiction), one for Biblical canon, and a disambiguation page that tells you which is which. Your dismissive comment that what was there before your changes "looks as if it was written by popular-fiction types who know ONLY popular fiction" really begs the question of why they should not be trusted to write the article on canon in fiction. Who are you proposing as a better authority on the subject? -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:12, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It is certainly not true that the definition I gave would apply only to the Biblical canon. Michael Hardy 02:33, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No, and I didn't say that you wrote it such that it would only apply to the Biblical canon. But the change that you made to the definition made it more applicable to the "which books are genuine gospel and which are apocrypha" sense of the word, and less applicable to canon in fiction -- which is, again, the subject of the article. Moreover, your edit summary was an unsubtle insult to those who had been working on the article before you, implying that they don't have the knowledge to write about the term "canon" as applied to fiction because they haven't read.... what? You've made it clear that you look down on them for not having read something you have, but you fail to make it clear what that something is and why it makes you so much more authoritative on the subject. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:01, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Dedham, Massachusetts

I doubt there'll be any surprises for you at User talk:Jerzy#Dedham, Massachusetts, but the less that goes on behind your back the better. I think you'll understand everything there, w/o further commentary ... in probable contrast to neo-Rex. --Jerzy (t) 22:09, 2004 Nov 5 (UTC)

I appreciate the heads-up. No, it's not in any way a surprise, though I must say I'd have thought neo-Rex had more tactical sense than to announce, in effect, "I will spam your user page until you give in." Thanks for the warning. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:38, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

well-spoken on the arbcom page. Wolfman 18:49, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you. I hope Rex gets some help, soon; he's clearly got serious emotional problems and the more energy he pours futilely into his hopeless quest to make everyone admit he's "right", the deeper he'll plunge... these ArbCom cases dragging on isn't good for anyone, even for Rex! He thinks it means he can still "win", winning in his troubled mind meaning driving away or otherwise silencing everyone who disagrees with him. I'd pity the poor schmuck except that he wore out any patience I had for him long ago. -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:20, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Extraneous line breaks

Antaeus, for some reason your edits occasionally introduce an extra line break into the text. The latest example is here but I've noticed it several other times. Not a big deal, obviously, because it doesn't show up in the version most people see -- only in the "Edit this page" version. JamesMLane 06:15, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I know about the problem. I really don't know why my browser does that. It actually can be a big deal, since sometimes it puts the break in the middle of wiki markup and breaks a link or something similar. Unfortunately, there's not much I can do about it except try to look over the article in both preview mode and in the edit box very carefully and look for anything unkosher. Even that doesn't always work: I usually spot a browser-added break in the edit box if it cuts off a line towards the beginning or in the middle, but if the break falls towards the end of a line and it doesn't break up a word or markup, there's almost nothing there to spot. I'd upgrade to a new browser if I could (I've tried) but until I can completely overhaul this computer, it's not likely to happen. -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:24, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

comment from the person prohibited to post on this user page removed

One of the times it happened, it affected a comment of mine on one of the arbitration pages. So is it your theory that Antaeus Feldspar intentionally messed up something I wrote? And here I thought he was supposed to be one of my sockpuppets. Damn, you just can't get good help these days. JamesMLane 06:55, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Red-link recovery

Howdy and many thanks for your work on that list of mis-punctuated links. The list's pretty much completed now - I'll be generating a new version of it in due course, taking all the lessons learned from the last one into account. In the meantime, if you enjoyed working through the list (or at least found it a worthwhile distraction), you may want to have a look at the similar list of plural discrepancies which highlights red-links that might be red because they (or the article they are aiming for) are improperly pluralised. Again, thanks for your efforts - award yourself a wikimedal for janitorial services if you haven't already got one! - TB 11:29, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)

Thank you! -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:05, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you, for the congratulations and for your vote of confidence. It seems congratulations are due you, as well. If Topbanana awards you a WikiMedal for Janitorial Services, you know you've been doing well. Happy editing! SWAdair | Talk 04:13, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's honestly very nice to have that work recognized, which I did not expect at all... -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:11, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Concerning admins

I have every right to suggest that he may not be NPOV in this matter. He was heavily involved in the disputed article and used his abilities as an administrator on that article without good reason and as a weapon against other users (to the point that a request for de-adminship would not be outlandish). Therefore I don't think merely asking him to promise he'll leave his newly-gained adminship at the door on this issue, at least for awhile, is unreasonable at all. Reene (リニ) 01:00, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

What adminship powers did he use inappropriately? I've seen the accusation being thrown at him that he could never be NPOV in this matter but this is the first time anyone has mentioned any misdeeds he supposedly committed on the article. I cannot claim that I've been following all the back and forth on the article in extreme detail (I can barely follow the VfD in extreme detail, with all the churning) but, see, when Ta says that Netoholic has manipulated and abused the process, he provides links to the diffs in question so that people can for themselves see exactly what Netoholic did. So far, all we've been told is that Ta will do bad things with his adminship; so far from being able to see for ourselves what he's done, we haven't even been told what he's supposed to have done -- only that he will.

Merely asking him to promise he'll leave his adminship at the door on this issue is not unreasonable at all. But what you did, as far as I can see, is accuse him of future breaches of integrity after you had already received that promise. If you want me or anyone else to believe otherwise, you would do best for your cause to actually cite the misdeeds you've seen, so that others can see what you're talking about. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:16, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I hardly did that, and it seems to be reaching. Frankly...I don't care enough about the issue right now (there is that pesky surgery I'm still recovering from) to go digging through a massive edit history to find the instances of him (as well as others users) removing "disputed" and "pov" tags, his protecting the page when people were trying to edit it to remove some of the factual inaccuracies and POVness (and I remember looking at what was being removed and agreeing wholeheartedly with its removal- I recall one of them was centered around screenshots hosted on someone's personal webspace). I'm not saying he "will" do something especially now that he said he wouldn't do anything. I said he did. If you dig through yourself you'll notice the page was protected at least once without good reason. Reene (リニ) 02:20, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)

Hello... what's this? Is Reene accusing me of something? I wish she would accuse me directly on my talk page so I could respond! I would like to note, in my own defense, that I have never done any administration tasks on votes or articles I was personally involved in (except for rollbacks, and only then infrequently!). Also, for the record, I also agree with Netoholic about those screenshots. They do seem dubious. However, removing the sections without discussion is the problem here, because we run a consensus based website. Oh, incidently, I didn't protect that page, and I never have (it seems Reene is implying I protected it, I could be wrong here). - Ta bu shi da yu 22:04, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, that's the way I read it, too, an accusation that you were behind the page being protected. But I for one will not be taking Reene's accusations very seriously until she gives some better reason to believe something happened than the bare assertion that it did. If she's reading this I wish her all the best in recovering from her surgery and add that if it leaves her too tired to substantiate her allegations, not making accusations in the first place would leave her with even more energy. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:56, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Long Stand

You might wish to take a look at Grindersparks also. I'm one of the few who bothers to clear out the old debates that go through vfd, and I often roll my eyes in wonderment at what gets kept... -- Graham ☺ | Talk 01:05, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Poll

I'm not offended by your response or rejection of the poll, but is it really fair to put my name into a poll option? Any chance you can change the option to something a little less confrontational? Thanks. -- Netoholic @ 08:14, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)

I honestly wonder what your standard of fairness is, where it's fair for you to construct and conduct this poll but not fair for your name to appear in it. Zen-master's name appears in it, Kevin baas's name appears in it, FT2's name appears in it, and RyanFreisling's name appears in it; exactly how does it seem not "really fair" that people can choose a poll option which attaches disapproval to your name when you constructed the proposal to attach disapproval to theirs?

I'll tell you the compromise I'm willing to make. If you will insert into the poll text the information that you, Netoholic, are the author of this poll, then I will change the poll option text to read "the author of this poll" instead of "Netoholic". That way you'll be on an even footing; no name will be in the poll options but it will be in the poll text, just like the four others whose names and good reputations you decided should go up for a public vote. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:23, 15 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I have written words to that effect into my vote, and offered to myself join the four in voluntarily discontinuing direct edits of the article. -- Netoholic @ 17:38, 2004 Nov 15 (UTC)

Diane Duane copyvio

That's been there since July Can you hear my teeth grinding? Oh…bugger! --Phil | Talk 18:27, Nov 17, 2004 (UTC)

the other day

hi, ok, maybe i'll learn more about wikipedia first before doing anything..

Rune mysteries

To be honest, unless someone points out quite clearly at the top that the other two pages are up for deletion, I don't count them in with the consensus because if I can miss them, so can other people who are voting. Sorry I didn't delete those, I feel though that you have to list them separately. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 00:18, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just relist them, there's not a lot we can do about the previous listing. -- Graham ☺ | Talk 03:13, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

For guidelines left at User_talk:Gtabary. ( no speedy delete, check "link there",...) --Gtabary 14:36, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

adminship

Have you considered adminship? I'll nominate you if you are interested. Gamaliel 21:43, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm flattered, but I'm not sure I'm actually that suited for the job. In particular I'm going through some tough times personally, and I don't have the patience that it seems the job requires. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:58, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry to hear that.:( Hope things get better for you. Let me know if you change your mind, I think this place could use some more impatient admins. Gamaliel 20:53, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

patent nonsense

Heya, could you please be careful what you mark CSD? Patent nonsense is stuff that is either syntacticly or semanticly incomprehensible; Vanity articles are not patent nonsense, nor candidates for speedy deletion. --fvw *† 05:56, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)

"Kaanon MacFarlane is the current Earl of MacFarlane." Now, if there was such a thing as the "Earl of MacFarlane", you'd think a Google search would turn up at least one hit. Forgive me for thinking that someone claiming a title that does not exist was nonsense. -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:01, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Universism

Hello Antaeus! I'm not involved in that particular VfD discussion, but I would like to remind you that WP's civility policy applies in edit summaries. Summaries like this one aren't appreciated by everyone and don't help heated discussions. Thanks! --Whosyourjudas (talk) 03:39, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You're right, it probably would have been better if I hadn't said that. I was not attempting to be uncivil; I was trying to impress upon our newcomers once again that we are not discounting their votes because we don't like their religious stance, and we are not discounting their votes because we assign newbies lower status -- both of those being personal attacks that have been made upon us in this VfD -- but because in order to cast a vote responsibly in VfD, you need to consider it in the light of Wikipedia's established policies, and most of the newbies aren't even getting right simple policies stated directly on the page, like "sign your vote". I feel sorry for them, that they were falsely told "All you have to do is show up and you get a vote that's counted just as much as anybody's" but I'm also frustrated that instead of chastising Vox for telling them something that was false they're yelling at and insulting us for not making it true, for not turning over our decision-making process to them just because they showed up. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:53, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, and was not accusing you of anything purposeful; we all get frustrated at times. This VfD has problems, and I think whichever admin cleans it up will have quite a challenge. I don't want to get involved because I don't know enough about the topic, but best of luck - VfD can get bloody. Cheers, Whosyourjudas (talk) 04:05, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I just wanted to comment on your excellent timing. Just as the Wikipedia article was being deleted for not being "notable" enough, an article and illustration on Universism takes up about half of the Sunday New York Times Op-Ed. I think the Sunday NY Times is the most read paper in the world, second to something in India no doubt. I have my suspicions based on the amount of email today. When an article about Universism starts again, just tell BM not to let his opinion bleed through and everything will be A-OK. He an probably get away with a quote or two from Mr. Horgan. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/12/opinion/12horgan.html --Deist 21:29, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hey whats going on?

Whats with the recent edit to your user page? Is there something I can help you with? I hope your just exagerating some article related dispute, but regardless of if your stress is personal, or article related, I sincerely offer my assistance. You can contact me on or off the wiki, but please let me know whats going on. God be with you, Sam Spade

Aye, a second. My door/AIM (whosyourjudas)/email/etc. is always open if you need something. --Whosyourjudas (talk) 22:02, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The Humungous Image Tagging Project

Hi. You've helped with the Wikipedia:WikiProject Wiki Syntax, so I thought it worth alerting you to the latest and greatest of Wikipedia fixing project, User:Yann/Untagged Images, which is seeking to put copyright tags on all of the untagged images. There are probably, oh, thirty thousand or so to do (he said, reaching into the air for a large figure). But hey: they're images ... you'll get to see lots of random pretty pictures. That must be better than looking for at at and the the, non? You know you'll love it. best wishes --Tagishsimon (talk)

re: Hoaxes

Good evening, Antaeus. In the VfD discussion thread for Thishdin, you said that you had two examples of articles tagged as speedy which were at least potentially encyclopedic though obscure. I'm making a collection of those examples to support some eventual recommendations to tweak our processes. Can you please shoot me the specifics? Thanks. Rossami (talk)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
Multi-Licensing Guide
Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

"Impersonal attack"

Personally, I don't care whether you were thinking of me (how's that for irony?), but I hadn't even considered it, as I can't recall having given so much offense to anyone (if I have, they should have taken it to my talk page). The problem with these things is that not only you know very well who you're talking about, the "other side" knows it as well. It's just an indirect invitation for more hostile comments, and, well, that's no good to anyone else but you and the unnamed ones, is it? :-) OK, so this was just a mild ribbing, and no harm has been done. I thought my comment was light-hearted enough to serve as a gentle prod, but now, of course, you make me come here and spell it out, which makes me look like a clod. I hate to sound like the "play nice now, children" type, but sometimes I just can't help it. Feel free to ignore it if it gets on your nerves at anytime; I don't want to presume to tell other people what to do. JRM 00:52, 2004 Dec 11 (UTC)

Hate Groups and NRMs

Your removal of disputed text in the Hate_group#Hate_groups_and_new_religious_movements is innapropriate and unilateral. We went through two RfCs with no further comments by other editors. My understanding is that in this case the text in dispute stays. If you want to challenge this, please use other methods available in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. Thanks. --Zappaz 20:47, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the help

Thanks Antaeus for the help on names.

Cheapy 00:47, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Mihir

You appear to have added a piece of blatant advertising for an uncompleted product. Please don't.DJ Clayworth 05:42, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

On reflection you may have accidentally re-created a deleted page while altering it. If that was the case my apologies. DJ Clayworth 05:44, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

merry christmas

to you antaeus, or whatever happy holiday is your preference. i'm on a wikivacation, but just popped in to see what's happening -- can't break an addiction in one day i guess. happened by your user page and got the impression that you might be a bit discouraged (or maybe i'm missing an inside joke, in which case nevermind me). anyway, i've been through some very rough times myself, so i've definitely got a sympathetic ear if you'd like to bend it a while. things do get better, it just seems unlikely in the moment. Wolfman 02:51, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

yep, frustrating as hell. i remember the feeling well from those fun times with our dear friend Rex. back then, khaosworks had an observation that i've found very useful. now i look at being hypercivil to the idiots and trolls as a way to piss them off or keep them off balance. sort of a wiki-aikido ("designed to control an attacker by controlling and redirecting their energy instead of blocking the energy"). of course, it doesn't always work, but it's very satisfying when it does. JML is a master of this, though I don't know if it's a conscious strategy for him. and i've noticed that he wins just about every battle he fights.

another strategy i've found useful is to leave an article alone for a while, and let the trolls have at it. they tend to guard it jealously for a week or so, then wander off. after a couple weeks, i pop back in and fix it right up.

you can always drop by my page if you need a little wiki-backup. (though i'm taking a break for a few weeeks). i'm sure there are plenty of others who've worked with you and feel the same way. don't let the bastards get you down. and have a great holidays. Wolfman 19:08, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Me as well, if you need to talk to anyone i'm a good listener as well. It's been real nice editing with you and collaborating, don't let some idiots ruin your outlook on life.--kizzle 21:56, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

And by the way, Rex's comment is priceless... you have to know everytime I read something from him I literally laugh out loud. I'll tell you one thing, if he truly "won" I don't think he would be as palpably bitter as he is, he'd just shut up and enjoy Bush being president. Just my two cents... and happy holidays bro :) --kizzle 22:07, Dec 27, 2004 (UTC)

Your statement

I want to die. What's the use of any of it? you do the best you can and all you get is a kick in the crotch. There is no way to win.

I just saw your comment at top of your user page. That is an extraordinary statement to make. I don't know if you are serious about it or just trying to make a point. Regardless of our differences and antagonisms, I value life (in me and in others) too much to let this pass without commenting:

The need to do the best we can is inherently human. It is our nature. Kicks in the crotch are just are part and parcel of the fact that that we care and care enough to do our best regardless of outcome. Life is not about winining, but about playing. --Zappaz 03:54, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Alternatively, you could reason that living, when it's bad, is generally still more agreeable than nothing. There is, by the way, a way of winning, but it involves drawing up the rules yourself. That's something most people are not willing to do, or not capable of doing. And if I may, one quote: "there's nothing you can do that can't be done" (look up the rest); and one short poem that's always cracked me up:

Razors pain you;

Rivers are damp;

Acids stain you;

And drugs cause cramp.

Guns aren't lawful;

Nooses give;

Gas smells awful;

You might as well live.

—Dorothy Parker, Résumé

JRM 01:45, 2004 Dec 25 (UTC)

Gundam

I suppose this is what VfD is all about. My vote probably was a bit kneejerky, it's also true Hoary's opinion influenced me. Anyway, in encyclopedic terms, I think it's worth a mention, not an article (hint: I'm not completely close-minded on this, however). Wyss 13:08, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'd agree (if you notice, my vote on this one, and I think on every Gundam article actually, has been to merge to some more appropriate parent article; I'm starting to think that instead of an inclusionist or a deletionist, I may be a mergist) -- it's worth a mention but not an entire article to itself. But when someone nominates the major antagonist of one of the ground-breaking anime series and says "surely not notable" and someone else chips in and says "super minor fan trivia" -- we have major decisions being made by people who don't know what they're talking about and don't even know that they don't. That worries me. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:41, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

From Danniboy

Mr. Feldspar (isn't that a chemical?)... I'm asking you this time politely not to reverse edits I'm making and call them "spam". I am not spamming. If you will do so again, you're asking for a huge ego fight, and I'm not interested in it. One last time - you have a problem with an edit I'm making, let me know about it and explain yourself. Just remember, I can do the same to you... Thank you.

Of course I have a problem with the edits you're making. Or should I say, the edit you're making, since there is only one and you are making it repeatedly, which is just a link to the nlpweekly.com site, which you have re-inserted into the article four times, under deceptive summaries like Removed spam link to "technotip" - reversed to previous version (with no mention, of course, that you added a link rather than just removing one.) Hmmmm, funny, that's exactly what Special:Contributions/212.179.213.210 did less than twenty-four hours before, claiming (spam link "false memory" removed) when an honest description would have included and also reinserted a frequently removed link. Why exactly is it that you and 212.179.213.210 are entitled to declare things "spam" but a link that has been reinserted to the article fifteen times can't be called "spam"? Sure looks like it to me; looks even more like it after a look at your edits. -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:30, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

with all due respect, I had recently joined Wikipedia as a registered user, and most often I forget to log in when I contribute content. I've added content in the NLP page, the Hypnosis page and some other psychology related issues. However, I had the impression that as long as I mark the "remember me" when I log in, I don't have to use it again if I close the browser. Apprently I do, so I'll keep you posted on future edits/contributions I'm making, to show you I'm not a spam maker and I do try to contribute to the community with valuable content. At the beginning, I didn't even know who's deleting my edits, but in the last week I found out how to contact them (at least if they're registered like you and I). I appologize if it looked like spam, it was not my intention at all. Have a great new year eve. ---> Danniboy

Re: What to do about a spammer?

Yeah, I've removed that link more than a few times in the past. At least the link he posted to Anthony Robbins actually points to a relevant article now, and he didn't supplant a pre-existing link, this time. I can't say I care for his threatening tone and deceptive edit summaries, and haven't seen him contribute anything that wasn't self-promotional. The section he added to self-esteem isn't even encyclopaedic, so I think I'll move it to talk. I say we let him keep the Anthony Robbins link, but ditch the link at hypnosis since it's too general a topic: His link is already at neuro-linguistic programming, and that should be enough. Since he has quite a history of self-promotional editing (under dozens of IPs, of course), you shouldn't hesitate to block him (perhaps temporarily at first) if he does not heed your warnings in the future. Cheers, -- Hadal 19:16, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

- My sincere appologies to both of you, Antaeus and Hadal. I did not mean to sound threatning, just frustrated. However, I will look for my content contributions to Wikipedia in the last few months and send it to you for review. Again, I appologize, have a great new year. - Danniboy

Request: New Year Resolution

Humbly and kindly I would request from you the following new year resolutions:

Stop pre-judging me and others;
Stop tiny quabbles, and focus on substance;
Be less anal retentive;
Be more gracious to others;
Help instead of hinder;
Be kind.

I promise I would do the same. Happy New Year --Zappaz 01:10, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I would not believe your promises, Zappaz. You've shown me your idea of being "gracious", of being "kind", of "helping"; it's to maintain a different standard for every occasion and preach sanctimoniously whichever one is convenient for you at the time.

I'm not "pre-judging" you, Zappaz. I'm judging you, based on bitter experience with your intellectual dishonesty. There's a difference. You have pre-judged me, leaping to conclusions about who I am, what I must mean when I talk about cults and how it must be generalization and bigotry, what connection I must have with the ex-premies -- how is that "kind"? How is that "gracious"? Case in point: I went out of my way to spell out what I mean by "cult" and that it is not a brush with which I am tarring every new religious movement. [1] What was your oh-so-"gracious" response? To tell me 'Oh, there are 100's of thousands of such new religions, which you call cults, and now you're saying they all have this dangerous structure.' [2] (After that sort of BS you think I'm going to look to you for my New Year's resolutions?)

And hey! You know what would have been "gracious"? If you had either removed this attack on me or not made it in the first place -- instead of striking it out so that everyone can still see your attack on me and it still has exactly the hurtful, harmful effect you intended, but you don't actually take responsibility for it. "Stop pre-judging me and others", indeed. "Help instead of hinder", indeed.

When I want advice on how to run my life, Zappaz, I'll take it from someone I can actually admire or at least respect, someone who comprehends the meaning of the word "integrity". Someone I doubt that someone will ever be you. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:29, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Antaeus, regardless of your antagonism, I will still try my best. And now, to party, do the countdown and hope the New Year brings me joy. --Zappaz 02:54, 1 Jan 2005 (UTC)

More Yatta

I would have responded earlier to your comment found on 'My Talk', but I only now figured out how to.

Your gratitude for me not being a twit reassures me about the Wiki community. I am a moderator for a high-mid-level traffic web board, so I loathe the stubborn n00b as much as you. Sadly, many assume the worst of the new people. (Example: Usenet sci.math has sent me multiple nastygrams.)

I just hope future arguments of mine will fly, or at least land softly. I wasn't sure whether your original response was a sci.math-esque mockery or just helpful criticism. Your warm welcome has shown it merely to be the latter. Thank you.

Have a merry...erm...Valentine's Day? Spamguy 22:46, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

An unforgivably delayed reply (re: rape protection)

Hi; I want apologise for not being around to respond to your query in a timely fashion. For what it's worth, your suggestion was a good one. I hope you've been well (those first few lines atop your user page worry me). Cheers, -- Hadal 03:07, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Copyright clearing

Hello. You edited the zsync article and added a paragraph. I am the author of that article and I have previously published on my site Wikinerds.org (not related to Wikipedia/Wikimedia). Your paragraph is now released under the GFDL since you edit on Wikipedia. I would like to publish a modified version of your paragraph under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 license on my site. You will get proper attribution with your full name Antaeus Feldspar. Here and here you can check the original article. If you agree with the CC-licensing of your paragraph, please contact me using my talk page. Thank you. NSK 01:33, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! -- NSK 08:44, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Admins

Heya, good job on the link quality assurance. I'd suggest you avoid phrases like "at least two admins are agreeing with my opinion" though: Admins are just regular editors with a few extra powers to aid in janitorial work, their opinions do not count more than that of other editors. Of course in most cases they are established editors with a good track record, but perhaps you could use something like "established editors" or "long-time editors". --fvw * 03:11, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)

True, true. *sigh* It's just that if this guy has already failed to take the clue that if three long-time/established editors are saying this link is not appropriate and it's one anon saying "Sure it is! Wikipedia policy says it is!" maybe that anon is not understanding the policy the way he thinks he is. But if he doesn't take a clue from "three people are saying I'm wrong; I'm the only one who thinks I'm right" I don't know if he's going to clue in just from being told that these editors are "experienced." Plus, you not only have to be experienced in order to be an admin, you have to have earned enough trust from the community for the voting on your adminship to pass. So, an admin is not just someone who's been around a while, it's someone who has earned some measure of community trust... -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:32, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I see your point, though the anon definately wouldn't get that whole distinction. And the "person in power" distinction he probably will get is exactly the one we don't want to give, convenient though it may be in this case. --fvw * 03:37, 2005 Jan 19 (UTC)

Deleted material

Removed material duplicated at Talk:Melissa Joan Hart.

Time to ban/block 204.193.6.90?

He is now engaged in personal attacks, asking if "Did he go against an arbritrttion?" [3]. Between this and his violation of the 3RR, it may be time for him to discover that Wikipedia does not live by the rule of "do whatever you want and no one can stop you". -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:48, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't think that counts as a personal attack really; just ignore that kind of stuff. Interestingly enough, he hasn't violated the 3RR yet (though I was fooled into thinking so too), see the discussion on WP:AN. Just revert him where necessary and block when he does violate the 3RR, that should get the message across soon enough. --fvw * 17:55, 2005 Jan 20 (UTC)

Hunh. I guess I misread the timestamps too. I have to disagree about it being a personal attack, though; I have never been the subject of an arbitration, let alone "going against" one, and I find 204.193.6.90's suggestion that I have done both to be a cheesy smear upon me. (and the irony? He's appealing to a user who has recently explicitly violated the rule of "Never suggest a view is invalid simply because of who its proponent is" against me. [4] And this is who 204.193.6.90 is turning to to complain about "cyber-bullying"?) -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:16, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Elias coding

Yes I am moving all three. I am atemptint to be consistent with Wikipedia policy on capitalisation. I checked breifly via google to see if there was a prepoderence of capitals usage, adn ther wasn't (although there is some). Rgds, Rich Farmbrough 01:37, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Another link-adder...

I wonder if you'd take a look at 66.234.37.74; he's added external links to five different articles, all links to http://celebritycola.blogspot.com. For obvious reasons, I would rather not be the one this time that raises the issue... -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:13, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

What, you're afraid of making yourself too useful? I Didn't find any of the links to be worth having in the articles and have removed the lot of them. The link reorganising to make it look like it's not just the addition of one link is suspicious too. Good catch. --fvw * 02:18, 2005 Jan 23 (UTC)

copyvio

Scoring the Hales copy COPYVIO NOTICE You recently put up a notice about an article I put on Wikipedia FYI http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~cornwall/ball/alnw.htm Is my webpage and I am transfering all info across to Wikipedia

My home page is http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~cornwall/ my info on Medieval footbal games is http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~cornwall/ball/shroveball.htm

These pages are mine the have been on the web for several years.

Phil Ellery Talskiddy 23:11, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Shape property

Hi, I noticed your addition of the shape property to the binary heap article. This is a common part of the definition of binary heaps, but I think there are some applications, such as link-based priority queues, where it's not strictly needed. The term I've heard for the shape property is a complete binary tree, although the definition on Wikipedia seems to be slightly different (perhaps an error). I accept the edit, but perhaps there should be a small note about how the shape property need not always hold in all applications, if you agree. Deco 07:35, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You're right that it should probably be complete binary tree instead of the numerical parent-child relationship I gave. (I see what you mean about the definition seeming slightly off, though...) Perhaps we can combine the two, explaining that the shape property is so valued because combined with 1-based indexing it makes for this very useful parent-child relationship?

As for the shape property -- well, to be honest, all my formal reading on binary heaps has stated that both properties are needed for it to be a binary heap; if it's not either obeying both properties or trying to restore both properties, it's something like a binary heap but not a binary heap. However, that may just be the gaps in my knowledge showing. -- Antaeus Feldspar 08:31, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Advice on controversial articles

I see from your edits that you're quite concerned about the articles that deal with cults, as I am. I'd like to give you just a bit of advice that might help you get more result from your effort, and that's to not give people the conclusion you think they should reach. I call this "jumping in the jury box"; if you want to convince people, you want to put the facts before them and present them in a compelling way. You can't jump in the jury box and announce "I've decided for you that this is the conclusion you should reach!" -- that's more likely to turn people off. Some of your edits have that quality -- the edit summary alone on this one is over the top -- and I hope you'll realize that if there's anyone out there that hasn't yet decided where they stand on the issue, declaring "this is how you'll regard things!" is more likely to alienate them than convince them. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:03, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Of course, I understand. But some people don't hesitate to play games with the system, under pretence of giving facts. Sometimes it has to be said, so that they understand their maneuvers cannot go far, and so that they think twice before doing it again. I think I got some results that way. What I agree is that it is better to do it in the talk page than in the article --Pgreenfinch 14:28, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Re: your comments on User:Marvelvsdc, a.k.a. User:68.49.237.159

I had a look at these users contributions, I have to say most of what I saw looked like perfectly good information. I totally agree with your "GOOPTI" philosophy, but I think there are literally thousands of users contributing fancruft. I think it's futile to battle fancruft on a case-by-case basis, without a strong policy backing you up. Personally, I don't allow myself to care about these types of contributions anymore. I mean who's going to read an article about an obscure comic book character, except someone who cares about obscure comic book characters? Sure, I wish these articles weren't there; Wikipedia would probably have more credibility- but there is enough work just reverting all the "Paul is gay" edits!

See you around the Wiki ike9898 01:33, Feb 14, 2005 (UTC)

Hash table

Why do we need the text "or probably will" in the hash table article? The hash function defines the set of locations in the hash table where the hashed value might be found; ISTM that meaning is sufficiently conveyed without the "or probably will" text. Or is there some variant of hashing I'm overlooking that does need this clarification? Neilc 00:51, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it's a variant covered in the article, under Open addressing. In open addressing, the hash function only determines the first place the hash table will try to put the entry; if something already occupies that space, some strategy is used to determine the next place to try, and the next, until finally an open spot is found. It's not really accurate to count that strategy as part of the hash function.

Whether that slight inaccuracy is worth fudging over in the introduction is a question open to debate; I restored it mostly because it looked like someone else had completely misparsed the syntax of the sentence and tried to "correct" grammar that wasn't wrong, and someone else had seen the now-incorrect sentence and removed the seemingly-redundant part entirely. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:58, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Star Wars and GOOPTI

OK Anteus, you've convinced me (on another user page, which I shouldn't hog). The Star Wars episode I saw (either the second or third) was overrated and hackneyed, and nothing in it seemed new, but yes, OK, these movies had a major, bad influence on Hollywood. Though actually Hollywood studios continued to push out quite a lot of movies, and the near-infallible predilection of suburban cinemas (in the two countries in which I've lived) for the trite minority among them (Pretty Woman, etc.) I think long predated (and thus can't be blamed on) Star Wars. (I did once see Usual Suspects in a suburban cinema -- perhaps it had made some mistake.) Compare two Kevin Costner baseball movies made at about the same time: Field of Dreams, tacky (I rented the video but gave up after 20 minutes), widely exhibited; Bull Durham, first-rate, little exhibited. I've got dozens of DVDs of watchable post–Star Wars Hollywood movies; I'm delighted to say that they don't show any Star Wars influence. (They're also not directed by Spielberg, don't star Keanu Reeves, Tom Hanks, Robin Williams, etc. . . . hmm, they're not very Hollywoody.) -- Hoary 07:34, 2005 Feb 15 (UTC)

I give in. You're right. The Star Wars movies are horrible movies. They are loud, stupid, lowbrow, and of course, American, which encompasses all three of the above. And of course, as we all know, movies which are stupid and lowbrow have no real impact whatsoever and are ipso facto not notable. Let's VfD any article which makes any mention of these awful movies which were never popular with any notable number of people, had no impact on popular culture or on the business of moviemaking, and never had any true fans. There. Are you happy? Is this what it takes to make you happy? -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:30, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

No, I'm unhappy as usual. If they're as bad as I think (and I've only seen one of them so perhaps shouldn't judge), I would indeed be happy if they'd had no influence. But you've persuaded me that they did (or the first one did) indeed have a major influence on Hollywood. That's a most unhappy thought. Meanwhile, "American" of course encompasses loud, stupid and lowbrow, just as "Japanese", "British", etc., do. (Probably "Malian", "Zimbabwean", "Belizean", etc. -- everything.) Luckily it also encompasses stuff that's very different; just from the post–Star Wars era, there are American Movie, Being John Malkovich, The Eyes of Tammy Faye, Fargo, Little Odessa, The Player, Quiz Show . . . oh, lots more. What would it take to make me happy? Well, for a start, Dubya could take a very large bite of a very large pretzel. How about you, Antaeus? Do you enjoy the Star Wars films? Do you think I'm missing something? -- Hoary 04:24, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC)

Killian Documents

Thanks for commenting on the Killian documents issue. Are you familiar with the facts concerning the authenticity of these documents? Anonip 00:09, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm familiar with Wikipedia's principle of NPOV, which is why even on issues that are a whole lot more black-and-white than the Killian documents, we don't jump in the jury box and say "Here is the conclusion you would have to come to if you looked at the facts", we say "here are the facts." -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:25, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I just wanted to clarify. You haven't actually investigated the specific facts in this case, your position is simply based on your understanding of the Wikipedia NPOV principle. You believe NPOV does not permit Wikipedia to state that the documents are forgeries, even if that assertion is not seriously disputed. Correct? Anonip 00:44, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Let me put it this way: I do not accept your judgement on what is "serious" disputation and what is "unserious" disputation. If there wasn't any dispute, then there wouldn't be any debate about how to refer to the documents. Since there clearly is a dispute, it is Wikipedia's policy to describe the dispute, not to assert "this is the side of the dispute you should take, since it's clearly the correct one." The only exception I'll make to this is on mathematical topics where certain truths are simply unescapable given a certain set of axioms. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:20, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please bear with me. I'm not trying to argue with you, just trying to understand your thinking. When you say "there clearly is a dispute", are you referring to a dispute about the fact among competent sources, or a dispute about the fact among anonymous (possibly incompetent) Wikipedia editors? Do you believe that the latter, in the absence of the former, requires Wikipedia to state that the facts are disputed? Anonip 03:33, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Again, you seem to be trying to angle towards the idea "the only people who are not absolutely convinced that they're forgeries are people too incompetent to be taken seriously", presumably under the mistaken assumption that if that could be shown to be the case, it would logically follow that Wikipedia would describe the situation the way the smart, right people see it, and would completely ignore the way the "incompetent" people see it. But since this latter assumption is completely incorrect, you can angle towards the former idea all you want and it won't make a damn bit of difference. Look at Raelism. If we went by your mistaken assumption that Wikipedia should state as truth the beliefs of "competent sources" and ignore views which are fringe, "incompetent", or outright lunatic, don't you think the article would state "The Raelians are some real freakin' nutjobs, man!"? I certainly think their beliefs are seriously bizarre -- but have I tried to edit the article to say "Everyone who's sane agrees that the doctrines of the Raelians are completely wrong"? No, and if you understood NPOV and cared about it, you wouldn't be on this wrong-headed campaign to say "Everyone who counts knows they're forgeries, and anyone who doesn't think they're forgeries doesn't count, and therefore the article should state as fact that they're forgeries." -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:10, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm having trouble following you. By "competent" I mean those with recognized expertise (in the real world) releence and clearly articulated reaamined the matter carefully, and have stated their expert conclusions supported by credible evidence and clearly articulated reasoning. By "incompetent" (perhaps I should have said "non-competent") I mean those who lack relevant expertise, who have not examined the matter carefully, and who simply assert their beliefs without credible evidence or articulated reasoning. The qualification of competent sources is objective and does not depend on their conclusions. In principle it is possible to have competent sources who reach different conclusions. In that case there would be a serious factual dispute. But what if there are no competent sources who disagree about a fact? Is disagreement by non-competent Wikipedians sufficient to require Wikipedia to treat a fact as disputed? That's my question.

And although I don't think the issue here is about fringe beliefs, suppose the Zaelians believe Abraham Lincoln was an extraterrestrial. Would the Wikipedia article on Lincoln have to say something like: "Lincoln is generally believed to have been born in Kentucky, but the Zaelians believe he was born on Sirius Zeta-9."? Anonip 05:38, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

First off, you need to go read WP:NPOV, because the questions you're asking are answered there. Really. Second, you can define "competent" all you want and yet it's not going to change the central point: even if it was provably true that the only people disputing the non-authenticity of the Killian documents were "incompetent", "non-competent", "partisans", "real morons", whatever -- it wouldn't change the fact that they dispute it.

Thirdly, your Zaelians example cannot be fairly evaluated because the Zaelians are a made-up group and do not exist. It is therefore impossible to evaluate whether it is truly a "fringe belief" or whether it is a belief held by enough people to make it notable even if it is a belief that no one should be believing (in, of course, the evaluation of those who don't believe it.) But again, I believe that what you are pushing towards is "if I can convince everyone that everyone's who's anyone believes that the Killian documents are forgeries, and that it's therefore a fringe belief that they might be authentic, then I have all the ammunition I need to say 'Why even acknowledge such a fringe belief? Let's just go with what we in the right" (no pun intended) "know to be true, that they're forgeries.'" Trust me, the belief would have to be very much more fringe in order to justify the kind of changes you have been proposing to make. -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:39, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Antaeus, after messing up your talk page last night (although I think it may have been due to technical difficulties on the Wikipedia end), I've decided to move the discussion to my own talk page. That's probably a better place for it anyway. Please respond to me there. Anonip 17:36, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

TH

Nice explanation

You wrote a really nice letter on User talk:24.126.173.124. You didn't bite the newcomer or denigrate the subject, you succinctly explained the relevent parts of Wiki culture and procedure, and beautifully demonstrated the nature of notability as applicable to autobiography and NPOV. I hope you won't be bothered if I draw upon it in the future if I ever feel the need to write a similar letter. Cheers, -Willmcw 00:54, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC) (Though I must add that I don't know/don't care about the deal with DG's involvement - just talking about the other stuff -W.)

Why, thank you. No, I won't be bothered if you draw on it; I'd be quite pleased. (Though, understandably, you probably won't have to mention David Gerard; I felt I had to do it in this case, because as the letter indicates, his advice to 24.126.173.124 was more reflective of how he feels WP should operate than how it does.)

I am an idealist myself sometimes. I haven't seen the letter you were responding to - I just happened upon the page and saw the good explanation of autobiography issues. Anyway, wikilove. Cheers, -Willmcw 01:16, Feb 21, 2005 (UTC)

OK, so perhaps the wheelie bin is not the most apt analogy to a non-notable biography. ;) Better to use a non-controversial example of non-notability, like an average high school. <;) In the wiki semi-policy on autobiographies there is a warning that articles begun in vanity may, in the hands of other editors, take on an entirely unexpected character. That's worth repeating too. -Willmcw 09:29, Feb 25, 2005 (UTC)

Please desist

Antenaeus, you took such a good deal of time to polish your response that you failed to address the issue at hand. The matter is being handled by David. Please consider it closed, as the deletion of our message to you ought to have suggested. Your "private" messages, as we stated prior, post to an entire network. Please desist. Thank you. -- unsigned message by 24.126.173.124

I don't know where you got the idea that David is the authority and that people like Uncle G. -- and like myself, when I don't tell you what you want to hear -- are merely "volunteers" to be arrogantly waved away. You simply cannot post articles about yourself on Wikipedia -- violating Wikipedia policy, as it has been explained -- and then instruct people the matter is "closed" to them. That is not your prerogative to determine, and neither is it David's. If you imagined that Wikipedia was a place where you would be free to advertise yourself to your heart's content and no one else would be allowed to say anything about it, then you are very incorrect; if you think that you can say things on Wikipedia when you think they'll get you what you want and then delete them without trace when it ceases to be convenient, you are again mistaken. Perhaps you should re-think your behavior in light of these realities. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:41, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Correction

Mr. Feldspar, as well-crafted as your letter appears, your information is inaccuate and reveals poor research. Ms. Spicuzza and "her" collective, as you refer-- a contradication in terms in itself-- are internationally known. She did not submit "autobiographically." She "lent" her permission for use. We are consulting with David as to whether all history, including contributions, ought be eliminated from Wikipedia altogether. Most of us involved, some members, some not, are sorry we ever posted. -- unsigned message by 24.126.173.124

"Lent" her permission for use? Ah, I see. I didn't realize that it was Wikipedia which came to Ms. Spicuzza and to the collective and begged "Please! You are so internationally famous we must have an article upon you! Except no description from outside could possibly do justice to such an amazing subject, so it will have to be someone from the same IP whose contributions are sometimes signed 'Jeanne-Marie' who creates the article!" Oh, wait ... you mean it wasn't? You mean it was someone from the collective who decided, "Wow! Our collective, and our founder, are so 'internationally famous', Wikipedia needs an article on both!" Well, then, I don't see how it doesn't qualify as autobiography -- and I don't see how it excepts you from the warning which was clearly put in front of you when you started each new page: "Please do not create an article to promote yourself, a website, a product, or a business." -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:41, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Feldspar,

Ms. Spicuzza "lent" her permission to the collective and non-members, not Wikipedia, as you've assumed, who share an ISP hub. I am not famous, nor did I claim to be. Ms. Spicuzza is. Your tone is quite rude, thus I make this my final posting. *Shelly Robbins, member

Your behavior has been rude, arrogant, and unwise, and thus I fully support your plan to make this your final posting. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:02, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please desist

I think perhaps you ought to consider your behavior in light of this. -Rick

I think perhaps you, all of you, Jeanne-Marie, and "Shelly" who is using the IP address 24.126.173.124 at 21:47 to announce that it's her last posting and "Rick" who is suddenly using the same IP address at 21:56, nine minutes later, to continue the same posting pattern, should try growing up. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:02, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Please desist

I think you should try growing up. -Rick

Thanks for your opinion. When I come to your place and start pretending that I know the way things are done there so much better than you and patronize you, then your correction will be well-deserved. In the meantime, in the real world, you may (or may not) be multiple people behind that IP address but only one of you seems even close to realizing that you can't just waltz onto Wikipedia and take what you want (publicity and promotion) and thumb your nose at the way we do things around here. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:26, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

ISP Sharing

Isn't he aware of how many people can share a single network? --Irene

Bell inequalities vfd

Thanks for your input. I added a reply to Caroline Thompson's comments. Please have a look and also carefully look at the talk page of that Bell's theorem article. CSTAR 14:25, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Aphrodite

Well, look at it like this - if is wasnt for people like me who create articles, people like you wouldnt have anything to do, would they? As for reintroducing errors, as I created it in the first place and was still working on it, then I consider it gives me artistic licence to make typos. As for criticising my grammar...........languages evolve by distorting grammer, just go with the flow dude.

Lincolnshire Poacher

PS. I just read something on your user page:

'there is a place on Wikipedia for descriptions for television shows and video games and webcomics, but how much detail these things actually deserve is proportional to how much influence they have actually had on the real world.'

Wow, thats arrogant beyond belief!!! Who are you to judge how influential any particualr thing has been on any particular societal group? Are you an expert on EVERY cultural and Social grouping on the planet? I think not!! If so, I was born in 1954 and live in Lincolnshire, UK, so tell me what was influential to me, if your an expert? I think if someone wants an article on some obscure comic that influenced him so much he remembered it from childhood, and you've never heard of it, then that hardly gives you a valid reason to oppose it.

I read the bits above about this, and you either have an unbiassed encyclopedia that encompasses all knowledge, of you censor it to some arbitrary ruleset defined by some personal subjective worldview. Personally, I prefer the former.....who are you to censor anyone else?

I think you need to reevaluate your own importance to the planet, dude............

Thank you for your opinion. I'll give it the appropriate amount of consideration, based on your idea that people who create articles are some separate, superior class to people who actually work on articles that they didn't create, working on more than just the bits that are fun, and that merely creating an article on Wikipedia gives you "artistic license" to undo the work of others. I'm sure you're just the person to tell me about who is arrogant. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:35, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

By the way, if you don't think you can bear to read about my own philosophies, then you might not want to read that section of my user page, the one marked "Philosophies". Just a hint, to such a clever lad as yourself. -- Antaeus Feldspar 04:59, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Listign of purported hate groups

I understand that type of issue. It seems like the hate groups should all be in the list of purported hate groups, rather than the hate groups article itself. As it was, I only dropped one - the empty category of anti-cult groups. If it's important to have that or other unsourced hate groups then we could create a subsection for alleged hate groups that do not appear on any source list. Let me take another look at it after dinner and see if there's a way to bridge the gap. Cheers, -Willmcw 02:16, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

PS- I just checked the history of the Hate group article and see that, indeed, the listings were merged. Nonetheless, every single one that was included was supportable by citations from the ADL or SPLC. So although I changed the criteria, that didn't make any difference (except for the new, empty section "anti-cult"). So, I don't see an actual problem- but maybe I missed it. FYI, Rick Ross and the old AFF list "controversial groups" (not cults), which include hate groups and NRMs. So if we need to broaden the scope of sources, we should be able to find a citation to support almost any group's inclusion. We've got open arms for hate groups! It's a big tent. Cheers, -Willmcw 06:01, Mar 5, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the correction on the Efuru stub. Clearly I need to not edit late at night. The lesbian 06:44, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You're quite welcome! I don't mind doing spelling and grammar edits when I see them -- well, as long as the next person to edit doesn't erase them because he can't be bothered to edit an edit conflict... 9_9 -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:01, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Best wishes

Best wishes for a speedy recovery. Fighting for NPOV is not as fun without you around... :) --Zappaz 19:38, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:42, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hey

Can you allow me to blank my user page? I threw all that stuff up on there just to see if it would work...I didn't think it would be attacked the way it was. I'd like to keep it blank from now on. Thanks. Kaneda 07:08, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The reason I restore pages that are blanked during VfD (the reason the VfD notice itself tells you not to blank the page) is so those who go to check whether the content merits deletion will see the content that everyone else voted on. Since the VfD looks certain to pass anyways, I don't know that it makes a lot of difference. -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:19, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Belated thanks.

For pointing out that my scratch page was appearing in a category. Don't know how I missed this. Rich Farmbrough 14:06, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

How to Heal Traumas

Thank you for your edits. I feel the book and hopefully the article will help a lot of people.--Jondel 00:05, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome! I'm glad I could help out... -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:07, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Umm,as suggested by Plek and GeorgeS, I'm going to propose renaming to Waking the Tiger, removing redirects, create See-also links from articles of Fear, Trauma, etc. This fulfils my purposes. Sorry for your trouble. I may copy the whole thing or a complete write up. I don't feel the need to push for this article if the renaming or write up of Waking The Tiger is well done. What do you think?--Jondel 01:05, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Waking the Tiger

Hi Anteus. I've done renamed and tried to rewrite as best as I could. Now I'm asking for your help if you are interested. The Waking The Tiger btw has a new peer review request. The VFD has transferred to Waking the Tiger.--Jondel 05:48, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Anteus, you have a gift with words (reffering to assuming bad faith), nurture it!--Jondel 02:14, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Walker, Texas Ranger lever

Hey thanks for merging my Walker, Texas Ranger lever article to the Conan page. I didn't know it was listed on the Conan article and it makes more sense to be on that.

--Jedihobbit 16:30, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No problem! I tend to be a mergist and so "part of a larger article" tends to occur to me as where information may belong -- or may already be, as was the case here. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:41, 17 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Rex

I have no problem with your having edited User:JamesMLane/Rexlog. It's still a draft and I'm glad to get anyone's input. (I'm especially glad to see you're fairly active. I hope that means good news about your health.) Rex has also been stalking me, voting on a couple CfD's after I did. It's kind of funny that he stalks other people, given that he complained loudly when he thought others were tracking his edits. Once you're finished admiring the irony, though, is it ArbCom material? It's not a violation of any policy that I know of. I'm inclined to leave it out of a formal RfAr. I'd be glad to get your thoughts on the subject, though. JamesMLane 17:03, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, if he takes it to the level that he did before, before his "leaving forever", it may rise to the level where it can be presented to the ArbCom as evidence of harassment. At the current time, though, I agree that it's best left out of a formal RfAr. -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:47, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've filed the RfAr. Thanks for your help in developing it. JamesMLane 07:07, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Links to 9/11 open questions

Deleting or redirecting links to a page being voted on for deletion is sabotaging the election process. As such it could be argued to be vandalism of the Wiki election process. If you see the Wiki deletion policy, it states that links to an article can be deleted and redirected to more suitable links after the article is deleted. I doubt anyone would condone doing this while the election is in progress. Please stop.

I see the Wikipedia deletion policy and I see no such statement as you claim there to be, stating that redirects to an article must not be changed while the article is in VfD. Even if 9/11 open questions were to be kept it would be absurd to redirect 9/11/01 to that article rather than to September 11, 2001 attacks. It's not as if anyone would be searching on 9/11/01 to try and find your article -- let alone that they would type in 9/11, an existing redirect which pointed to September 11, 2001 attacks, trying to get your own article, which you changed the redirect to.

Are you seriously suggesting that if I created an article called al-Qaeda is an awesome musical group and created multiple new redirects to it under every variant spelling that I could think of and changed redirects currently pointing to al-Qaeda to my bogus article -- are you seriously suggesting that from the moment my article was put on VfD, that no one would "condone" changing those redirects to a non-bogus target? because it might "sabotage" the VfD process? The suggestion is ludicrous and will be ignored accordingly. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:18, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

9/11

You edit summary read -rv; please be honest and mark reverts as such in your edit summaries. And if "9/11" is too ambiguous, what sense does it make to redirect to "11/9"???)

What do you mean be honest? How am I being dishonest by stating the reason why I am reverting this page?
What sense does it make to redirect to "11/9"? - 11/9 is a disambiguation page which lists the meanings of 9/11 and 11/9. I could duplicate this page in its entirety but why not use a redirect? I will duplicate the page to satisfy your requirements the next time.
A very long time ago, (in 2002 I think), this page along with pages like 10/12, 10/3 etc.. were created en masse. It was decided to delete all of them because while 9/11 means September 11 to Americans, for everybody else it means 9th of November.
Take a look at 9-11 - that is a disambiguatrion page. Why should this be any different? Jooler 09:00, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I note your failure to address the issues raised here and on the relevant talk pages. Jooler 12:31, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes; absurd responses such as "It also means 9 shillings and 11 pence" convinced me very early on that talk was wasted; that I was dealing with someone doggedly determined to revert this redirect, not out of ignorance that for every citizen of the United States "9/11" means "the attacks of September 11, 2001", but because that is an indelible association for Americans, and Americans need to be put in their place. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:41, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is nothing "absurd" about 9/11 meaning nine shillings and eleven pence. This is how the value of pre-decimal British coinage was written. Perhaps you recall the Mad Hatter's hat from Alice in Wonderland where a ticket with the price of the hat at "10/6" remained tucked into the band - see [5]. The point of saying that was to illustrate that "9/11" can mean a whole host of things other than the date, expressed in a particularly parochial format, of a particularly nasty incident. Pointing out that people from outside of the USA do not spell certain words the way they do; or call certain objects by another name; or do not believe in the same values, or wexpress dates in a different format is not an attempt to "put Americans in their place". Jooler 08:00, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vaccines

Antaeus, your fair-minded dedication to NPOV might be put to good use on the vaccine article, which could use a good NPOVing by someone who is more of a stickler for details. Interested? Ombudsman 01:42, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'll look it over and see what I can do. Thank you for the compliment. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:23, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thnks. In striving for NPOV, a straight line may not be viable, much less optimal. The ADHD article needed a good keelhauling, for reasons such as those eloquently expressed by *Kat*. NPOV is in the eye of the beholder; perhaps perusal of the links at Keirsey will help instill an understanding of others and their perspectives on NPOV and ADHD. Ombudsman 05:00, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

btw, the two starting points, sorry it wasn't specified, were meant to reference the differing treatments of TMAP and New Freedom Commission on Mental Health. Ombudsman 05:38, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

As I stated at your talk page, I admire your dedication to NPOV while wondering if you truly understand what it is. I don't know what "a straight line may not be viable, much less optimal" is supposed to mean; what I do know is that a great many editors think that when they have the article in a state where their POV is fully and sympathetically expressed, and everyone else's POV is grudgingly given an airing followed immediately by disclaimers that one would be a fool to believe such a thing, that this is NPOV because every POV is thereby represented in some form. -- Antaeus Feldspar 12:37, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

RE Evangelion

The Lilith = 2nd angel is indeed Fannon, as is Touji's younder sister and Kensuke's hakcer status. Why did you remove everything? NovaSatori

Some of the items you listed may indeed be fanon. Others, however, have been confirmed by Gainax as official canon in sources such as the Red Cross Book. Others are not fanon; they're just something that appeared in someone's fanfic. In addition to these problems, when you're writing in an article, it's not a good idea to include notes to other editors such as "(someone check me on this one, because the wikipedia article seems to disagree)" -- the talk pages are how you should communicate with other editors, as that's why they exist. For the articles, we should be aiming for a professional tone. These are the reasons that led me to revert to the previous version. -- Antaeus Feldspar 22:56, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)