User talk:AnonEMouse/Archive 14

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

→

Emotions Anonymous Review

Hey there -- I don't know if you kept the Emotions Anonymous page in your watch list, but I wanted to thank you for taking the time to review it here incase you didn't see my comment -- espeically since I stuck the request in the wrong place. :) -- Craigtalbert 21:33, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Giggy/RfA/Giggy

Just as a heads up, I (talk · contribs) moved your comments to the talk page, and I've responded to them. Thanks again :D Giggy _U^CP 23:10, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Clear keep consensus

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Mihaljevic has a clear Keep consensus. Twice as many people are arguing for keeping instead of deleting, there are a large number of unrelated reliable sources, and it's a real stretch to bring up BLP concerns when no living people are mentioned in the article (some were before, but that was addressed). If that isn't a Keep consensus, then almost nothing is. Please change your closing. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:32, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

It was closed as "no consensus, default to keep". What difference does it make? Neil ╦ 14:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Wow, thank you!

I'm honored that you've noticed the small things I've been doing, I have been around for years, but I tend to "lurk" until I know policies and guidelines, in all areas. So I only recently felt I was really able to assist in a useful way. (Plus, I was pretty busy with grad school stuff too lol) If you have a bit of time, I actually was going to go looking for a few administrators who would be willing to give me feedback on a project I was asked to do. Let me know! ^Ariel♥Gold 17:26, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Mary: A Fiction

Let me know if you think Mary: A Fiction is ready for FAC or if I should keep working on it. Thanks. Awadewit | talk 15:59, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Free Images

How would I go about asking someone on say imdb.com to release pictures of actors onto wikipedia; pictures I would assume they took. For example I notice there is no picture of David Duchovny on his article page. I was hoping to put one up of him. Please let me know; thanks. þ 22:11, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Videmus Omnia/Requesting free content is a guide from someone who is better at it than I am. (I got a dozen images by asking. He got a hundred.) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 22:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

-- Actually I was going to delete this message because I realized imdb.com hosts images mostly from wireimages.com. So it's mostly anonymous. But I registered (just for that!) onto flickr.com and asked someone permission for their photo which I'm not sure if they took yet (in other words I'm not sure if she took it.). So it more or less makes my message to you obsolete (I just wanted to say obsolete!). So I just gotta cross my fingers and hope she responds. Thanks for replying, though. Later. þ 07:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

-- You know what that essay gave me idea that whenever I feel like it I can write an essay...Just a stupid thought. þ 07:49, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

The important thing for Flickr is that they have to change their license to CC-BY (attribution) or CC-BY-SA (share-alike). Non-commercial or no modification or "only for use on Wikipedia" don't work for us. Good luck. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 10:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

How to go about deleting an article

Since you didnt seem to know, one of the first steps of deleting an article is putting in a {{notability}} tag so people are given the time to put in 3rd party nontrivial RS's for the article. Jumping straight to an AfD notice is generally not a good idea. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 16:54, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that AnonEMouse is unaware of anything with regard to how to delete an article. At any rate, it is certainly perfectly acceptable to place an article into AfD without it ever having had a {{notability}} tag on it. Valrith 17:56, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
- My personal preference is to speedy delete the article, fully protect it blank, ban the creator, AFD all articles they ever edited, use checkuser tools to find their IP address, hack into their computer, and insert a virus so that any attempt by them to even look at Wikipedia redirects them to Citizendium. You just can't be too careful. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:07, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

I want to do the show and hide like on your page

I want to do show and hide on my page for the userboxes I've created like you have on your page. What code do I input. Lighthead 20:27, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

-- Never mind, I figured it out. I had to put it at the bottom of the page; because if not it pulls everything below it. But I'm sure you knew that. Lighthead 20:42, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		Thank you so much for taking on the MOS duties for me at FAC! It is beyond "kind". Awadewit \| talk 01:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you! :)

Hi,

I love mice, so I especially pleased that you visited me. My ~~pet~~ owner, Insane, sends her squeaky greetings! :) She chose her own name by chewing on a page in one of my dictionaries! ;)

I have many more barnstars than I should have (because I shouldn't have any.) Since I'm the obsessive-compulsive type, I spent too much time thinking about whether I should display the shiny things (which is friendly to the givers, but might seem conceited to some people, especially newbies), or archive them. My conclusion was that, as I am a bozo, I should keep the things in my archive. I am endlessly grateful to receive them, but generally very confused that anybody would think me worthy of one. In your case, I'll assume you read about Insane on my userpage and -- knowing of her reputation through the "cheese-vine" -- decided to take pity on me! :)

One of these days, I'm going to make a personalized badge-of-honor featuring my animal family, and you'll be the first recipient. Maybe they'll be a touch of quid pro quo in that, but you honestly are the nicest mouse on the web that I know. (She is too busy scurrying about to learn how to type, making your accomplishment all the more impressive from my POV!) ;) In eternal thanks, Xoloz the smelly human 01:08, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Elonka 2

Thanks very much for the kind words, and yes, I'll be trying again soon. :) I actually find the outcome of my RfA somewhat amusing, considering that a few hours after it closed, I was moving on with real-life, at the North American Sci-Fi Convention this weekend, giving talks and signing autographs.[1] My lecture on the Knights Templar went really well! Internet access is a bit spotty here, and it makes Wikipedia seem very far away, but don't worry, I'll be back home again soon, and back to my normal schedule. Thanks again for the support, --El on ka 03:07, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

China allegations Afd

Thanks for responding about splitting. I see you already floated that. In a proposal I posted on the AfD Talk, I suggest we first deal with the neutrality (NPOV) of the Article Name (Title only) and, after rename, consider whether NOR justifies splitting. Thanks. Feedback welcome, up to you. HG | Talk 04:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Summer Cummings

Can you give me your opinion of the edits to this article? Certain folks keep adding text with huge POV issues and "sources" that don't back up any claims, and I am having to continually remove these (since no one else seems engaged)... Valrith 13:46, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Hrr. I admit I've been staying out of that, because there is a non-negligible chance the whole article will end up being deleted in the AfD, so I didn't want to invest effort that would just end up deleted; but I guess this now falls into my mop-wielding responsibilities. Well let's take a look at this edit war, section by section. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Summer_Cummings&diff=149445435&oldid=149324521
- Lead: The differences seem to be birthdate, birth location cite, first starring film, fetish film staple, and surgically enhanced breasts. The birthdate shows up in lots of places, but no reliable sources, and she leaves it out of her interview and official site bio where she does mention birth location [2], so should probably go until we find better sources. I'm kind of partial to the birth location cite, since I found it. :-) It's a direct quote from her in an interview from Talking Blue, a cable TV show, a reasonably reliable source; also the biography link says the same thing. First starring film seems to be cited; to a commercial source just giving the date of the film rather than saying "this was her first film", but I think this isn't particularly controversial. Her bio specifies she has been "interested in the fetish scene" since soon after high school. "staple" is somewhat puffery, but if she has been active in this genre for 17 years probably isn't that controversial either, that's a long time. Noted for surgically enhanced breasts ... ehh. Needs a reliable source, I guess, but at a measurement of 45EE (from the interview again) I'd say it would be more controversial if anyone claimed they weren't surgically enhanced. :-) I don't think anyone's really disputing it, so I'd leave it, possibly with the {{fact}} tag, but it's close.
- Biography section: the difference here seems to be mostly rearranging of text. Let's see what the points are, and whether any only appear in one version of the dispute. Boogie Nights - both versions. With Skye Blue - both versions. Partnership reflected stage name - one version, but rather obvious, doesn't need a cite. Appeared in many adult films together - can be cited to the interview, rather than the primary sources provided. "These two have done tons of movies...". Ceased partnership - to some extent that's simply the fact that summerskye.com doesn't cover both of them any more. (It did before, see the rec.arts.movies.erotica FAQ which dates back to that time, [3]) Maybe we could rephrase that phrase if you think it implies more than that, but deleting it is too strong. Skye owns and operates "Platinum Blue" - that's actually cited, so should be kept. Summer produces as "summerc" at www.summerc.com - that's her official site, hard to dispute. Her latest production series has been the "Fetish Fairy Tales" - cited, only to a store review, but since all it's saying is "she produces this" that's good enough. I think it's "Fairy Tails", though, actually.

OK, I think I've covered the diff, and will copy and paste this onto the article talk page. It looks like most of the things the newer contributor is trying to put in are reasonably cited, uncontroversial, or both. Unfortunately, they're not necessarily enough for Wikipedia:Notability, you'll notice I didn't weigh in either way on the AFD debate. She's a very experienced pornographic actress, but experience isn't necessarily the same as notability, though it does help. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI - I exchanged a few e-mails with Ms. Cummings about a better image for the article. I'm afraid that despite much pleading and begging on my part, she was only willing to give permission "for Wikipedia only". Sorry! I had a similar problem with Seka not long ago. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 16:46, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. If even you can't get them...! :-) By the way, your impressive accomplishements have inspired me quite a bit. Now I send out a new image request almost every day. I know, you probably send out one every hour, but still --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:50, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Victoria Cross for New Zealand

With regards to the FAC of VC for NZ are you still opposed to it? What exactly is the nature of your oppose. Is it to the principle of the article, being awarded only once. Or is it that you think the direction of the article should change. I am the original nom and main editor and i was on holiday IRL when your comments first came up. Thanks Woodym555 22:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am opposed. I don't think there is enough individual content in the article. It's basically a history of the Victoria Cross in general, and not of the Victoria Cross for New Zealand specifically. I don't believe a featured article should be basically a copy of another article. That doesn't mean it's bad, it's still an interesting story, that just means it's unoriginal. Compare, say, Rosa Parks. Someone could well have written an article that was basically the same as African-American Civil Rights Movement (1955-1968), that would also have been an interesting story ... but it wouldn't have been a separate, FA-worthy article. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't get me wrong, i understand your point of view. They need to be separate article but given the close nature of the two awards there is bound to be an overlap. The Victoria Cross for New Zealand has an identical history to the VC, it is the same medal made out of the same historic metal. Yet it is only in the last decade that it has differed. Given the limited time scale of the medal it is hard, nay impossible, to have a separate history. They are so closely intertwined. Does the article itself, on its own, warrant FA status. The debate has to be on the quality of the article itself and if it follows the FA criteria i think it is an FA-worthy article. Woodym555 14:42, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, you want chapter and verse. OK, it fails Wikipedia:Featured article criteria #4, "It is of appropriate length, staying focused on the main topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style)". It does not stay focused on the main topic, as over half the article is not about the Victoria Cross for New Zealand. It does not follow Wikipedia:summary style, as it is a sub-article of Victoria Cross, but is substantially repetitive of the main article. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:58, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thankyou. Given this suggestion would you prefer it if it were moved to Victoria Cross (New Zealand) and then all VCs given to New Zealanders could be discussed. The focus of the article woudl become New Zealanders who won the Victoria Cross and then the VC for New Zealand would be a section at the end. Would that be satisfactory? (n.b. the tone of your reply is slightly condescending, i am only trying to do the best for the article) Woodym555 15:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Possibly, but I am not that worried about the title, I'm worried about the content. I believe the content that is mostly about the Victoria Cross in general should be at most summarized here. The most dramatic example is probably the Appearance section. That starts "The Victoria Cross for New Zealand is identical to the original design." Everything beyond that one sentence is better and more appropriately covered in the Victoria Cross article, so 90% of that section should go, probably including the photograph (which is rather similar to the one in the infobox at the top of the article anyway). Applying that rule to the rest of the article won't get quite as drastic a reduction, but in general I estimate over half the article is redundant, and should be drastically reduced to be a summary of the other article to which it refers. After that reduction, I suspect it won't be a very long article. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

If you then re-expand it with more details on the New Zealanders who received the VC, focusing on the way they received it, that would be fine, and if it's well done I'd be happy to support. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Brian Hill (referee)

Hi. No, in my own opinion, as one who has worked on someone else's creation in this instance, I am not happy with the amount of citations needed at the moment. I would have thought start-Class was correct, not B as yet. Thanks.Ref ^(chew)(do) 23:55, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

...for dealing with the [attack]. I owe you one! Videmus Omnia ^Talk 15:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

That's called meatball:DefendEachOther. And the mop, of course. :-) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:52, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Snooping around

User:Gluteus maximus is snooping around, is what he's doing, so it kind of is his fault. --Chrisottjr 15:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Nasmformyzombie

I'm not sure what's going on with the rapid-fire speedy nominations, but thanks for looking into it. Oh, FYI, I just got a release on about 70-80 good-quality images of adult film stars from Flickr user Anime Nut, should be starting upload soon. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 19:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I just noticed it too and reported it at AN since I don't have time to look at it right now... but it looks like you are. You may wish to comment at AN... or not. Thanks.--Isotope23 ^talk 19:55, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

AnonEMouse, thanks for the clarification. Note: I used the speedy deletion template from the wiki page for porn "star" Monique DeMoan as the basis for my edits. Can you tell me what specific tags (or provide an example) that I should have used? --Nasmformyzombie^talk 13 August 2007 (UTC)

What you should do is to make sure the person who you are nominating for speedy deletion is indeed non-notable. The key elements here are:

WP:CSD#A7, which states that speedy deletion applies to "Unremarkable people, groups, companies and web content. An article about a real person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content that does not assert the importance or significance of its subject. If controversial, or if there has been a previous deletion discussion that resulted in the article being kept, list the article at Articles for deletion instead."
WP:PORNBIO, which lists what are and are not valid criteria for deeming a porn star to be notable.

Also, don't go throught and list a huge swath of articles all at once. As you can see, all that does is irritate people and make them not like you. Hope that clarifies things for you. Tabercil 22:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Couple more ratings

Well, I caught you up again, but probably won't have time to even notice, much less do any others for a good long while after this.

Sydnee Steele mostly feels like it could use more filling out of all the sections, but it's at least a brief overview of everything, so B seems to fit. It probably wouldn't hurt to create redirects for the alternate spellings of her name, though.

Jimmy Walter needs work on the paragraphs; they feel kind of haphazard and like the breaks were arbitrarily added. Also, what's the Morehead scholarship (Morehead-Cain Scholarship?) and why'd he have to skip it to do business? Do they apply to different places, or? That would help with that bit, and seems like it should be a fairly easy thing to clarify. I've also linked/left "prison camp" pointing to the dab page. I assume it means a Prisoner-of-war camp, but I'll let you fix that one, just in case. These two sentences: Walter had been opposed to the Vietnam War, a source of contention with his father,^[1] but had not used his money to act on his convictions. On February 27, 2003, Walter spent US$125,000 to take out a full-page advertisement in the New York Times attacking Secretary of State Colin Powell's justification for the impending 2003 invasion of Iraq. seem a bit awkward as well. He "had been" opposed -- is he not anymore (aside from the fact the war is over), or can it read "was opposed... did not use his money" instead? I'm not quite sure what to make of "to take out a full-page advertisement" either. I assume it means either to buy the space and/or to counter another ad (if it's an opinion thing, is it really an ad, or an editorial?), but as it is, it could also mean he paid someone to not print the ad that should've been there. Clarify? Oh, and the article needs an infobox, even if it doesn't have a picture. -Bbik^★ 19:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Will see what I can do. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 20:01, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Notification of discussion: Guideline/policy governing lists

Given your extensive Wikipedia experience, I'd appreciate your input on the following:

User:Sidatio/Conversations/On list guidelines

Thank you in advance for any thoughts you may have on the topic. Sidatio 01:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Canvassing

I volunteered to be a Commons Flickr review here, if you'd like to support, I'd appreciate it! Videmus Omnia ^Talk 05:18, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:P* tasks and deletions

Thank you for pointing out Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography/Deletion. I will update User:Ceyockey/Notifying WikiProjects of Deletion Proposals accordingly. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 19:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

AnonEMouse is Mighty Mouse!

File:Mus Musculus-huismuis.jpg

Mighty Mouse to the rescue!

You're my hero!! What did you do?

I was stuck, stuck, stuck!

What did I do wrong? How should I have fixed it? Did I ask for help in the right place? -- Lisasmall 20:30, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Respectively: you're quite welcome, comes with the mop; you can see what I did to fix it at this diff; I'm not sure what you did wrong; the admins' noticeboard is a fine place to ask for help, since administrators do tend to be rather experienced users; we were all new once; if I weren't furry, I'd be blushing. :-) --AnonEMouse^(squeak) 20:45, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I am peering at my screen and yes, yes... I think your ears do look awfully pink from here. That wouldn't be furry, would it? ;) Thank you again. -- Lisasmall | Talk 01:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

~*Hears a song in her head "What a mouse, what a mouse, what a mighty fine mouse!*~ (This random rambling containing no useful information brought to you by ^Ariel♥Gold )

Cool editor!!!!

I have seen your name in a few places. I just want to say that I find that you are what an editor should be. I have seen that you always take good faith on principle, especially towards newbies that might not always know the rules. I just wanted to say thanks for being here because I know that being an Admin you probably get a lot of flak. Anyway I think you make Wikipedia a postive place. Jmm6f488 05:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, thank you! :-) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 23:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BJAODN

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Newyorkbrad 16:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

New pics

If you want to see some of the most surprising pics I've ever gotten by e-mail based on WP:COPYREQ, check this gallery on Commons. (Not work safe!) Some of them I didn't want to add to my Free Images page, for obvious reasons. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 17:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Lordy! Wow. I wonder if some of those could be used for other articles. And no, not the ones you think ;-) - we've got plenty of explicit photos in those articles. Instead, Surfboard wax doesn't seem to have a picture, and one from this series may well fit; Surfboard has one, but could use another. Skateboarding has plenty, unfortunately... possibly Skateboarding#Female skateboarders, which doesn't have one. Some of the more explicit ones could fit under certain pornographic subgenres, but I'm not at all sure whether that's a good idea... --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 23:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Added to Surfboard Wax - down a bit in the page. And also to the Female skateboarders spot. As for the more explicit ones... umm. NO. Tabercil 23:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree on that. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 23:46, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Carn Brea content dispute

Hi, obviously we are incapable of producing any kind of grudging agreement, and Tony (who has admitted to off-wiki discussion of the article's content with one of the other remove Potteristas) together with an editor who didn't take part in the discussion (but who turned up shortly after Tony) is now removing the reference again. I'm not prepared to take part in a discussion with someone like Tony who uses such abusive language, so frankly I haven't got a clue about how to proceed. Any input from you would be appreciated. DuncanHill 10:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Frightner

Regarding this incident. He has returned as 203.59.218.120 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) Mr. Neutron 14:48, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Blocked. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

So... AnonEMouse, how being admin working out for ya? Good pay huh? Helps support the fam' and pay off the car aye? 203.59.218.120 10:00, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Eh ... we're still poor as church mice, an' you'd be surprised how much cheese littl'uns need, what with breedin' like rabbits... er ... :-)

More seriously, look, Frightner, or whoever you are. If you make this into a continued war between yourself and Mr. Neutron, it benefits no one. You're quite right that we can't predict the next IP you will choose, so why not use the opportunity to make edits that won't be seen as part of a useless edit war? Surely there are plenty of articles in your chosen area that could use actual improvement, not just back-and-forth reversion. When you joined Wikipedia, was it really just to "get back at" someone? Wasn't it to write a free encyclopedia, to write and improve articles that millions, or eventually billions, of people around the world would read, enjoy, and learn from? Please remember that, and come back to that. This isn't a chat room, this isn't a video game, it's a collaborative project to make the world just a little bit better. Please help, or at least, don't harm, that starry-eyed idea. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I joined Wikipedia to contribute fairly, with an honest and neutral POV until Mr. Neutron and several of his Bulgarian "comrades" if you will, turned Macedonian related articles into a bunch of senseless propaganda as with the National Liberation War of Macedonia and I simply lost my temper, ever since then I have tried making constructive edits, especially to articles no relating to the Republic of Macedonia but I have my edits reverted by Mr. Neutron which causes me to become angry. I hope you understand my reasoning, and the reason I become involved in edit wars is because Mr. Neutron does not ignore my constructive edits to articles but rather decides to revert them. I'm not the type of guy who takes a bunch of crap from people like Mr. Neutron and goes on about his day. If the nationalist Anti-Macedonian Bulgarian/Greek Wikipedians (I'm talking about Mr. Neutron, Laveol, Jingiby, Gligan, Jackanapes, Lantonov and NikoSilver) get in my way, I'm gonna have to get in theirs. Regards. 124.168.70.87 13:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Working through contentious issues

OK. Can we pick one issue at a time and try to work through it? I haven't edited many, or possibly any, Macedonian/Bulgarian/Greek articles so I hope I don't have any particular point of view. Can you point to one disputed issue (article, issue, and probably a diff or two of the edit under dispute), and we'll talk it through. OK? Meanwhile, try not to make any controversial edits with this IP at least, so we'll know who you are for a while at least. I'll drop a quick note on your talk page, and in your block log, so hopefully you won't get blocked until then. :-) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, that's fine. I will not make any controversial edits or edits categorized as vandalism or trolling, but as I have mentioned earlier, the reason my edits result in bans is because Mr. Neutron has some sort of campaign against me where he involves User:Laveol, User:Jingiby, User:Lantonov and User:Jackanapes. As you will notice, he has posted the same comment on each of their talk pages warning them to look out for any IP addresses that may be mine and report them, not to mention revert every one of my edits since I have been banned, especially where I have reverted vandalism to articles. Regards. 124.168.70.87 13:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, now your edits are being reverted on principle, but presumably the initial conflict didn't come out of nowhere, did it? I blocked that earlier string of IPs, because each made some nasty comment or blanked a user's talk page or something. What is the underlying issue we need to resolve to keep you folks from fighting? I know there are probably several, but let's pick one or two, asee if we can resolve those, then use them as a model for the others. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Well the main issue is Jingiby's edits. He seems to be contributing alot of Bulgarian POV to Macedonia related articles, for example; on the National Liberation War of Macedonia, he included "As the Bulgarian army entered Vardar Macedonia on April 19, 1941, it was greeted by most of the population as liberators" and used a Bulgarian website as a source, this is clearly POV. If I in anyway alter this sentence or remove "as liberators" he reverts my edit and we become engaged in an edit war. Another problem is the fact that he is copy/pasting articles to other articles, for example; he has copy/pasted a whole section of the National Liberation War article to Macedonianism. And lastly, the issue of Mr. Neutron reverting my IP contributions to Wikipedia meant to be in good faith, such as my cleanup of articles and reversion of vandalism. Thanks. 124.168.70.87 14:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Aha. 3 issues. One at a time.

I see National Liberation War of Macedonia is fully protected, already not a good sign. For the Bulgarian web site, I think you're referring to this, yes? We can't automatically assume that just because the site is in Bulgarian it is automatically not reliable; and reliable isn't the same thing as unbiased or true. It's quite possible with contentious issues that there will be reliable sources on each side of the issue disagreeing with each other. In a case like that, the article ends up saying "Dr. X, from the University of XYZ, says ABC, while Professor Y, from the University of PDQ, says DEF." Anyway, that site in Bulgarian, so I can't read it very well, however with the help of an online translator, I can't see support for that statement on that first page. I do, however, see that this is a site that seems to have quite a few books, or extracts from books. Here is what I see in English: The Bulgarian population in Macedonia met with open joy the defeat of Kingdom Yugoslavia. It saw in it the end of the 23 years of enslavement. That is why it was not surprising that the Bulgarians from Vardar Macedonia, mobilizated in the Yugoslav army refuse to fight.7 Similar was the situation in the World War I when the Macedonian Bulgarians forcibly mobilized in the Serbian army in large numbers surrendered to the Austro-Hungarian army. That's not quite the same as "was greeted by most of the population as liberators", that's closer to "was greeted by the Bulgarian portion of the population as liberators". That seems more reasonable. Would you have any objection to that? If you agree, we'll suggest that on the article talk page. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Macedonianism seems to be about a 4th century religious sect, surely that has nothing to do with 1941, and the edit history also doesn't show any edit war. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:52, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Finally, I suspect User:Mr. Neutron got upset with you a bit when you were doing such things as replacing his user page with a link to United Macedonia. If we can get you calmed down, then we can see if we can get him calmed down next. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Option one is fair and well observed, it clearly shows that certain contributors have altered the text or taken it out of context, such as stating "most of the population" rather than "the Bulgarian population". This point will be discussed further on the article's talk page. Secondly, the correct article (which I was referring to) was Macedonism, I mistakenly directed you to the wrong article, sorry. Lastly, I can understand that Mr. Neutron became upset, but I in turn became aggressive because of some of his actions. Regards. 124.168.70.87 15:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, I'll post on the article talk page. For an example of "the right way" to handle controversies with reliable sources on each side, I can point to Macedonia (terminology), a Wikipedia:Featured article. You'll notice almost every paragraph describes a controversy! --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to back this up - Frightner, AnonEMouse is one of the most fair and constructive admins I've seen. Thank you for calming down and engaging with him on this matter. I appreciate there is a lot of issues on both sides of many Macedonian-related disputes. AnonEMouse, you seem to be handling this just fine, but if you do need a second pair of eyes, let me know. Neil ム 17:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I have addressed another issue on Talk:National Liberation War of Macedonia, I would appreciate it if you could take a look. Thanks. (Note: My IP address has [randomly] changed again) Regards. 203.59.118.146 13:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Looks like we got agreement to change the sentence, with lots of references. Let's see if we can use that as a model.

Now about your comment on the talk page there ... in focusing on what editor is of what ethnicity, you're commenting on contributors, not content, and I'm afraid that might stir up a firestorm again. I'm going to be very bold, and change your comment. Now that's taking a huge liberty, people really should not change others' comments, so if you at all disagree, change it back, and I won't do it again ... but I'm hoping I can keep your meaning without turning this into an ethnic debate. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I could not think of any alternative way of stating the fact that the only people who wanted to move the article were Bulgarian (WP:POV). I'll try and keep that in mind in the future and avoid commenting on the contributor. Thanks for changing the sentence by the way, I noticed that the protection of the article expires tomorrow and it may become subject to POV again but hopefully the remaining issues will be resolved tonight. 203.59.118.146 13:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The best way is not to state that fact. :-) The best way is, as you did later, to state that this is the usual way this conflict is referred to in history books. If they disagree, they can bring up other history books that call it something else, and you can discuss that - the content, not the contributors. Dry facts, not other editors.

There is a very useful trick about the assumption of good faith. Even if don't actually believe the other parties are working for NPOV, or with the best interests of the encyclopedia at heart... pretend that you do. Act as if they're your best friends, your cordial colleagues. Very often, that actually makes people behave as if they did have the encyclopedia's best interests at heart. Not always, of course, but surprisingly often. It's a very useful trick. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

National Liberation War of Macedonia is actually not protected despite the template. User:Jingiby has yet again changed Macedonian partisans to Yugoslav Partisans even thought there has been no conclusion to the ongoing dispute. Regards. 203.59.118.146 15:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing calmly rather than edit warring. Hang on a moment, I've been asked to weigh in on a different dispute, I'll take a look here too eventually. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thank you and take your time. Note: Jingiby has created more problems with his edits, this time; removing links to "Military history" articles of Germany, Republic of Macedonia and Italy so that only Bulgaria remains. He also stated that "Macedonian partisans greeted Bulgarian troops by their second invasion in Vardar Macedonia in October 1944 as allies." which means a complete waste of the discussion on the talk page. Also, he has linked Bulgarian propaganda photos, previously deleted from Wikipedia, to the article as references. Thanks again. 203.59.118.146 16:04, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I see some discussion has started. Just keep in mind, before letting him mislead you, Frightner made death threats to Bulgarians, Greeks and Albanians. Mr. Neutron 00:52, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Please take into account Mr. Neutron, that my contributions are allowed as long as they are executed in a civil manner. 203.59.172.94 09:07, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to thank you for your intervention in the article, National Liberation War of Macedonia and helping to keep the discussion between all parties neutral and civil. The outcome of the discussion has led to agreements on all major problems facing the neutrality of the article. Thanks again. 124.168.105.254 10:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

No, thank you (all of you!). I still see some friction on the article, but I'm impressed you can focus on the successes, and mostly work things out. Well done! --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:09, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the immediate hassle but Jingiby is willing to engage in an edit war. I have cleaned up the article nicely but every change I make to his edits, even for the benefit of the article, he reverts. If you look at the article history, you will see that I undid one of his revisions and I continued to contribute, rather than undoing my revision he has reverted all my edits to his last version. I do not want to engage in an edit war because he is the one starting them. I hope you can find the time to look into the situation. Thanks. 203.59.172.94 19:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I think you are setting a dangerous precedent for someone making death treats to just get away with it. Mr. Neutron 16:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

It was not a threat, it was an assertion; "I will kill you!" is a threat, "Death to..." is not. 124.168.105.254 16:13, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Look at what he's doing again - POV edit warring and trolling comments: [4], [5]. Another "nice" example: [6] Mr. Neutron 15:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. That's not acceptable. I've given up any idea of unblocking Frightner, and will semi-protect the articles involved for a limited time, renewed as necessary if the vandalism comes back. Please drop me a note or send me an email (with diffs) if he seems to be vandalizing other articles or user pages, and I'll semi-protect those as well. (Well, the user should ask for their own user page to be protected; I see yours still are.) :-(. A shame. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 16:15, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Semiprotecting might help for some time. Its indeed shame because this user prior to late July had a long history of good contributions and it all went downhill from then. I will be letting you know about possible sockpuppets. Mr. Neutron 16:20, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Blame not the patriotic knight but the oppressionist pigs you see before you. 203.59.107.157 08:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Alice Barnham

I expect to contribute some information to the Alice Barnham article on 21 August 2007. Look forward to your input. Arion 21:33, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Your bot request

Hi AnonEMouse I wanted to let you know that Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/AfdlBot is labeled as needing your comment. Please visit the above link to reply to the requests. Thanks! --BAGBotTalk 21:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Alice Bailey Rfc

An RfC has been requested (not by me) for the Alice Bailey article, which is listed as a part of WikiProject Biography. The only person who has showed up is from WikiProject Occult, and in my view is not a neutral observer. I am not familiar with how an RfC is supposed to work, but the situation is a mess and spinning out of control. If someone from WikiProject Biography could take a look and make some suggestions I think it might be helpful. Thank you. Kwork 11:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for responding, and for taking the time to find the RfC.

Now that the bookkeeping is done, I need to actually read the material! Hold on. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to go through the Alice Bailey material per the RfC. Thanks also for your edits of today, which have improved the article. Because there have been additional requests for help on the Talk page -- a call for mediation, a charge of COI, charges by two users of punitive deletion being employed by a specific user, and AN/I repot, and a charge of meatpuppetry -- perhaps, as a knowledgable Wikipedian with a great deal of procedural experience, you can assist in whatever "bookkeeping" (if any) ought be considered with those issues as well. Thanks. 22:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.142.90.32 (talk)

AnonEMouse, this conversation with Renee is on Sethie's talk page:

Thanks Sethie. Just when I always begin to feel hopeless some unseen force pulls together on Wiki and reason appears. I'll work on finding diffs over the next few days. Renee --Renee 23:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I know how you feel... seriously.

Maybe it is our fate to go back and forth, helping each other tend to wikipedia! :)

I feel like I have documented things very well already and any help will be... helpful.

Btw I am in awe of the work you're doing on the Bhrama Kumaris article and the work you're trying to do the Alice Bailey article. Finding those sources... wowsa! Most of them are probably not scholarly 2ndary sources, but the fact that you went and looked. WOW! Sethie 07:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

As you know Renee presented herself as a neutral party for the RfC of the Alice Bailey article. That was before you arrived. This, as I read it, indicates that she was, in fact recruited by Sethie to take his part, against me, in our dispute. I think this sort of conspiring is inappropriate, and perhaps grounds for banning them from editing the article. (By the way, the documenting they are talking about is this: User:Sethie\kwork notes Kwork 21:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It appears that the archives have been vandalized. The information that I had put there (in a section called "conflict of interest"), documenting that Jamesd1 had linked the article to his bookseller's website, has been removed. It now starts with Sethie's reply to my information. The links he added, and later removed after my protest, can be seen at [[7]] Kwork 14:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Folks, and by this I mean both Kwork and Renee and whoever else, please don't make this personal. This should be about Alice Bailey, our article. Whether you, personally, the editors involved, are Bailey's most faithful disciples or bitterest enemies, shouldn't matter. Please don't try to make this personal. Make this about the substance of the article. That's what we're here for, to write articles. This isn't a chat room, where we discuss our feelings, our personal history and our life story; we are volunteers, but we have a job, a definite end product, an encyclopedia. It's all right if we have fun doing it, if it helps us edit, we can use our talk pages to tell jokes and make merry, but if personal relations start to get in the way, they need to become impersonal. If you want to, constructively, say "I know these critics/followers of Bailey, so hang on a few days and I'll see if they can direct me to a really good reference, or explain why these are good and these aren't so good", that's great, that's using personal relationships constructively. But if you say "you know these critics/followers of Bailey, so you're not qualified to be an editor of this article", that's personal relationships getting in the way, and should stop. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

AnonEMouse, you could not have possibly misunderstand me more than you have. I do not have any personal animosity against any of the other editors. I understand that they are trying to achieve something that they think very important, and which is close to their hearts. The problem, as I see it, is their use of unfair tactics, which is harmful to the article, and harmful to Wikipedia. My own understanding is that Wikipedia can not function as it was intended unless the editors are willing, at some point, to compromise. Let me know if you think I am wrong about that. Kwork 18:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Compromise is good, no argument. Since most of the Criticism section has been approved to stay, it seems some level of compromise has been achieved. No? --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:14, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It is my hope that there is now a sense of compromise, and that the argument is over. But some of what I read on today's talk page makes me doubt that all editors see it quite that way. It is my guess that, unless something can be done to protect the criticism section, the fight will go on forever. Kwork 18:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's please focus on the article. Has anyone read the encyclopedia entry? --Renee 21:27, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Biography. The only person who has showed up is from WikiProject Occult, and in my view is not a neutral observer. I am not familiar with how an RfC is supposed to work, but the situation is a mess and spinning out of control. If someone from WikiProject Biography could take a look and make some suggestions I think it might be helpful. Thank you. Kwork 11:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for responding, and for taking the time to find the RfC.

Now that the bookkeeping is done, I need to actually read the material! Hold on. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:25, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to go through the Alice Bailey material per the RfC. Thanks also for your edits of today, which have improved the article. Because there have been additional requests for help on the Talk page -- a call for mediation, a charge of COI, charges by two users of punitive deletion being employed by a specific user, and AN/I repot, and a charge of meatpuppetry -- perhaps, as a knowledgable Wikipedian with a great deal of procedural experience, you can assist in whatever "bookkeeping" (if any) ought be considered with those issues as well. Thanks. 22:01, 22 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.142.90.32 (talk)

AnonEMouse, this conversation with Renee is on Sethie's talk page:

Thanks Sethie. Just when I always begin to feel hopeless some unseen force pulls together on Wiki and reason appears. I'll work on finding diffs over the next few days. Renee --Renee 23:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I know how you feel... seriously.

Maybe it is our fate to go back and forth, helping each other tend to wikipedia! :)

I feel like I have documented things very well already and any help will be... helpful.

Btw I am in awe of the work you're doing on the Bhrama Kumaris article and the work you're trying to do the Alice Bailey article. Finding those sources... wowsa! Most of them are probably not scholarly 2ndary sources, but the fact that you went and looked. WOW! Sethie 07:02, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

As you know Renee presented herself as a neutral party for the RfC of the Alice Bailey article. That was before you arrived. This, as I read it, indicates that she was, in fact recruited by Sethie to take his part, against me, in our dispute. I think this sort of conspiring is inappropriate, and perhaps grounds for banning them from editing the article. (By the way, the documenting they are talking about is this: User:Sethie\kwork notes Kwork 21:48, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

It appears that the archives have been vandalized. The information that I had put there (in a section called "conflict of interest"), documenting that Jamesd1 had linked the article to his bookseller's website, has been removed. It now starts with Sethie's reply to my information. The links he added, and later removed after my protest, can be seen at [[8]] Kwork 14:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Folks, and by this I mean both Kwork and Renee and whoever else, please don't make this personal. This should be about Alice Bailey, our article. Whether you, personally, the editors involved, are Bailey's most faithful disciples or bitterest enemies, shouldn't matter. Please don't try to make this personal. Make this about the substance of the article. That's what we're here for, to write articles. This isn't a chat room, where we discuss our feelings, our personal history and our life story; we are volunteers, but we have a job, a definite end product, an encyclopedia. It's all right if we have fun doing it, if it helps us edit, we can use our talk pages to tell jokes and make merry, but if personal relations start to get in the way, they need to become impersonal. If you want to, constructively, say "I know these critics/followers of Bailey, so hang on a few days and I'll see if they can direct me to a really good reference, or explain why these are good and these aren't so good", that's great, that's using personal relationships constructively. But if you say "you know these critics/followers of Bailey, so you're not qualified to be an editor of this article", that's personal relationships getting in the way, and should stop. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:35, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

AnonEMouse, Renee has already changed wording in the criticism section. I do not understand why she is allowed to edit the criticism section, and I am blocked from reverting her senseless adjustments to the wording. If the criticism section is not protected this will go on forever. Kwork 21:49, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for help: C. A. Alexander to C. Alexander

I noticed your helpful edits to the Alice Bailey page and this prompted me to come to you for help with another page, namely C. A. Alexander. Please read the article's Talk page -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:C._A._Alexander -- for an explanation of my edits of the page and my concern with this page name -- mainly the fact that Claude Alexander Conlin performed on stage as Alexander and wrote books as C. Alexander, but extensive searches have seemingly turned up no instances of his writing or performing as "C. A." Alexander, which leads me to think that the article was thus titled in error. The page also needs a few redirects created, such as one from "Claude Alexander Conlin" to "C. Alexander" and one from something along the order of "Alexander (stage magician)" or some variant thereof to "C. Alexander." Alternatively, the page might better be retitled "Alexander (stage magician)" as this is the name by which he is most widely known, his fame as a performer far surpassing his reknown as the author "C. Alexander." Also, if you know how to get a public domain image of one of his posters onto the page, it would be greatly appreciated. The posters are not under copyright, and at least one is available from the Library of Congress (see the reference link on the page itself). Thanks in advance for your kind attention to this matter.

23:22, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I see someone else moved the page to Alexander (magician) - good enough? There is a "move" link at the top of the page that you can use for such things, unless there is another article or redirect already at that location, you don't need to ask a Wikipedia:Administrator. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the help. I appreciate it. 04:46, 25 August 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.142.90.34 (talk)

FAC

You really made me do a lot of work on the "Hispanic Americans in World War II article. I will not deny that at first it made me a little depressed, but in the end it was worth it. I hope that you really meant it when you stated "I would love to support" (smile). Tony the Marine 02:55, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

All done. I went and rephrased the Hispanic Terminology in accordance with the reference that you provided. Thanks for pointing out all of these things. It really needed a lot of copyediting. Tony the Marine 22:31, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
- Changing to support. Adding a few tweaks of my own, but if you don't like them, change them back, my support doesn't depend on them. Good luck. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:43, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
AnonEMouse, I would like to sincerely thank you. Not so much for your support of the FAC, but becuase you your really went to a lot of trouble of pointing out each of the things that needed to be fixed. You truly set an example of what is expected of a well mannered and civil person in Wikipedia. It is funny, the only thing that had me stumped was the definition of the term "Hispanic", but when I realized that the U.S. government, who created the term, was also confused (I just read that the government was planning on redefining the term once more), I told myself "I'll go with the source provided by AnonEMouse". It has been a pleasure interacting with you. Tony the Marine 15:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, thank you for doing a major amount of work on the article, enabling it to reach FA status legitimately. From my point of view, it was important to the community at large that this article be accorded due respect. Thank you for doing that. Regards, Mattisse 15:58, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Mary: A Fiction now has a shiny gold star! Awadewit | talk 23:20, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Recreation of Milena Velba

Some notability has been established. I'm surprised that there's been a university publication about her, and there's another non-published reference. Should meet WP:PORNBIO, what do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by HisSpaceResearch (talk • contribs) 09:53, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

I think it meets something, yes. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:07, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Image:BambiWoods DebbieDoesDallas Wikipedia.jpg

I just noticed this was nominated for CSD; no idea if you were informed about this. I hope I responded process-compliant to this act of likely ideological purity. -- llywrch 22:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

the Alice Bailey article fiasco

You might want to take a look at what has transpired in the past two days. Kwork 00:02, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Fiasco? Fiasco is replacing the whole section or article with "Fred is gay!" -- and even that can be easily reverted. You mean this? That's minor shading differences in a few sentences, nothing to go running to an administrator over. You're all grown ups, surely you can work it out, especially if you don't spend as much effort on calling each other names. I'm not casting the article section in concrete, the way I saw it was fine but not "perfect". Similarly this is roughly equivalent, and not "perfect". For example, specifying that Sjoo is an advocate of the Goddess movement is probably an improvement, specifying that Gershom's essay is self-published is debatable, repetition of the word "article" is clearly wrong. Some steps forward some steps back. By working on it together, you can make it better, by fighting over it you can't; but in any case please do try to see the whole thing in a bit of perspective, the exact phrasing of a few sentences in one section of one article is just not Wikipedia:The Most Important Thing Possible. Please do read that essay. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

But that is not what I meant. Rather I was considering the argument raging on the talk page, much of it aimed at building a basis for removing all mention of Bailey's antisemitism. I would call it a fiasco; but, if you are happy with it, as they say in Italian: "Beata te!". Kwork 15:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. Will read, much as I don't want to. Frankly, the article talk page is huge, a hundred times the length of the actual article itself, and not very organized, keeping up with it is nearly impossible. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:10, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I have given up trying to read it all myself. I really feel tired of the whole thing, but hate to give up on what I have started. Kwork 15:43, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I skimmed it. I couldn't find anyone asking to remove the whole criticism section, merely for tightening some of the language, which is fine. I found someone objecting to the "The world 'love'" quote by Gershom of Bailey, and found it in Problems of Humanity, Chapter IV (are you quite sure that was from Esoteric Healing?). If you see anyone removing the whole section, feel free to come to me, but even on the talk page, I don't see that. If you see that, please point me to where anyone says that. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The intent is there, as I read it, but I will not bother you with a lot of extra text to read now, because there is hope to get beyond that. The return of your presence in the discussion has been been very helpful. Kwork 18:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

In my case, at least, Kwork reads it wrong; I would be happy to see the section expanded if need be. But, that is not what I came here for. Rather: Since you prolly missed it in that convoluted talk page, thanks a bunch! for finding the source of Gershom's quote; that really helps. Having said that, I agree with your assessment above about the talk page. Any suggestions on dealing with that problem, other than just archiving it, I mean? I suppose its unavoidable, but I wouldn't mind trying. Eaglizard 08:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

AnonEMouse, was the editor, without a user name, blocked from editing the article at your request? Kwork 12:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

No, all I know about that is what I get from skimming the talk page, and, frankly, as per my recommendation to focus on the article, not the editors, I haven't been paying much attention to it. But since you ask, let's look into the details. According to the article protection log Alice Bailey was semi-protected on Aug 22 by User:Kylu, with the comment that this is per request on WP:AN/I thread. That seems to be in reference to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive288#Alice Bailey Board ... yes, there it is, a comment from Kylu stating she is semi-protecting the article ... and an unsigned comment (possibly from the editor without a user name?) thanking her from that, that's interesting. For what it's worth, the semi-protection expires tomorrow. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:19, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. If I understand correctly, she is only blocked because the page is semi-protected and she does not have a user name that can be recognized. Is that correct? Kwork 14:01, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes. Wikipedia:Protection policy describes it. If you believe (or can reasonably guarantee) that she will be constructive, and there isn't a particular threat of vandalism, I can unprotect the page so she can edit from her IP. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:10, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I would rather she spoke for herself. While I agree with her about the need for mention of antisemitism in Alice Bailey's writing, her editing strategy is different than my own. It was her additions to the article that precipitated the current situation after a period of quiet. But I do not mean to blame her either, because this was an argument waiting to happen; otherwise, what she added, could have been adjusted without the current conflagration. I could, in addition, mention some recent problematic editing be other users - but I will spare you that. Kwork 14:26, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't sound like a ringing endorsement - maybe we should let the protection run then. Fair warning, when it runs out, if there is continued vandalism or edit warring rather than discussion, I'll protect it too. Much as I don't like huge posts on the talk page, better that than disrupting the article itself. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:30, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

You misunderstand, but to explain I would have to explain Stoic philosophy - and this is not the place for that. To put it simply, a basis of Stoicism is no person has the power to control another person's choices. Unlike to some other editors (who are not blocked), and who I regard as meatpuppets, her editing is rational. (I had filed a complaint about meatpuppets on the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, over the weekend, but it seems to have disappeared without my getting a reply. Another one about Sethie's RfC directed against me is still there.) According to Sethie, I can not be trusted, so maybe you should block me too. That would make some editors, who oppose me, VERY happy. Kwork 16:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I say we keep the page semi-protected until anon-ip agress to sign his/her name! See here [[9]]. Sethie 17:46, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

There is a lot to be said for getting a user account, no argument. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't agree more.

I have filed a request to extend the semi-protect. [[10]] Sethie 17:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Your motivation is fine, but we generally don't semi-protect article pages to encourage users to sign their names on talk pages. It doesn't work, for one thing. :-) Take a look at Wikipedia:Protection policy. You also shouldn't post current requests on archived administrator's noticeboard pages - archived pages aren't active. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:00, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that she has an old user page which has her own name and no longer wants to use, and that she worries that if she opens a new user account she will be accused of having dual accounts as sockpuppets. If that is correct she is being punished for being conscientious. I know there is a way to delete an old user page that contains the users name as "the right to disappear". She may need advice. In any case she has done nothing wrong, so why is she being punished by not being allowed to edit the article? Kwork 18:18, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

If that is "her" understanding of sockpuppetry, she is wrong. So long as she doesn't edit the same pages with two different accounts she is fine.

Look at the confusion her lack of name signing caused at anti-semitism! Any new person who comes by the AAB page and is not familiar with her modus operandi will have no clue either.

I am not trying to force her to get a new account or open the old one, I am asking for what is considered the most basic wiki courtesy- signing her posts. End of story. Sethie 18:43, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Sethie is basically right. Wikipedia:User page#How do I delete my user and user talk pages? covers asking for deletion of user pages; removing personal information is a perfectly good reason to do that. If she wants to be conscientious and yet anonymous, she can avoid editing with the old account, and if some time has passed, she should be fine. If she still wants to continue editing with the old account she can just avoid editing any pages with both accounts, she can check the edit history if she isn't sure. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Sethie is right about what? She has done nothing wrong, so why is she being punished? What she is doing may be inconvenient, but that's all. This situation is unfair, and she should be allowed to edit. I don't understand why you asked for my okay. I have nothing to do with her, and anyhow it is not as though she is guilty of something. She should be allowed to edit. If she is not allowed to edit, please explain why not. Kwork 19:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Sethie is basically right that getting a user account and signing posts are both good things; my post goes on to give details. Protection of an article isn't "punishment", admin tools aren't for "punishment", they're for protection of the encyclopedia. I didn't unprotect the article because that would be basically taking the responsibility that the IP's edits to the article would be constructive; I was not willing to override Kylu's judgment without research, and since even you, who are better acquainted with the IP than I am, were not willing to vouch for her. In any case, that semi-protection has now lapsed, though can be reinstated if needed. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 12:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You wrote: "since even you, who are better acquainted with the IP than I am, were not willing to vouch for her...". I am not better acquainted with her than you are; or, if you think I am, supply some information to support your claim. Moreover, you have not explained why she needs someone "to vouch for her" since she has done nothing wrong. In addition, she is an adult and and can vouch for herself. If you feel you need some sort of promise of good behavior, (even though there has been no bad behavior on her part) why did you not ask her? The issue being discussed is antisemitism, and your blocking her has made editing much more difficult for me. Once again the issue being discussed is antisemitism, and I want to be sure that you understand how serious that issue is, and how seriously I take your actions in this. Please do not describe this as a procedural issue. She has been editing for some time and has been a help to me. Since Wikipedia allows editing without a user name, and since she is a key participant in editing of the article (and has been for some time), and since she has done nothing wrong; I would like you to ether allow her to edit the article, or supply a detailed explanation why not. Thank you, and I look fporward yo your reply. Kwork 13:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Please re-read the last sentence of my previous reply. I hate to sound frustrated, but there seems to be a pattern of your missing rather important parts of my comments. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

That still does not resolve the problem because there is a request to extend the protection of the article, and that could be reinstated at any time. That would in effect, block her from editing again. Also, you have done nothing to explain why you think it necessary that I should vouch for her; or, for that matter, why she needs anyone to vouch for her. Do you have any comprehension how seriously Jews take the issue of antisemitism? Jews have been treated viciously, and Jews have been murdered; not just a few have been murdered, but many; not on just one occasion, but many ocassions over many centuries. This is not an issue to treat casually. I think that, in an effort to be nice, I have not made this sufficiently clear. Kwork 13:56, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Any article can be protected at any time; in an encyclopedia where at any moment a bored ten year old can decide to replace an article with poopy jokes, that's a given. (See here for a recent example from yet another conflict I was being nurse maid on, higher up on this very page.) You don't have to do anything, it's a volunteer project. ~~Finally, you're close to Godwin's Law; invoking murder in an editing dispute is a disservice to the dead, please don't.~~ --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You have not answered my questions. Why did you think it necessary to ask me to vouch for another user? Why did you not just ask her to vouch for herself?

I am getting tired of hearing Godwin's Law used in Wikipedia discussions in efforts to shut people up. This discussion on the Alice Bailey talk page has been exactly about antisemitism. Perhaps you have not noticed.

Godwin's Law does not apply to discussions directly addressing genocide, propaganda, or other mainstays of the Nazi regime. Nor does it apply to humorous use or references to oneself (though many may find it distastefully trivializing of Nazism). Rather, it applies to inappropriate, inordinate, or hyperbolic comparisons of other situations (or one's opponent) with Hitler or Nazis or their actions. An attenuation of Hitlerian metaphors, on the other hand, may still be considered an example of Godwin's Law, such as a recent comparison[6] of skeptics of global warming to Holocaust deniers.

I would like you to show me how, in any way, Godwin's Law applies to anything I said. I have not accused anyone of being a Nazi, or compared anyone to Hitler. In fact I have been very careful to avoid making unfair accusations. (Nevertheless, the topic being discussed IS antisemitism.) If you can show me where I have erred in that respect, I will certainly apologize. If you can not show me, please avoid throwing Godwin's Law at me as a simplistic solution to this complex problem. In fact, you effort to use Godwin's Law as a convenient tool, makes me doubt that you do understand how serious this discussion is. Kwork 14:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but I think we are going off on a tangent. This isn't a chat forum dedicated to exploring either your or my personal views and opinions, this is a page dedicated to editing the Wikipedia. Based on that, I'll withdraw the Godwin's law statement if that will make it easier. If you have a specific request for something for me to do directly relevant to an encyclopedia article, please ask. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Vanessa Blue

Mouse, I've been in e-mail contact with this article subject, who is complaining about the use of her real name in the article because weirdos see it at Wikipedia and use it to stalk her. I checked into it - the information is sourced to an online Syracuse student newspaper. Would you look into the situation and offer an opinion on whether anything can be done? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 04:50, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Side note: that same newspaper reference is used in Lexington Steele's article. I know because I used the same ref to back up his real name. Tabercil 11:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, I want to emphasize that I am not questioning anyone's good faith - I completely understand the information was added to improve the encyclopedia. In regards to the article subject's privacy, this may be a case of trying to bolt the barn door after the horse has fled, but I'm wondering if there's anything we can (or should) do. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 12:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Well there is precedent for removing it: Wifey's World. In that case the names of the people behind the wesbite were removed on WP:BLP grounds. This was despite having a reliable source for the name (the Arizona Republic newspaper). I don't have a chance to check right now, but how important is the Syracuse reference to Vanessa's article (as opposed to Lex's)? Tabercil 14:28, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks like it is the only reference on the article, but it is only being used as a reference for her name. She gave me some other information and references that I plan to use to reinforce the article. Also, I advised her to contact the newspaper publisher to request that they redact her name from their online version because of the stalking problem - if they have any humanity hopefully they will do so. But I'm thinking that perhaps we should remove it regardless of what they do, as I don't believe our articles should cause people problems in real life. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 14:44, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I gather you two are leaning towards removal; the article doesn't really hinge on the presence of the name, and she's not Charles Manson. But I'm rather not use Wifey's World as too much of a precedent, since I'm not completely sure that was the right decision there; there were actually more sources there than just the one Arizona Republic article, arguably WW got more mainstream coverage there than from Wired, that's a worrisome thing to use as a continued precedent. I also don't want to put down anything that says that that Daily Orange article isn't a good source, since it's an absolutely excellent source for Lexington Steele, it's not just his name, it's his whole life. I think the "any humanity" thing should be what we're mostly considering. Do we have humanity? Not too much :-), but I think we do have some. And there is a stronger case here, since the Daily Orange article is about Lexington Steele, and only mentions Vanessa Blue in passing. The name is not that important to their article, and their article isn't that important to our article, and the article subject is complaining, we don't want to annoy people unnecessarily. But I see Talk:Vanessa Blue has a comment about the name issue from none other than User:Joe Beaudoin Jr., the first administrator "from" WP:P*. I respect him highly; but it is from a year and a half ago. He's been more active just recently, let's drop him a note, see if he has changed his mind from back then. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:01, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll have to lean towards removal as well. The issue is Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy; mainly presumption in favor of privacy, since Blue isn't really as famous as, say, Jenna Jameson. -- Joe Beaudoin Jr. ^{Think out loud} 17:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm agreeing with Mouse in that Wifey's World is not a precedent which I'm comfortable with. I mean, how much time do we spend telling users "we need a reliable source for it" and "no source, no keep". And when we do have such a source, we can't keep the information? To say it sticks in my craw would be an understatement. It also IMO leads to a nasty grey area... take Briana Banks. We have reliable sources for her name... multiple sources if I'm not mistaken. And she's nearly as high profile as Jenna. So what happens if she asks for her name to be removed?? Slippery slope folks... Tabercil 17:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Should the info be oversighted out? Videmus Omnia ^Talk 17:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Do we need to go that far? Why not remove the info and lock the article for a while to prevent immediate reinsertion like what happened to Sasha Grey? Tabercil 17:40, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
- I think you're right in that is probably the best solution. I'm open to whatever consensus turns out to be. I'm having a more complex problem with Jessica Cutler, who removed the photo from her own article. I obtain alternative pictures, and she doesn't like them either. She won't give me a photo, and tells me that she wants no picture at all on her article. It can be frustrating sometimes... Videmus Omnia ^Talk 17:54, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Seems we have agreement (re Vanessa Blue, not Washingtonienne!). This should, of course, be discussed on the article talk page, not here on my talk page. :-) I removed it from the article, left a comment to see the talk page, and added most of our conversation from here to the talk page. That's Talk:Vanessa_Blue#Real_name.2C_redux. By the way, Videmus Omnia, when you tell her we removed it, we should specify, that we're not doing this because of the promise of her help with our article... but we certainly appreciate any help with our article! :-) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I didn't lock the article, because I don't see any signs that there will be an issue with anyone rushing to put it back. The only one who commented on the talk page about it being removed, was, well, Joe B., and we just got agreement from him here. In general my belief is that the fewer admin tools are used, the better. (wrote the mouse after semi-protecting half a dozen pages in a different dispute.... sigh...) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 19:16, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

And about Cutler ... I suspect I would be a bit less charitable, in other words keep the image. We can make exceptions in the name of humanity where it seems like an ex-boyfriend let a name slip in an interview, we can replace worse photos with better ones (as you've done in quite a few articles, thanks!), but we can't make article subjects take out perfectly reasonable free photos with no replacement just because they don't like them. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 18:57, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Ms. Blue provided the info (and a bunch of good photos I still need to upload) without any preconditions; she just asked in a nice way that we look into the name thing and explained her problems. Regarding Ms. Cutler, I got a bunch of new images from a NYC social-event photographer that I work with, and will look through them to see if I can find something a little more flattering (though I didn't see anything wrong with the first picture). Thanks for all your help! Videmus Omnia ^Talk 19:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Mr.Neutron's talk protection page

You protected his page on the grounds that it has been vandalized/trolled? Have you even checked his claims? I sent him several polite warnings not to destroy the page I wrote, a 2000 word relevant article, to replace his 300 word irrelevant article, and that seemed to irk him off, and he was the one who vandalized the page. Please give reasons of your actions, and do not take them unilaterally and for no good reason. Thank you,

64.180.87.103 15:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, actually I have. I do make mistakes, of course, but I try to be rather careful when using my administrator tools. I try to avoid using them entirely, in fact, but when I must, I will. Here are multiple examples of his page being vandalized:

User page: [11] [12]
Talk page: [13]
and trolled (talk page): [14] [15] [16]

--AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:50, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, you don't seem to be our friend from Perth, who seems to have been responsible for most of the above. Please do consider getting a user account, then you won't be confused with other IP users like the above mentioned vandal, after a few days you will be able to edit Mr. Neutron's talk page, and other benefits. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:55, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Why are Bulgarians allowed to use nationalist websites but Macedonians are not allowed to use any Macedonian website as it is "propaganda"? 203.59.133.204 09:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, the friend from Perth. Frightner, I don't know what you are referring to, and, frankly, not tremendously interested. I'm quite disappointed in what you did over the weekend. I thought you yourself wrote we were getting somewhere. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 12:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much.

I got dragged into the Alice Bailey article milieu under some very confusing circumstances. I will not bother you with the details but I do want to say you have done a great job mediating that article. I am a Jew and sometimes I allow other Jewish people drag me into situations that I would normally not become involved in. Anyway thanks for getting involved and mediating. You seem to have a knack for it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Albion moonlight (talk • contribs) 11:36, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome, great to hear it! --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd just like to add a hearty, if entirely superfluous, "Me too!" to Albion's comment; great work, AnonEMouse, keep it up. :) Eaglizard 07:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Jessica Cutler (mostly) resolved

There was a brief edit war here, and on Commons, last night, with Ms. Cutler vs. several other editors on the article photos. I finally got in touch with her by e-mail - she had even contacted the photographer, a friend of hers, asking him to attempt to revoke the GFDL license on the four photos involved. Ultimately, she gave us a publicity headshot under free license, and the controversial photos have been deleted on Commons. (Of the four party photos, I had not yet hit 'send' on the permission e-mail to OTRS for three of them, and I now don't intend to send in that permission.) The other one, which was formerly used on the article, did have a verified license, but was no longer used, and, in my opinion, not worth Jimbo getting a phone call about. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 13:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Hurrah! I'd give you another barnstar, but that would be redundant... :-) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak)

Incidentally, I've found that I'm much more likely to get a good publicity photo if there happens to be a crappy photo on the article when I call the subject's attention to it. Not that I would ever be so sneaky as to intentionally put an ugly photo on an article ;-) Videmus Omnia ^Talk 14:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Heh. Given Luke Ford's self-professed "camera of death", small wonder you're getting so many starlets to contribute pics. :) Tabercil 15:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

And Jimbo might yet get that call. I see that as I was making that Luke Ford edit above, the IP from which Jessica was making the edit was blocked by Mdd4696 for 31 hours. This despite no edits from that IP for about 12 hours... Tabercil 16:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I left a note on User:Mdd4696's talk page. The block did look more punitive than preventative. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 17:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I am surprised that she was editing her own article. I have spoken with Jessica in person and I know that she was hesitant to do so because of the fear that someone would notice and sensationalize it. ~MDD 46 96 17:10, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I was communicating with her by e-mail (I did some other stuff to the article at her request, like removing a category that said she was a prostitute) - she was unhappy with the photo that was on the article and was removing it. The issue was resolved when she provided us with the publicity shot currently on the article. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 17:13, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good then. Thanks for leaving me the message. ~MDD 46 96 17:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

quick feedback please?

Dear AnonEMouse,

I'm trying to move forward with consensus on the Alice Bailey article. Last night I tried to summarize the new evidence and feedback from other editors [17]. Then, based on that feedback and what was already in the article, I proposed this [18].

Nameless Date and Kwork said it was POV (though it included things that previously were deemed NPOV by Kwork). Would you be willing to take a look and give feedback? I really would like honest feedback.

Maybe I'm in too deep but it seems that some editors want the article to feature antisemitism when the article is about Alice Bailey. I'm all for a neutral, appropriate, and proportionate section and am at a loss at what to do now. I really like Nameless Date's idea of having an "antisemitism and the occult" page -- where I think a lot of this would be diffused. I also think just putting in the "offensive" quotation of Bailey would be good and then let readers decide for themselves (of course, enough would have to be put in to keep it in context -- not sure if that is possible?).

So, if you have time and the inclination, don your protective clothing [19] and come visit us again!

Thanks, Renee

Will do. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 17:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedbak -- much appreciated. --Renee 19:47, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the barnstar, AnonEMouse. It means quite a lot coming from you, as I admire and respect your work here. I'm already hatching plots for starting new articles and touching-up old ones once I'm back full-time around October. Until then, take care, and happy editing! Dekkappai 18:54, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

External Links

AnonEMouse, could you take a look at the discussion about links on the Alice Bailey article. If you say I am wrong, I will back off without another word. It seems to me that external links should be for sources that give substantial information on the subject of the article, and not to promotional sites, or sites that give virtually no information on the subject, and not to things only marginaly related to the subject.

I am sorry about giving you a hard time yesterday, this extended argument is making me irascible....although that is really no excuse. So sorry. Kwork 15:17, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Alice_Bailey#Links? Will look. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, exactly that discussion of links - external links in this case. Kwork 16:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for looking, and for taking such a thorough look, and for writing such a complete response. Kwork 17:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Vanessa Blue again

The article subject says we can select photos from this page. I've got a couple of hers picked out, but I'm wondering if WP:P* needs any additional ones. A lot of the people I can't identify, and am not sure if we need more photos of them in any case, or if these are better than the ones we have. Would you mind looking and letting me know the URLs of the pics you would like so I can get permission for them, too? (I hope Tabercil is watching this as well). Videmus Omnia ^Talk 22:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I scanned through the ones on the public side (and not just the page Vanessa said we could raid), and the only uncaptioned photo where I recognized anyone was this one where Christy Canyon is on the left hand side. Most of the other people on her site don't have Wikipedia articles. As for the pics of Vanessa herself, I trust you're going to ask for this one at the least? I personally feel it's about the best image period on the site. Tabercil 23:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks, Tabercil. I'll definitely grab those tomorrow and a couple of the other captioned ones. It also looks like the Vanessa Blue article needs a purge of some unsourced information, since she disputed the accuracy of some of it. I'll probably work on that tomorrow as well. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 23:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  - I should add that she is still much amused by a previous version of the page which referred to her as a member of MENSA - she said this was "comedy gold" and halfway wishes it hadn't been removed. :) Videmus Omnia ^Talk 00:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Anonymity and False Accusations of Sock Puppetry

Thanks for the comments at one of the IP user pages associated with Nameless Date Stamp. You have correctly identified some of the problems that surrounded my abandonment (but not dleletion) of my user name:

(1) spousal usage was falsely called sockpuppetry (this has also happened on usenet and in irc) and the accusations were mean-spirited, cruel, and ultimately intolerable,

(2) notoriety / notability became an issue (whereas you said "we're honored," others have said "Oooh! Let's go stalking!"),

(3) wiki burn-out was accelerated due to continual collision with cultists who made a Big Deal about who they were in conflict with over page edits, and who tried to get my account deleted as a way of showing their superiority to someone whom they found "notable" in some way.

(4) it has been a point of honour for me to not use pseudonyms (for instance, you can see my signed comments at eBay discussion boards, on usenet, and all over the web), thus my username was my name, and since it is my wish to be able to truthfully state that the use of pseudonyms is something not done by me, anonymity has been my only other option,

The problems became all too much for me. Editing anonymously solved these problems, and has been my happy solution to them for more than a year.

I never thought that the Alice Bailey page would prove to be such a warzone and thus require such long-term attention. I also did not realize until today (not being technically savvy, but relying on the aforementioned spouse to keep the electrons humming), that because we have a LAN connecting our shop, office, and home, my edits appear to be coming from a multitude of IP addresses, depending on which computer is closest to hand when my spare time to wikify comes along.

In short, my burden now consists of a mess of slightly differing IP addresses, plus an unusable user name, plus a spouse's user-name, plus the pseudonym that has been applied to me (Nameless Date Stamp), plus the little-appreciated fact that it is damnably difficult and awkward to contruct sentences that do not use the first person singular nominative pronoun in the middle of a sentence, avoidance of which has been a self-imposed task undertaken as part of the anonymity experiment due to the distinctive form of typography long associated with publications that appear under my actual name, which would be instantly identifiable to those cyber-sleuths who might wish to "out" me.

Well, thanks for listening. I think a shoulder to cry on would be more efficacious than a tech-lecture at this point.

Nameless Date Stamp 01:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd love to offer a virtual shoulder. 1), 2), 3) I can sympathize with. People can be cruel. If they're cruel to you, drop me a note, I'm an administrator, that's one of the things I'm here for, while I can't fix all problems, I can try. But while they might be more cruel to someone they know of from other contexts (User:Elonka gets a lot of heat for being Elonka Dunin), in my experience they won't be any less cruel to User:123.456.78.90 than they will to User:IAmAPseudonym.

As for 4), you're using a pseudonym right now, you're signing yourself Nameless Date Stamp, aren't you? Doing that from an IP is no more anonymous than doing so from a user account. Trust me, no one thinks AnonEMouse is something my mother named me either. The only difference between editing as an IP and editing as an account is that neither you nor anyone who wants to deal with you gets any of the other advantages -- an edit history, a talk page that will stay the same when you change service providers or whether you're editing from your home or an airport, after 5 days, the ability to edit semi-protected pages, others -- that an actual account would bring. By the way, Nameless Date Stamp would be a perfectly fine user name, I don't see a User:Nameless Date Stamp right now. Grab it before someone else does (and causes more confusion! :-)), please. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:04, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, we have all kinds of people here at the Wikipedia. Some are cruel, and some aren't. If you need an additional shoulder to cry on, let me direct you to the legendary User:Phaedriel, who has been said to have the ability to cheer up a rock. I'll do my best to help, but she's far better. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

AnonEMouse, you wrote:

It was probably deleted because all it said was

This is a new article, and material will be added in the next few days. Please do not delete. Kwork 22:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles in the main space are usually "under construction", but they should at all stages actually have something about their purported subject. If you just want a scratch workspace to put down random thoughts, feel free to make a page in your user space, for example User:Kwork/Occultism and Antisemitism but don't put it in the main space until it's at least a few sentences actually about Occultism and Antisemitism, hopefully with at least one link to a source. --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 13:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Ahh...now I understand. I created it for Nameless, who can not create an article without a user name. I will try to re-create it when she is ready to go ahead with the article. Thanks for explaining. Kwork 14:10, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Ah, there's another good thing about having user accounts, the ability to create new articles! Nameless (nameless!), please do. It's easy and fun. :-) You even get a user page you can put (free) pictures of mice on. :-) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:12, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the mouse. I showed the image of the mouse, on you user page, to my wife. I knew she would like it, and she spent such a long time looking at it that I think she may be considering incorporating something like it in a painting. Kwork 16:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Can you use this for your WikiProject?

		The Pornography Barnstar
		I noticed that WP:P* didn't have an award - the template for this is {{Porn Star}}. Feel free to change it, or if it's not needed, just delete it. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 14:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely, thanks! Though I'm slightly bothered by the star in the background being rusty... :-) --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 14:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Cool! I'm afraid my graphic designer skills are pretty limited, so I just used the Original Barnstar as a model and threw XXX on top of it. If anyone has a better base from which to work I'm happy to see the image replaced. Videmus Omnia ^Talk 15:19, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

This one's for you

Thanks so very much for supporting the recent FAC of *Hispanic Americans in World War II*. It was successful and *Hispanic Americans in World War II* has been promoted! I'm looking forward to hopefully getting *Hispanic Americans in World War II* on the front page. In the mean time, please accept this Beer as a token of my gratitude. Salud! Tony the Marine 15:21, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Ho! Thanks, that's nice! --AnonEMouse ^(squeak) 15:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Squeak!

I've seen your signature with a link to your talk page called "Squeak". I like that! Savie Kumara 23:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

^ Cite error: The named reference CreativeLoafing was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[CreativeLoafing-1] Cite error: The named reference CreativeLoafing was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

[1]