User talk:Coelacan/Archive 2

This is a Wikipedia user talk page. This is not an encyclopedia article or the talk page for an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user to whom this talk page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original talk page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Coelacan/Archive_2.

Wikimedia Foundation

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.

• 1
• Archive 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6

All things Ted

I replied on the Dawkins subject. And I am planning to revisit the third wave conversation with you, I just haven't had time to write a coherent opinion. Thanks for helping to research those subjects. Cheers Mr Christopher 05:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Trinitarian Universalism

I agree, I think either you or me should specifically ask Caroline for her opinion. I am not sure that she will weigh-in unless we ask.--GMS508 03:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

No problemo

I won't do it again. Furthermore I removed the objectionable parts of that comment. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Olockers (talk • contribs).

Thanks for the help. Olockers 22:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Being clever won't keep you from being deleted.

Just remember that. Xiner 22:50, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

No, please don't take anything I say seriously. Just look at how easily it could be removed from history. Xiner 22:59, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Re: K42 threatening to sockpuppet, also more personal attacks

Ah, thanks for letting me know. I've blocked the IP for 72 hours, since it seems to have a bit of a history; let's see if that will suffice. Luna Santin 00:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah... if it becomes problematic, I may go for a longer block. WHOIS suggests it's a shared IP, though -- corporate office, or some such. I'm still playing this one by ear, I guess. Luna Santin 00:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Last word in

Hi. I'm curious what you think of my discussion style. I'm aware that I always feel the need to put in a clarification in any discussion I have, and I'm wondering if it comes across as the tendency to put in the last word. What do you think? Xiner 17:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that's a great answer to my question. I think I'll keep it on my talk page for a while...may have to refer back to it sometime. Xiner 18:09, 12 December 2006 (UTC) P.S. Can't believe I'm being quoted now. Time to break out the bubbly! (I may claim fame on my own page.)

Universalism in Christianity

Coelacan, I started a new article (Universalism in Christianity), I would appreciate it if you could look it over and edit it. I am not attached to it so please change anything. I also think that at this point that edits might be more helpful than discussion of edits. I blatantly stole from Trinitarian Page, I am not sure if that is proper, but I did not feel like starting from scratch.--GMS508 01:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Do what ever you think is best, personally with the exception of the History section, and even there I have question, I do not really trust the information. All of what is on the Universalism in Christianity page are either items I edited from the talk page or items that I wrote. (I just deleted the history section). If you still think it is best to delete, please do. I am actually tired of the discussion with Caroline, I do not think that she realizes that see is writing about something that she created.--GMS508 02:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Sorry my dog needed me, and I was doing two things at once, please do what you think is best.--GMS508 02:31, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Done, I believe that I requested the deletion correctly.--GMS508 02:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of J-pop artists

I have tried to respond to some of your arguments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of J-pop artists and I invite you to continue discussing there. Thanks. Axem Titanium 02:43, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Ali Sina

Well, I'll back it up on the hard drive, but I doubt that my userpage on Ali Sina would be deleted because userpages are not supposed to be in "Wikipedia space", whatever that is. — Rickyrab | Talk 05:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

see? — Rickyrab | Talk 05:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I meant User talk:Mak82hyd, see part about user page blanking. — Rickyrab | Talk 05:29, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Transwiki. And I don't consider it over. If need be, dump some of the contents onto Faith Freedom International article. — Rickyrab | Talk 06:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm still considering transwikiing and/or dumping it into the FFI article. — Rickyrab | Talk 07:05, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the help

I think it is the code language that is used that is going to be my biggest hurdle, I followed your advice and it worked and I am sure we will meet again --Matt 06:08, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

White protagonists...

Hi. Please let me know if I'm mistaken somehow on the CfD, and bold my new vote if you don't mind? :) Xiner 15:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Cheers. Xiner 19:37, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Template talk:LGBT

tasc has been blocked indefinitely, so you won't be getting a reply from him on that talk page. J Di ^talk 18:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

No worries then. And if you see anything that needs improvement on that template, it could probably still use some tweaking. — coelacan talk — 18:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

3RR on list of pseudoscientific ...

Help! The IP User who vandalised List_of_pseudosciences_and_pseudoscientific_concepts with 3RR last week is at it again. The IP is 68.94.203.13. I don't know how to report 3RR violations. I am a recent changes patroller, and I normally just revert changes myself, without winding up in an edit war. This time I seem to have met someone who does not believe in discussing changes on the Talk page. Thanks for your help. MKoltnow 21:17, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Quotation

Wicked - you put that quote from K42 up. I understand he is pretty passionate about politics, and now that he got permanently banned, I am sure it will stir him up even more. But, anyway, that quote is cool! 202.9.48.50 01:04, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI

Moved: Talk:Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America#Moved Travb (talk) 17:41, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Environmentalism

I don't know what's more funny - that someone considered mine and Caroline's environment user boxes to be "environmentalist", or that the idea so offended someone that they called it vandalism. Joestella 09:43, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Just saw your contribution to that IP address's talk page. I don't call myself an environmentalist, but I would think it valid for environmentalists to oppose Kyoto and/or support nuclear energy on environmental grounds, if they see fit. I'd suggest we let people identify how they like, not how you'd like. We don't want to lose political userboxes altogether, tolerance and mutual respect is called for.

The edit was no doubt in jest. However, 'vandalism is a strong word, too strong in this case. Coelacan, Please do not bite the newcomers. Joestella 09:56, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Note to the reader: before you assume that I do indeed bite the newcomers, please consider the evidence. First, a preliminary rationale that this was not a newcomer at all. Further examination: compare the style of this edit summary "(+1)", with this one "(+2 templates)". Then compare this Sydney location with a traceroute to te1-2.syd-pipe-bdr2.ii.net. A final read of WP:POINT should bring the full picture into perspective. — coelacan talk — 13:44, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

WP

Actually, my first hunch was "White Power", except that that didn't seem to fit the context of what he was saying. I'm trying to keep my objectivity (for once) which is why I brought up the subject of Osama's article for comparison, not of the two men (Osama is a major figure, Rudolph is a pipsqueak), but of the way in which the articles are written. That one user is a Muslim, and kind of defensive about it, but given the current climate, it's understandable. I've had the good fortune to know a number of Muslims, and I find that most of them, as with any other group, are easy to get along with, and I also admire their devotion to their faith. It's very real to them, as with the devout of any other faith. The problem, for any religion, comes when politics get into it. Religion should be about one's relationship to whatever god(s) one believes in, not about land-grabbing and murder. But this is not exactly a new problem in the human race, is it? Wahkeenah 05:22, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ITcat2.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:ITcat2.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 14:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion

about the censorship signature, I might do it. The worldNetdaily link was something that was deleted by 'virtuak eye'. I've messaged him asking him why. Controversial articles are a mess on Wikipedia. I beleive editing should be protected completely for these articles and changes should only be done after consensus has been reached. I saw soemone else making this suggestion and I agree with them. If you look at the graph of quality of an article over time, you'll see it continuusly undergoes drops in quality and accuracy because of POV vandalism. So Wikipedia doesnt have a good system to deal with this situation, in my opinion. I doubt any of this will change any time soon. --Matt57 14:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism?

You left a comment on my IP talk page, but it's absolutely devoid of context. May I have the edit to which you're referring, please? Is there a way to see a history of the edits under my IP? Thanks! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.210.243.44 (talk) 16:18, 17 December 2006 (UTC).

But it's true! See: http://tyrashow.warnerbros.com/show_recaps/show_recap_mon63.html & http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3612555890472276701

The same thing was done on my page. I make an improvement and am told that vandalism is against the wikipedia policy. It was weird. 66.75.8.138 15:54, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Deletion of large chunks of cited material without talk page discussion is not "improvement". — coelacan talk — 15:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

There was already a scandal section that was well filled out. I was removing it from the inappropriate placement of detail redundancy in the opening paragraph of a biography, as was stated in the edit. While most biographies do not discuss scandal in the lead-in paragraph, I can see why it occurs in this place. You may wish to see biographies of Gary Hart or Hugh Grant for other encylopedic examples of how it is handled. 66.75.8.138 16:14, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Spelling

Yes, but that's not as easy to remember and they do both link to each other. Gives me an idea though... --*Spark* 18:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Too funny. I was just about to create a shortcut myself. The server's been strange for the past 1/2 hour or so, see WP:VPT#Lost last half hour of edits. --*Spark* 18:10, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

??? deleting my cmt on the infobox scientist template talk page ???

Coelacan, why on earth did you delete my cmt on the infobox scientist template talk page? Please put it back, unless you can give me some reason why I should not have raised the issue there. --LQ 03:10, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

np -- glad it was error & not something that would have made me sad. (i've seen too much of the latter recently). also no rush on the cmts - we'll all be here a while, i suspect.--LQ 03:29, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm going to take a break from it too, or at least try to; I've been getting testy & don't really want to. Weird how I've felt testier with good faith disagreements than with some of the bad faith insane-o ranters I've been dealing with on other pages. time to take a short break!--LQ 03:38, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:question

I'm willing to talk about most anything, whether I have a clue about it or not. Unlike politicians, I don't pretend to know all the answers. As to the question "Is this a person?" my answer is: We don't know enough to answer that question. Neither the liberals nor the conservatives do, although that doesn't stop them from trying to answer it, does it? You know more about the Bible than I do, but I can practically guarantee there is nothing about fertilized eggs, because no one knew about it when the Bible was written. The actual mechanism of reproduction (on a micro level) is a relatively recent discovery. Given that, it's no wonder that this is such a murky area. The traditional viewpoint would be that a fertilized egg is somehow invested with an immortal soul at that moment. That's all very interesting, except that no one can truly define or quantify what "the soul" is. Though, again, that doesn't stop them from trying. Referring back to the question, I might argue that self-awareness is a criterion. But higher animals seem to be self-aware to some extent... and maybe more so than newborn humans. Do higher animals have souls, and if so, are they immortal? Again, no one knows. I have my own view. I think the answer is that if humans have immortal souls, so do animals. But I'm by no means convinced that the soul is immortal, nor am I convinced that it isn't. There is not enough information to make a determination... other than by dying, but that's a one-way and irreversible experiment. :) Wahkeenah 07:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing my userbox on LGBT history

Don't know how you did it--all that coding numbs my brain--but I appreciate the fix very much! Peace.

P.S.--Why are there no LGBT userboxes to be found at Wikipedia:Userboxes? Surely not due to any wikihomophobia, I hope? Textorus 07:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

I get the picture. And I did find a page (User:MiraLuka/Userboxes/Sexuality) with lots of LGBT userboxes. Thanks for all the help and info, Coelacan! Textorus 20:52, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Universalism in Christianity

Just copy and paste or is there a protocol? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GMS508 (talk • contribs) 00:37, 20 December 2006.

zakir naik

We have discussed th article and working on it u have never discussed it so please dont interfere in this article, but if u have interest then discuss in the section . just coz u think i am wrong dont change it please. Mak82hyd 20:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Discussed check it.Mak82hyd 20:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Another abortion debate

Thought you might be interested. Xiner (talk, email) 00:17, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Hehe, ok, I know what you mean. Cheers. Xiner (talk, email) 00:49, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Live one

Thanks - will do. But am likely to be unavailable for a few days, so it might help if you keep your eyes on him too. --Michael Johnson 05:39, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Link in FFI

Thanks for letting me know, I didnt know that was a working link. At first I thought its two URL's pasted together. If you'd like to use the new URL's from Yamin's site which Mak pointed out, its: http://www.iiop.org/Final_Response.php , use whichever, or use both as you like.--Matt57 21:05, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

FYI

I am getting quite annoyed about BYT's personal remarks and what I believe is his attempts to make the discussion at talk pages such as the one regarding the Eric Robert Rudolph unreasonably and unpleasantly personal. I thought I'd bring it to the attention of a wider range of Wikipedian's, and in order to do that I've started an RfC about these issues here: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/BrandonYusufToropov. I have noticed that you have sometimes commented on these issues on the Rudolph articles talk page, so I thought I'd mention this to you. Another important thing is that two people needs to sign the "basis for this dispute", if it is going to remain there for more than 48 hrs. -- Karl Meier 21:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Sleep Paralysis

You asked me a question, and I have been having trouble trying to figure out how to get my reply to you. Hope this works. ALA

Your Question was:

Hi, do you have a source for this? Where did you learn that it could last this long? Thanks, — coelacan talk — 16:25, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

My Response is:

Yes -- from my personal experience. Yesterday, I had sleep paralysis from 7:58 am to 10:12 am = over two hours. Today's was about a half-hour. I have had them from 8:00 am till after Noon.

Alan Lance Andersen 23:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

WikiStalking

User Coelacan, I suggest you go review Wikipedia's policy on harassment and "wiki-stalking" WP:HARASS, which you are currently partaking in. Following me around through my edit history and arbitrarily changing my Wikipedia edits is a clear violation of Wikipeida policy. If need be, I will seek the aid of an administrator in this matter. 68.5.96.201 07:46, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Apparently this user's only edits are to add inappropriate articles to Category:Anti-Islam sentiment, a category I monitor. When I remove these inappropriate additions, I get an accusation levelled at me. The user might do well to attempt a broader editing pattern than concentrated POV-pushing. — coelacan talk — 14:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

You are by definition "WikiStalking" my edits, and yes, I do intend to add additons to the Category "Anti-Islam", since it is a valid category. Now, clearly you have an agenda of sorts, and as a result, I will be forced to contact an administrator. You simply do not have the right to change anothers work, simply because you dislike "the term", and its implications. 68.5.96.201 23:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

If you want an admin's help, that's your prerogative. I'd be interested in any third party's opinion after they see what you keep blanking off your talk page, and the consistent requests from other editors for you to take your controversial edits to the talk page(s), as I have already done at Category talk:Anti-Islam sentiment. — coelacan talk — 23:47, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

I blocked the main account, which should take care of the IP, but now I've blocked the IP as well. You might want to comment here. Jayjg ^(talk) 01:34, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Christian Terrorism

Colecan, I have left a comment on the Talk page explaining my edit, the fact that you do not wish to respond to it is not my problem. Please, if you are going to edit the page, leave a comment on the Talk page, or you will be in violation of Wikipedia's rules on the subject. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.184.244.25 (talk) 02:32, 24 December 2006 (UTC).

User was blocked twice for revert warring on this subject. Note to the reader: just because you left a message on an article's talk page doesn't mean you suddenly have license to start deleting content from the article at your whim. Leaving a message on the talk page is only the beginning of seeking consensus for a controversial change. Keep this in mind before you charge forward toward your own block. — coelacan talk — 12:06, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I left another comment on the article.--MarcusAnniusCatiliusSeverus 18:01, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Its been quite a while since you left a comment on the discussion page. If you do not responed reasonably soon I will assume consensus and beging cleaning up the article.--MarcusAnniusCatiliusSeverus 21:13, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Deletion?

What deletion? I merely altered the wording. As it stood is made it sound as if there is a real debate about the historical existence of Jesus, when in fact almost no historian, Christian or otherwise, has concluded that Jesus didn't exist. 172.190.201.227 06:15, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Editing inside quotes

I copmletely agree with you about editing inside quotes and I see that I made a mistake. I had assumed someone had typed up a printed version of the text and had made a mistake. That said, I don't see why you got so mad especially considering the edit just before mine (that is, YOUR edit) is an edit of something inside a quote... you chaned of to off. Can you please explain the apparent hypocrisy?Will 06:21, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for my tone. I did not intend to give offense or overemphasize the issue. I've been involved in a fair number of disputes lately and I guess I let other frustrations seep over. You surely didn't deserve it. Regarding the "of" to "off", I was actually correcting another editor's decision that "off" really ought to be "of". Anyway, your own edit history is rather of quality, and I am sorry for biting you over this small thing. — coelacan talk — 06:42, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use images on non-mainspace pages

Hi. This is in regards to this edit where you added a fair use image as decoration on a user talk page. Please take a look at #9 of Wikipedia:Fair use criteria which says that fair use images are only to be used on regular articles, not talk pages or user talk pages or anything else. Let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Please be Careful

Of Wiki Stalking. I noticed you showed up and reverted an edit of mine on an article you had never visited before only a few minutes after filing (and rescinding) a complaint against me. I am confident any differences of opinion on the article can be worked out between myself and the other posters. 66.75.8.138

"'Please be Careful Of Wiki Stalking' says the person who obviously followed my edit trail into WP:AIAV. That's cute."

Sorry, but showing that your claims were out of bounds in trying to claim I vandalized is not Wiki Stalking; that's self defense. Checking up where I post and just happening to show up there, that's the real thing.

"Listen, one single edit does not 'wikistalking' make. But if it bothered you, then I'll confine myself to the talk page of Institute for Creation Research until a consensus forms on your content removal."

I would have preferred if you just didn't try to follow me at all.

"Forgive me if I'm not too worried though"

I wasn't aware my statement was supposed to cause worry. Is there something I'm missing? 66.75.8.138 07:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Update: I don't wish the above to be the last written expression on this issue. Through continued dialogue, Coelacan and I reached an understanding. Since it always takes two people reaching out to make this occur, I wish to give him the respect due on his talk page for his part in helping us find this resolution. 66.75.8.138 19:05, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Another cat. of interest

Have you seen Category:Anti-Semitic people? (→Netscott) 01:55, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

• Wikipedia needs an all-purpose category called "Evil people". I've got an old Twilight Zone episode in mind, in connection with that theme. Wahkeenah 02:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

spelling Richard Dawkins

Sorry about that. I guess I should have realized since I was surprised at how many mistakes there were. I was just passing through trying to clean up links to the Humanist disambiguation page. Good luck getting to FA status Master shepherd 04:44, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

sorry again. I was thinking of a different article I need to go check if I screwed up there as well. I went and read the Dawkins article(least I could do) and it reads quite nicely. You might want to create a separate section called education and put some stuff from the personal life and career sections in there. Also the Memetics section seemed a little confusing to follow but that could just be me. Master shepherd 05:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration?

Just out of curiosity, why hasn't the Marriage article been brought for arbitration or mediation? After reading the talk page, and the vile article that is locked, I don't see much hope of any resolution without outside intervention. Jeffpw 17:29, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I figured it was good to let everyone state first what they are hoping the article to be, and then put up some possible texts to critique. That's all happened now. I'll open WP:RFC later tonight if somebody doesn't beat me to it or another route first. Do you think rfc would be sufficient? — coelacan talk — 21:33, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

• That's a good first step towards getting the conflict resolved. At least that way administrators will see that there is conflict about it. If there is no resolution that way, post it to mediation, then arbcom. Let me know so I can support you on this. Jeffpw 21:38, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Coelacan, thanks for the advice I am going to take a break from commenting on the marriage page. I am finding myself actually getting irritated—which I admit is a bit childish.--GMS508 01:30, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

• I added Marriage to WP:RFC. Jeffpw 12:35, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Coelacan, thanks for the note on my talk page. Nkras and company are really pushing my buttons. But notice how sweet and wiki I've been; haven't called him a pompous ass or anything. Yet. LOL --Textorus 01:40, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Coelacan, I am not sure that Nkras is genuine. I think he may be a bored individual just trying to get our and other users’ goat. I have looked over his statements he seems a little too smart not to realize that he is hurting his own position with some of his recent childish behavior. (note: I expect Nkras to read this.)--GMS508 14:42, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

"I expect Nkras to read this." You got that right, smart guy. /laughing Nkras 05:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• I think Nkras has managed to find a lead that we can all agree on, with some very minor rewording. I am surprised he managed it, and I respect him for finally compromising. Jeffpw 19:39, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Traditional Marriage

Tell me what you think of this page. Traditional Marriage --GMS508 02:33, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Actually I am not overly attached to the article—I just read one of the comments and decided that a neutral article could be written. If someone else is not interested in it, it should be deleted. In my opinion it is just an example.--GMS508 03:12, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

British recognition of civil unions

Howdy again, Coelacan. I am very well aware that British law is entirely separate from Australian law. However, Schedule 20 of the UK Civil Partnerships Act 2004 lists all the CU's and DP's around the world that will be recognized as equivalent to Civil Partnerships by Britain if couples move there. Now this, it seems to me, is important information for people living in Commonwealth countries: a great many folks hold dual British and Australian/Canadian/NZ/etc. citizenship, so they can more easily move between one country and another, and do. If they have a CU or domestic partner, that's vital information, I would think.

However, the worldwide significance of my little paragraph is that Schedule 20 provides a quick and easy litmus test for CU's and DP's around the world: is it equivalent, or nearly so, to marriage (as the UK CP is), or is it a lesser status, with only partial marriage rights and benefits? By this standard, for example, DP's in Maine and California qualify, but not those in D.C. or Hawaii. Ditto for all those various DP's and RP's in Europe. I think this is a significant piece of knowledge, so I've been adding this little paragraph to all the CU/DP states and countries as I come across them (either saying the UK does or does not recognize them as CP equivalents).

The point would seem self-evident to me, if anyone clicks on the wikilink to civil partnerships, but perhaps I should add a sentence of explanation? What do you think? --Textorus 18:34, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

No problem. If I can come up with a concise way to express that idea, I'll add it in.  :-) --Textorus 08:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Invasive species

Maybe it can be split into a continent-based schemes under Category:Biota by continent? And a split into invasive plants/mammals/birds/amphibians/reptile etc might help too. Circeus 02:32, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Taboo articles

I've moved your message [1]. You can just reply there if you like. Sofeil 12:20, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Pastorwayne

I left a comment on User:Pastorwayne and his rapid category creation at WP:ANI. The comment asks for Pastorwayne to be regulated regarding category creation. Feel free to comment. Dr. Submillimeter 22:30, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Pastorwayne may be attempting to circumvent the system. It looks like he may be attempting to create categories without giving the appearance of creating categories by using red links. See the discussion at WP:ANI. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dr. Submillimeter (talk • contribs) 16:16, 3 January 2007 (UTC).

Military brat

Hi Coelacan, I have made a proposal on the discussion that I would like you to look at. Basically it is this. Military brats are the largest subcategory of Third Culture Kids (an article needing a fair amount of work.) I propose creating a new category Third Culture Kids and then creating a subcategory on military brats. This will alert those who are unfamiliar with the term that we are dealing with a scientifically studied definable term. It will let people know that we are not dealing with a mere "slang" term that those unfamiliar with the term might find offensive.Balloonman 17:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

thanks to YOU, coelacan! lol indeed

Can you not see that the genre and sub cats were cretaed to house the existing series categories such as Indiana Jones and Dirty Harry etc spread across some 15 pages of Category: American films. Thanks to you to find all the categories that already exist such as these you have to annoyingly look through the many pages rather than having them organized neatly. The categories were only created to conviently house those many small categories we already have. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 19:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

And I do prefer few categories to exist as it is easier but for America the sheer amount of films they have produced over 112 years some 400,000 films (many of which should ahve a wikipedia article and may have soon enough)seemed a bit silly in one category when soon enough each of the year categories in America would become full on their own accord. let only in one super giant category. OK but I though this will have do be done in the future. Ernst Stavro Blofeld 19:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Traditional Marriage recreation

Deleted and salted. Thanks for pointing them out. --Coredesat 02:10, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Check out Christian extremist terrorism

You may want to look at the recent changes in Christian extremist terrorism. Samboy 19:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Nkras matter

Thanks for your attention to this matter. I realize that he is not your favorite user (nor mine, as well), so your actions in ensuring he has a fair hearing are more than admirable. Jeffpw 11:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

• To be very clear, Nkras is indeed a disruptive editor. He has caused many problems, and if he chooses not to edit anymore, the project may well be better off for it. My concern is that--in my eyes--due process was circumvented, and the penalty he was given was far larger than his transgression. I will not be leaving Wikipedia over this, but my feelings about how it is organized have definitely been colored by this incident. I shall probably confine myself to my relaxing little janitorial duties for the present (I clean up FAC nominations, add {facfailed} tags, and make sure former FACs leave the appropriate trail). Just to give you a sense of who I am, here is a userbox I have on my (now hidden) userpageJeffpw 22:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC):

‎

This user knows the difference between Right & Wrong

Noted

I took a look at his page and saw he has withdrawn. If he comes back I'll be glad to chat with him. The trick to this game is to remember it is a game, and to learn to let go. I have seen a couple of very intense very young guys come through here in an idealistic frenzy and get burned out very quickly. The human race has been crazy for a long time, we will not resolve most problems overnight. Regards, Haiduc 22:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Quiverfull

Your edits to Quiverfull in apparent retaliation of me are groundless.

The Digest falls clearly under allowable per Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Non-scholarly_sources

• Recognition by other reliable sources — A source may be considered more reliable if another source which is generally considered reliable cites or recommends it.

• • For The Quiverfull Digest this was done in:

• • • A November 9, 2006, article in The Nation on Quiverfull
    • A January 3, 2006, ABC News Nightline segment on Quiverfull

• Attributability—The more we know about the originator, either organization or individual, of source material, the better. This helps us measure the authority of the content. Expertise of the originator about the subject...

• • The Quiverfull Digest and its editors David and Suzanne were featured as authoritative sources of information about Quiverfull in ***A November 13, 2006, article in Newsweek on Quiverfull.

• Bias of the originator about the subject—If an author has some reason to be biased, or admits to being biased, this should be taken into account when reporting his or her opinion.

The Digest and editor are certainly biased about QF. However, no opinion is being cited, only an un-exceptional claim: That QF-adherents exist in the United States, Australia, New Zealand, England, and elsewhere.

• • Editorial oversight—A publication with a declared editorial policy will have greater reliability than one without, since the content is subject to verification.

• • • Very clearly declared in Digest.

One thing I did fail to do is note in the cite: (free subscription required to view).

CyberAnth 02:04, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

LOL, also, I just recalled that Nancy Campbell, author of A Full Quiver, featured on all the above national articles, is a New Zealander and many issues of the magazine she edits and the book mentions the range of QF adherents. CyberAnth 02:25, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

L&H

Thanks for the help bro, i appreciate it :) --Striver - talk 12:22, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Prairie Muffins

Ouch. Clearly I got this one wrong. Being wrong is not the ouch. I have been wrong before. Being bold leads to being wrong at times. And I'm sure you didn't mean it but your words hurt. Asking what I have read is poking at me as an editor. I'm sure what you meant was "another policy to consider is the following...." In fact, I have read the policy you mentioned before, but I got it wrong last night. But I am unable to answer you in AFD since AFD is about the article not about debates about whether a particular editor is well read or just a mistake prone human being. I'm over it now - and based on all your work I'm sure you ment no dispect, but I though I would share how you made me feel. Again, I'm being bold - I figure it is hard to read minds over the net :) Keep up the overall good work. Obina 15:01, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

in case my talk page might not be on your Watchlist...

... i finally got around to reading it and responding. i am trying to be as respectful as i can, and i am not anti-gay, but is really about hypocrisy and bias and who are really the hypocrites and POV warriors. r b-j 03:22, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

An Nisa 34

Thanks for the alert. I'd have a lot to edit on the article, but I don't have the time. However, I'm thrilled, that some much depth is given to just one verse. I hope that such a pattern continues for both the Qur'an and Bible. --Ephilei 06:30, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Tafseer of An Nisa 34 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.82.63.2 (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2007 (UTC).

Excuse me?

Trolling? Whatever happened to AGF? And you removed that whole section literally milliseconds before I did, so curse your quick fingers for that. --90.240.34.177 02:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

IT WAS NOT GENERAL DISCUSSION IT WAS REGARDING IN THE NEWS AND DON'T YOU DARE RESPOND WITH 'IT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ON THE TALK PAGE THEN' BECAUSE THAT'S BLOODY OBVIOUS GRRRRR --90.240.34.177 02:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

This is where I say 'You're being deliberately obnoxious' and you respond by posting the 'Please don't make personal attacks comment on content not the contributor' template on my talk page, thus proving my point. --90.240.34.177 02:48, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Do you think I'm having fun, Coelacan? Xiner (talk, email) 02:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Heck, I don't know. I can't see your face from here. I guess you didn't get THE CAPS LOCK FURY like I did though. That put me on the floor =) — coelacan talk — 02:52, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

My 'beating in'? I've been using Wikipedia for maybe three years now, and I still don't understand why everyone is bumming each other and quoting WP:STFU at me every time I question them. Maybe it's because I still edit as an IP address (dun dun dunnn). --90.240.34.177 02:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

No I didn't get the cap lock thingie. I think he likes the templates I feed him. Don't want him to get addicted though. My advice? Report him to WP:AIV and request an investigation for sockpuppetry. This is obviously harassment of a very bad kind that needs to be stopped immediately. Xiner (talk, email) 02:58, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

{{helpme}} I'm putting this up for Coelacan, who is being harassed by an IP vandal. Xiner (talk, email) 03:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Er, guys, I'm standing right here. --90.240.34.177 03:01, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm okay on the "helpme" bit. I know my way to WP:ANI if it gets ugly. Thanks though, Xiner =) — coelacan talk — 03:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I guess I should rephrase that. It already got ugly, but I'm amused, so I'm going to let it slide for the moment. — coelacan talk — 03:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

For the moment? Are you saying we're not done? --90.240.34.177 03:14, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I should certainly hope we are. I was assuming I was going to get tired before you did. — coelacan talk — 03:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Note to self: never again attempt humour involving waterfowl and gang initiations. You can't wash the blood off. — coelacan talk — 03:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

:-)

LOL, yes yes... you're perfectly correct. The lack of complaining on talk dawk is most certainly worth the price of a crap-article-that shouldn't-exist-except-for-pop-culture-crazed-wikipedians! :-) Mikker ^(...) 03:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW

Seeing, from your userbox, that you support Médecins Sans Frontières, I ask you to come participate in the move discussion on the talk page, as it seems we're at near deadlock. -Patstuart^talk|edits 00:39, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL, please

Ask me one more time if I don't understand you. Just get it out of your system. Say it ten times, twenty times. I'll go count blades of grass while you work it out. Let me know when you're finished. And then spare me the insult when I get back, okay? — coelacan talk — 06:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

I've never asked you if you understood me. I asked you whether you understood the distinction between a foreign term for which there is no commonly used English translation (i.e. Volkswagen) and a foreign term for which there is (i.e., Doctors without Borders). A fair question, I might add, given your repeated comparisons indicating a lack of appreciation for the distinction. It's not about understanding me. By the way, you never answered my question, and you're accusing me of being uncivil??? Have a good night. --Serge 06:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

gay icon

This article has been nominated for deletion before and still lacks what it takes to be an encylopedia (wikipedia) article. Also see last entry on discussion. This entry needs some major reworking or simply a speedy delete. --knowpedia 06:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Not only my Opinion

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 the assertion is controversial or there has been a previous AfD, the article should be nominated for AfD instead. Note: Avoid deletion summaries that could be insulting, e.g., the word "vanity". I will just try another way to get rid of it. --knowpedia 07:13, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I missed it the first time. My mistake. --knowpedia 07:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

It was more or less a test of wikipedia tools VP. If it got deleted, so be it. I left no reason, since I had no reason to see it gone (however, it is unremarkable web content). Thanks 4 your hardwork. --knowpedia 23:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about you, Coelecan, but that strikes me as a very inappropriate use of the VP tool. It ended up causing me a lot of stress after working hard on revising that article. I would hope users have better ways to spend their wikitime. Jeffpw 14:45, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

this was not abuse. I'm sorry for the mistake. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Knowpedia (talk • contribs).

Gay icon up for Afd now

Please see the discussion (you can get there via the ugly tag that has been slapped on the front of it. 6 hours work, possibly for nothing. I am massively pissed off. Jeffpw 15:12, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Catholic link DRV

The policies I was referring to were WP:NPOV and WP:RS, taken together. I don't think that a source which has stated POV should be used as the main reference work for an article, and certainly not a major enough reference work that we need a template asking users to consult it specifically. RyanGerbil10(Упражнение В!) 02:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Title Change

Greetings. The article list of our interest has been moved to a new wikiproject page. The new title is called the >>> List of articles related to scientific skepiticism. If you have any suggestions for improvement just let me know. The movement forward will be focusing, direction, and quality info. Sincerely, --QuackGuru 03:14, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review

Very impressive summary of the debate about {{catholic-expand}}. Also good points in the Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln AfD. I confess to being rather annoyed by that the nominator for that one has on his userpage under the heading, "Things I detest"... "Everybody who thinks my idol is homosexual". Yeah because you just couldn't respect Lincoln if he wasn't 100% straight! And he accuses those who've written the article of not respecting NPOV?!? WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 05:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Please provide a summary when editing so you don't look like a vandal

I have noticed you commonly don't enter an edit summary. This causes me problems. When I patrol for vandalism, I use the summary to make a preliminary decision on whether or not the post is a vandal edit or not. If the summary is present (or at least a section header, the part inside the /* */), I commonly decide the edit is legit and move on.

However, if no edit summary is available, I typically resort to loading the diff for the edit. This takes time. For that reason, if your edits are all valid, I ask that you provide edit summaries. For more on how to enter an edit summary, please read Help:Edit summary.

Incidently, it is not just me that appreciate having edit summaries. When you omit your summary, you may be telling various bots that you are vandalizing pages. For this reason, please consider providing that summary. It is very important.

The edit summary appears in black italics in the following places:

• Page history - list of changes to the page you edited
• User contributions - list of all your edits
• Watchlist* - list of recent changes to watched pages (logged-in users only)
• diff page - shows the difference between two edits
• Recent changes - list of all recent edits
• Wikipedia IRC channels - real time list of all edits
• Related changes - list of recent changes to pages linked to the page you edited
• List of new pages: shows the edit summary of the creation.

* Use the enhanced watchlist to see all recent changes in the watched pages, not just the last change in each page.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Will Pittenger (talk • contribs) 07:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC).

Re: WP:POINT

I apologize for my aggressiveness, mostly coming from my conflict with a person. I will try keep calm from now on. Thanks for your admonition. _AbelinCAusesobad 12:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Glad you noticed, too

I saw that, too, and my paranoid mind immediately wondered about an agenda. Glad you reported the incident, though I wonder if it will do any good. Please let me know if you end up reporting it, so I can lend some support. And <sigh> after 30 minutes of searching and more than one false hope, I was unable to find a reference to support Lincoln as a gay icon, much as I had hoped otherwise. Does somebody on a message group asking if gays want to make him an icon sufficient prrof of that status?? I'd be inclined to say yes, just to raise hackles, but my recessive Wikipedian gene kicked in and rebelled at violating WP:POINT. Jeffpw 18:52, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• I just left a message on AmiDaniel's regular talk page--maybe he will see it there, since he doesn't check the other page so often. Jeffpw 19:00, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• Wow! That was a great catch, on Honest Abe!!! I truly searched, and came up zilch. I'm so glad you have managed to improve Wikipedia so much today!!!!! Jeffpw 20:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For diligence in ensuring that Wikipedia tools are used for the benefit of the project, and not its detriment, this Defender Of the Wiki Barnstar is awarded to Coelacan. The VandalProof project will run much more smoothly after your timely intervention. Jeffpw 20:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

you really instigated a change. That message was left on more than one page. Thank you for your assistance and support. Jeffpw 20:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that is some effect, I second the award of the barnstar. Overuse of VP has been a problem- one editor actually reverted me with it the other day and slapped a warning template on my talkpage. Good to see a stricter approach is going to be taken in deciding who gets access. WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 06:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Vandals and opinion on VP

Surprisingly I find dealing with vandals quite relaxing. One even went so far as to set up their own abusive account name to vandalise my user page with. I felt rather honoured. I'm in two minds about VP. It can be quite useful but is rather a blunt tool. Like looking down a tunnel, its hard to see the edits in context. Its also harder with a named user to see if they're an established user that staying within Wikipedia itself. I find a look through the newbie contribs list: Special:Contributions/newbies can sometimes be more helpful. But I can see how the persistent talk page trolling could get rather distracting :-). WJBscribe ^{(WJB talk)} 07:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

why are you attacking me

I am entitled to voice my feeling on a particular subject on its talk page. That’s what I thought a talk page was for. My last line was sarcasm, which probably doesn’t come across very well in the written word. I have no problems with gays. I actually like them. My brother-in-law is one and we get along great. We hang out. We travel together. Why do I have to explain myself to you? I feel you’re personally after me. You are boarding on threatening behavior towards me. If this personal attack campaign you started against me was not via wikipedia and in the real world, I would actually be fearing for myself. I just want you to leave me alone. I don’t know you and you don’t know me and let’s keep it that way. Please don’t threaten me because I made a mistake on Gay Icon. I’ve apologized. --knowpedia 06:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Note: I merely asked this user to stop making personal attacks, and used the npa2 template.[2] — coelacan talk — 06:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Im not refering to the warning as much as everything else you've been up to since we've crossed paths. --knowpedia 06:20, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Check the edit history of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sexuality of Abraham Lincoln (2nd nomination). I commented there before you did, so you can hardly imply that I'm not "leaving you alone". You should calm down. I'm no threat to you. I just asked you to abide by our policies here. — coelacan talk — 06:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

And for the record, talk pages (and AFD pages such as the one in question) are not for voicing your feeling on a particular subject. That is what a blog is for. If you feel you need more latitude in voicing your opinion, go get a blog, because you are not entitled to simply run your mouth as you please on Wikipedia. Quoting from WP:TALK, "Keep on topic: Talk pages are not for general conversation. Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article. Irrelevant discussions are subject to removal." — coelacan talk — 06:31, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

You just sent to me WP:AGF. Here is line from AGF "Well-meaning people make mistakes, and you should correct them when they do. You should not act like their mistake was deliberate. Correct, but don't scold." This has been my point on Gay Icon. --knowpedia 06:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

This isn't about your attack on that article. That is days in the past, a thousand years in internet time. I'm talking about your accusations of bad faith editing by other Wikipedians and attacks on a segment of society in general that you made in this edit. — coelacan talk — 06:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

"That is days in the past, a thousand years in internet time." sarcasm? Anyways, I will in the future try to stay on topic. I feel as if you and I were never on topic. It just seemed personal to me (preception is huge). However; I understand now. --knowpedia 07:09, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm talking about "on-topic" as it pertains to the Abe Lincoln AFD. I responded on your user talk page because a response at that AFD would have been off-topic there. The much more important issues were your accusations and disparagement toward other editors. But, if you feel that you understand what the issue was, great; I hope that's all sorted and that we're on the same page. Be well. Peace! — coelacan talk — 07:18, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Robert Lentz

Considering that Robert Lentz repented a couple of years back and placed himself back under the obedience of his Roman Catholic religious order, and has asked many stores to stop selling his art, do you really need to be uploading his art here? Let the whole thing be forgotten in accordance with the man's wishes. CRCulver 10:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

1) I did not upload it, I merely provided the fair use rationale. 2) I don't give two figs what the man's superstitions are or before whom he's now prostrating himself; fair use applies regardless. — coelacan talk — 10:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Use of terms like "don't give two figs" and speaking of a man's personal beliefs as "superstitions" violates WP:CIVIL. Please try to be more careful. CRCulver 10:46, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Are you Robert Lentz? — coelacan talk — 10:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Does the username "CRCulver" look anything like e.g. "RLentz"? No. However, if you persist in this, I will write to the man and alert him that his image is being used here. He will then protest, as he generally does, and usually when a figure writes to Jimbo vel sim. to complain about the use of an image, it comes down even if fair use were plausible. CRCulver 10:50, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Then I was not being uncivil toward you, and you have no complaint. — coelacan talk — 10:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Persistent use of bitter or harsh rhetoric, regardless of who it is directed has, is punished quite often here. I gather you haven't been here long. CRCulver 10:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, as I'm enjoying this discussion I felt I should provide the coffee... WJBscribe ^{-WJB talk-} 17:07, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Just keep scolding me as long as you feel like it. I'm game. Shall I put on a pot of coffee? — coelacan talk — 10:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Sure. I'll go ahead and make a mention of your problem with civility and neutral tone at the Admin's Noticeboard. CRCulver 10:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Great! Do you take one sugar, or two? — coelacan talk — 11:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for providing a fair Use rationale for the image, Coelacan. I thought it was fair use, but had neither the time nor interest to write the rationale, which you did so quite ably. And the images do add a lot to the respective articles. Jeffpw 10:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind but I've expanded that fair use rationale a little. Just to emphasise the point that the painting is not being used to show what the subjects looked like (which is the only sense in which it could be said to be replaceable by the PD image). WJBscribe ^{-WJB talk-} 17:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

That was important to point out more explicitly, WJBscribe; good call. I got zealous in tweaking the language further. I think I'm done now. And that coffee looks sublime. I think I'll have to go brew some irl now! — coelacan talk — 17:40, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• you might find this diff interesting, Coelacan. Jeffpw 12:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Sergius & Bacchus

There's a higher-resolution version at http://members.aol.com/wrccinrva/myhomepage/smallsaints.jpg; it looks like the A of AΓIOΣ is written small inside the O. —Angr 14:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Much appreciated. =) — coelacan talk — 14:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Using English

Hello - I'm contacting you because of your involvement with using English instead of foreign terms in articles. A few are trying to "Anglicise" French terms in Wiki articles according to current guidelines but there is some resistance (eg/: "Région => Region"; "Département => Departement"). Your input would be appreciated here page. Thankyou. --Bob 16:06, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

You are kind. RCS 07:53, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

XfD

Just wanted to thank you for your time and energies with catholic-link - I think it was your observation that templates give undo authority which broke the log jam. Sometimes hard to see the forest for the trees. Not over yet but seems clear ahead (famous last words). -- Stbalbach 19:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Knowpedia

Sorry I am so tardy replying. I have been busy all day saving Panavision from Feature Article delisting. Anyway, I am also glad that our good friend Knowpedia is taking a lovely wikiholiday. The poor dear seemed a bit stressed the last few days, and a holiday will do him wonders! Hope you're doing well. Jeffpw 22:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks

Continued from Talk:Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks

Look, at Talk:BPOElks, you've demonstrated your inability to ever contribute to the article with a NPOV; Bordered on then gone past & been uncivil, making personal attacks. Let it be known that we, You & I, agree on the principles of one's convictions & beliefs; we agree on atheists' integrity; Most BPOElks agree on atheist's both as well. the discussion there is ended, under everything cited in the "talkheader" banner at the top. what's there should be removed, but I'll leave it to some 3rd party. Future similar posts will be removed.

& Kind Person, if like I said, I can help you in this issue, I will, down to bringing any wronging you may have been done by an BPOElk, to the effective attention of their Lodge's Exalted Ruler. But Please be civil w/me, & I only ask that you spend the same time & attention, & give the same consideration to me that I give to you and your words. Sincerely, Grye 00:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you for your recent comment on Talk:Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks. However, article talk pages are reserved for discussion which contributes to the improvement of the article. They are not to be used for general discussion of the subject. If you would like to experiment, please try the the sandbox. Thank you.
• With regards to your comments on Talk:Benevolent and Protective Order of Elks: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

Continued

1. Your usage of discrimination is as insulting them, & any BPOElk readers & editors, as you imagine they are insulting by, allegedly, discriminating;
2. Calling BPOElks Bigots is as insulting them, & any BPOElk readers & editors, as you imagine they are insulting by being, allegedly, Bigots;
3. Saying they are merely a drinking club is belittling them, & any BPOElk readers & editors, especially by discounting all of their efforts;
4. Saying they are prejudiced is being as derogitory toward them, & any BPOElk readers & editors, as you imagine they are;
5. You straight out call them shameful, which again, is as exactly as insulting to them, & any BPOElk readers & editors, as you imagine their actions to be.Your statement, that BPOE (&/or I) feels "atheists are unable to act charitably and contribute positively toward the community" is wrong & as far as is evidenced here, totally unfounded;
6. All of your statements jade the reader's opinion.

Grye 01:07, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Hornbeck was probably maladjusted before being abudcted. He supported his analysis with the fact that Shawn had piercings and that he had once taught highschool.

"that he had once taught highschool". Who the heck is "he"? I did not see the interview, and up tho the last sentance I was able 2 follow. However u lost me and probaly many other readers, I assume by he you meant bill. "where he taught English and History at Monsignor Pace High School for two years" found in personal bio. I think you needed 2 be more clear.

This sounds better:

"Hornbeck was probably maladjusted before being abudcted. He supported his comments with the fact that Shawn had piercings and that O'Reilly himself had once taught highschool." --Janusvulcan 04:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Uhh, I didn't write any of that. I just added one direct O'Reilly quote. — coelacan talk — 04:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

But I checked the article again and that sounds fine so I changed it to your suggestion. — coelacan talk — 04:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

== Learn how to quote accurately and in context ==

I removed a selectively edited quote on your user page that resulted in an intellectually dishonest presentation of one of my arguments. Nkras 05:25, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Please refrain from name calling

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on the contributor; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. I do not like the references to being troll. I don't live under bridges and eat passing billy goats.

Furthermore, my question to the disccusion on section of "Turtle eggs as food" is perfectly ligit. There are many cultures that eat turtles, if you're planning a section on the eggs as food, you cannot neglect the turtle itself as a source for food. And what's the thing everyone wants to know when trying a new food source, "what does it taste like?". For wikipedia to remain "objectional" you cannot discourage users from engaging in such questions just because you don't approve of eating turtle.

Also I am putting my discussion back onto peppermint. Perhaps you should read what I put on there before you blindly removed it, because if you had, you would have seen that those last two sentences in the article were terriblely open ended, not how an article should end. I wont remove the sentences until someone else determines the validity of them.

Thank you and good day. HolyMoley 18:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Read the article there is an agenda, just not secret. The agenda is out.

Opposition to the term's use (as secret)

Groups such as the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation deny the existence of any secret or subversive agenda. They state that their major goal (agenda) is to end discrimination in housing, employment and public accommodations and to achieve equality for LGBT persons. These groups describe the term as a "rhetorical invention of anti-gay extremists seeking to create a climate of fear by portraying the pursuit of civil rights for LGBT people as sinister".[3] Some members of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) community consider their political goals (agenda) to be too heterogeneous to be grouped together into one single agenda.[9]

My opening edit follows the rest of the article. The opening was to opinionated it needs to read more neutral. --Janusvulcan 22:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

What good Wiki friends I have here!

You three (Coelacan, Dev920 and WJBScribe, in alphabetical order) are the best friends one could hope for! I feel just like Dorothy in The Wizard of Oz! Jeffpw 19:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

=) Your user page is on my watchlist! If I see anybody messing with it I come running. Thanks for the wikilove. I know you'd do the same for me (cause you already have). — coelacan talk — 19:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

• Whoops! I didn't know we were taking this seriously. They can't demand I remove a picture (and I did reduce the size already, and removed the caption) without asking everyone else to remove the religious images they have. This is a tempest in a teacup (though I will throw a major hissy fit if they actually force me to remove it entirely). Jeffpw 20:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
• I only meant that I am not worried they will actually force this down my throat. If you look at my userpage, you will see a anti-T2 userbox on it, too. Jeffpw 20:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

RE:Your comments on WP:AN/I regarding Jefferson

This is getting pretty far off topic so I'm replying here instead of bloating that thread anymore. I didn't say that many of the statements he made were not controversial, I said he himself is not a controversial figure today, any more so than Voltaire; though much of Candide would be very controversial to anyone who actually took the time to read it. As it were, I imagine if you were to actually entice someone to read Notes on Virginia many people would be absolutely scandalized. Call me an old cynic though, your picture of Jefferson will conjure more visions of the Declaration of Independance (and probably the Constitution too unfortunately) than doctrines that many people would find objectionable today. The context would be completely lost on the average American (and I daresay the average Non-American). He simply is not a controversial figure to the masses despite anything he has said or written.--Isotope23 21:04, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

You are correct that to most Americans he is not scandalous. But to those who actually think about church/state separation and how to abolish/protect it on a regular basis, he is incredibly controversial. It is undoubtable that there will be Wikipedians who would indeed be offended by my picture of the man, either for his anti-Christianity, or for his "ownership" of humans, or because he had sex with black women. There will likewise be some Wikipedians who are not offended by the picture of Hillary because they don't really know much about her politics. And you must admit that the People of the State of New York see fit to elect her as their Senator. So how can she be too controversial for a user page? — coelacan talk — 21:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Er, did I argue that she was too controversial for a userpage? I don't remember saying that. All I said in regards to the issue is that pretty much all political/religious images, userboxes, etc are probably cutting it pretty close to the spirit of WP:NOT#SOAPBOX and that it was pretty obvious from the discussion on WP:AN/I that there is no concensus on how to proceed with such images so the whole thing should just be dropped and if anyone is interested they could spark up a long discussion at WP:USER.

I'm just saying that by and large in today's world Hillary Clinton would very likely be controversial to more people (probably considerably more) than Thomas Jefferson and that I don't think that it is necesarily a good comparison. If you wanted to go controversial, you should have put up a picture of the current president.  :)--Isotope23 21:22, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

I could not put up a picture of Hillary or George. I would be forced to immediately revert my own edit. Jefferson: I went with what controversy I know. Maybe I should change the mouseover text to say "Thomas Jefferson thinks a great many of his fellow Wikipedians are either fools or hypocrites"? Anyway, if you read back over the exchange, Patstuart finally did tell me to take it down. So it was controversial after all. — coelacan talk — 21:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Ha, yes... that mouseover text would be icing on the cake.

Did he? I booted out of the discussion when it became clear that there was no consensus. Well, I guess you were right; Jefferson can still rile people up...--Isotope23 21:37, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Right, I didn't notice the ending of the paragraph at first, but he did say "And if someone comes along and asks you to remove that picture because they disagree with Jeffersonian politics, you ought to do it. ... And you have openly admitted that the picture is polemic, so it should be removed."[3] I think I have the Jefferson caption saying what I want it to, now. — coelacan talk — 23:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Yosegi

Thanks for the wording change for the URL. I like it. Dick107 06:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Was Merely removing vandalism

Excuse me but i dont know who you think you are, the only things i removed were slanderous remarks about Jade Goody,like 'Jade Goody regularly attends Neo-Nazi and KKK meetings', which is untrue, unsourced and slanderous or libel, or whichever word you use for written slurs! You may think you editing king but other people are allowed to do it too and do do it! So keep your nose out! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TammiMagee (talk • contribs) 09:59, 24 January 2007 (UTC).

Replied at TammiMagee's talk page. — coelacan talk — 18:53, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Heads up

Just thought I'd let you know that following a discussion at WP:AN (not the incidents board) [4], Knowpedia has had their block reduced to one week. WJBscribe 10:20, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Trend setting

WJBscribe passed this on to me. It gave me a chuckle: See User:Hit bull, win steak. --Jeffpw

History of Homelessness

Hi. Good points you made about how vandalism in small bits can disorient an article and one's attempt to fix it up. I wasn't sure if the section in Homelessness was careless. But in the end it all seems better now. Thanks for your kind thoughts and help. --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 18:35, 24 January 2007 (UTC) (talk)

Hi. Thanks again for your help and kind wishes. That article seems to press a lot of buttons for a lot of people. Must be un-nerving in our modern society. Ta ... --- (Bob) Wikiklrsc 19:46, 24 January 2007 (UTC) (talk)

Point Taken

Most editors would be appreciative of a friendly head's up that they were verging on WP:CIV violations, but we're not talking about most editors, here. I shall cut off my fingers before responding again. :-) Jeffpw 00:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• On the other hand, she is an admin here, and is supposed to be acting as an example of good behaviour. She's not. And if you look at her edit history, you'll see several violations of wiki protocols in her admin actions. I didn't have to look hard to find more than one or two I found really bad judgment calls. There's nothing I'd rather do than put this behind us all and go back to making constructive edits. That's the main reason I won't respond now...the other being that others are doing a fine job without my help, and she's doing the best job of all of making an ass out of herself. I'm superfluous at this point. Jeffpw 00:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Wikimob

Glad you liked it. Silliness is not a bad thing sometimes! Tony Fox (arf!) 03:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: i love your username

Haha thanks! Why yes I am related to the SakuSakuPanda candy! We are very delicious! ;) -Candy-Panda 04:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• Hey thanks for fixing my userpage! ^^ -Candy-Panda 07:06, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

• Wow thanks! I'll let you know if I need a userbox made! ^^ -Candy-Panda 07:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Have not removed anything off talk

I didnt remove anything off talk:Jade Goody, not concerning the things you are showing anyway. The thing about Neo-Nazi and KKK meetings was on the actual ARTICLE that I removed, but i put on the talk page that i had removed that sentence out of the article. I didnt remove that sentence out of the talk page, so what exactly are you on about? I thought unsourced sentences that are as damning as the one i removed were supposed to be removed as they are vandalisms? I cant see what i've done wrong to be honest. And if i want to reply to someone on a talk page that has said something about me i will, why are you monitoring me so closely anyway? Go bug someone else. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TammiMagee (talk • contribs) 14:20, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

Re: your note

Hi, just a quick response to your note on my talk page. I wasn't trying to ruin anyone's fun, trust me, frankly I think sometimes in a tense AfD debate a little humor can break the tension. I just saw the way the debate might be headed and wanted to try to cool things down as a neutral third party before you got accused of being some cabal member and nasty words started flying or vice versa... Wintermut3 18:33, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Again, responding to your note, yeah, I think it will be brushed off, but frankly that's probably a good thing. I'm glad that nothing ended up errupting out of this, because I did *not* want to get stuck in the middle of a growing conflict. The page is gone now, might be userfied, might not. I still maintain that if made neutral it could be a good essay, they were talking about something very simular on netscape today regarding the microsoft controversy, and the collective actions of a group of dedicated POV editors (or what microsoft feels is POV, which is more likely to be NPOV that microsoft doesn't happen to like). I'm not sure exactly what's going on, but I did my part, and I'm staying well out of the way now, ;). Wintermut3 19:23, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Jean Webster

Thanks for your help and suggestions about the Jean Webster picture and page. I have uploaded the file as you suggested, but would be very grateful if you could check the tagging I did and if my explanation is sufficient for the task. I just ignored licensing, which I presume is correct? Thanks in advance!! --Slp1 02:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much indeed, including the formatting help! I feel an unreasonable sense of triumph about having learned another Wikipedia skill! I appreciate your help in this. --Slp1 02:51, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for the note and tips. You inspired me to add a picture fo Vassar I found on the Commons, and I will look for other appropriate pictures as I go. Merci! Slp1 14:13, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Victoria Woodhull

To be knowledgeable of the subject matter, means you have taken time to review, research and validate the posting of America's Victoria. Please do not remove the addition of the only documentary on America's first presidential candidate. The addition is in keeping w the guidelines of Wikipedia. Vweston3554 03:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

You might consider researching before you so boldly delete essential and valuable work. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vweston3554 (talk • contribs).

Please Research before Deleting

It would be most respectful, if you would work within the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. My inclusion of a respected documentary that has been broadcast on TV and continues to be distributed to universities is NOT worthy of deletion. Vweston3554 03:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

sexy losers

Thank you for your attempts to keep Wikipedia fair. I intend to revert your latest improvement in order to preserve the previous flow of the discussion, for reasons enumerated below.

A. Your change is unsupported by policy -- quite the opposite, AfD states "Unregistered or new users are welcome to contribute to the discussion, but their recommendations may be discounted" -- the language does not state by who, or when, or how. If you have an issue with this, I encourage you to look into changing the policy.

B. The unregistered user signed with a name rather than an IP, with the potential for confusion.

C. The unregistered user has not been excluded from the discussion process. Their status has merely been highlighted.

D. If a user has a long editing history and significant contributions/ties to/with Wikipedia, there's no reason they oughtn't remind anyone of anything, if it helps to improve the encyclopedia. Please don't tell them that they can't :)

E. The unregistered user either has a long history with Wikipedia and should know to register for AfD discussion, or is a newbie for the purposes of WP:BITE. It can't go both ways.

I am reverting you at this point, having elucidated my reasons. This is my first revert in this matter w/in 24hrs.

Lastly, I haven't been my usual diplomatic self above. I'd like to stress that I do genuinely appreciate the fact that you're acting in good faith. I just don't think you're right.

—Adrian~enwiki (talk) 2007-01-26 06:15Z

In retrospect, you're right -- a strikethrough does seem needlessly prejudicial to the posting party. Anyhow -- the reason I struck it is, I'd linked one of my friends to the AfD, and they promptly hopped on and "voted", without any real context on the process. I didn't want to feel like I was ballot-stuffing, so I struck the keep and noted it thusly.

I'm a little edgy tonight, so your reply rubbed me the wrong way, something I realized and tried to mitigate partway through my response. I didn't redact what I'd written though -- WP:NOT (or shouldn't be) sanitized of all emotion. It 100% wasn't intended to attack though, as I think you saw.

Thanks for your replies :)

—Adrian~enwiki (talk) 2007-01-26 07:10Z

Well -- people tell me I'm usually polite to a fault, so if I'm overtly sarcastic, I'm having a bad day :) It's kind of you to say you couldn't tell.

As a sidenote -- it's often poor form to revert without trying to reach a consensus with the revertee first. This cuts both ways, since I did it to you, too :x It's been a while since I popped up on AfD, and when last I did, striking anon/very new votes was commonplace. I still feel that the deletion discussion is for the *community* -- if you're a newcomer, and the first article you visit is AfD, something may be fishy. But I'm open to other ways of addressing these issues, if the community wants them.

But that's just the security apparatus mentality talking.

Thanks again, genuinely, for helping to keep Wikipedia legible and useful.

—Adrian~enwiki (talk) 2007-01-26 10:04Z

Did I misjudge you?

Personally, I have always found you to be quite amusing, with a terrific sense of humor. Imagine my surprise, after seeing that quote on your userpage, to find that others think an you utterly humorless sourpuss. I stand warned! Jeffpw 16:17, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

The best part was: "So I began almost three hours ago"! Simply astounding. I actually could not believe my eyes when I saw him taking my "call the Don" thing seriously. Look at "Don Tony" here Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikimob. So I'm actually running out of space for these things. I can't just keep filling up my page or it will get way too cluttered. =( I got a good one from an old buddy recently,[5] but I'm not quoting that because shhhh, it's super secret.[6] And then there's this.[7] Pleasant. — coelacan talk — 16:36, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Number 5 was my favorite. Captures the spirit of Wikipedia quite nicely. Here's some recommended reading for you. You'll conquer this anti-social trait and be popular in no time if you follow his words of wisdom! Jeffpw 16:49, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

• Good old Dale Carnegie. Too much mysticism for my tastes. I think I'll just build some spiked armor, like these folks. Tell me this isn't adorable. =) — coelacan talk — 17:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

But we already know [8] that Coelacan does not trust books (as he has no sense of humour or irony that comment must have been a serious one)... Still the Echidnas are cute. In a kind of disturbing manner :-). WJBscribe 17:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

That picture is actually a representation of me when I'm in a good mood, so I am the last one to cast stones at others for their lack of humor. I'm actually thinking of setting WP:ABF on my shelf of treasured literature, right next to Gone With the Wind and Valley of the Dolls (the latter, I am proud to say, I own in an autographed first edition). Jeffpw 17:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

And echidnas waddle. Can't beat that. Nope, don't trust books. As a postmodernist cabalist and Newspeaker,[9] I only trust Wikipedia, which always says exactly what I want the truth to be. =P — coelacan talk — 17:43, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Warcry

Thanks! Will do! I've added several more references, hope that's enough to convince the AfD people. Shrumster 08:22, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help, I've added the links to the AfD. Shrumster 08:58, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, ok. I thought WP:Web#3 applies to if an external website has a short summary and then links to the original article? It's not exactly a reprint, but similar in spirit? (they might be thinking that it's a waste of bandwidth/space to reprint the article which is entirely available online in its original form) As per your suggestions though, I'll bank more on WP:Web#1. Thanks for the help again! Shrumster 20:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Cool, I didn't know fair use could apply that way. I'm not too familiar with fair use yet, although I'm learning quite a bit about it (well, the US/UK version...I have no idea what the equivalent law is here in the Philippines) in my short time on Wikipedia. (I tried uploading some pics, got dizzy with all the licensing choices :) ) Shrumster 21:03, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

RE Hoax

I said "possibly a hoax", as the article provided no verifiable sources. Doesn't mean that it's definitely a hoax, I was just bringing up the possibility, as it sounds like a rather strange idea. But anyway, it hardly matters, as there's a clear consensus and enough other reasons to delete the article. Walton monarchist89 16:38, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

OK I'm sorry. Forget it. Delete the word "hoax" from the AfD if you really want. I don't see why it particularly matters. Walton monarchist89 17:53, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Fine. I have altered my comment and struck out the word "hoax", as per your recommendation. I had no intention of insulting the user's integrity; when commenting on AfDs I make a point of not checking the author's edit history, as I believe notability should be evaluated on the basis of the article not the record of its author. I will also apologise to the article's author on her talk page. I hope you are now satisfied. Walton monarchist89 18:42, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

User watchlist

I've recently found out that it doesn't work on FireFox, sorry. I've put a note on my user page to that effect. Tra (Talk) 02:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know; I've adjusted the wording. Tra (Talk) 02:50, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I've tested it and I know it works for me in Internet Explorer 6 and 7. I'm guessing the error you're giving might be something to do with the ajax requests but I'm not entirely sure since it was quite some time since I wrote the code. Tra (Talk) 03:23, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Not Well Liked???

It seems that way, huh???...Add me to the list, Please....You are not really about what you say your about..."I imagine the whole world living in Peace"....thats BS...and you KNOW IT!!!! Delete me??? What in the hell for? For standing up to an ethnocentric idiot posting every single Asian country on the list of 1st Worlds???? YOU try and get along with people.....Respect is only given when Respect is due!!! you can't make us be nice to people if they aren't nice to us....Look, I signed IT!!!----> Cali567 04:12, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you aren't nice to people, you can be banned from Wikipedia. So, that's an incentive right there. See no personal attacks and the civility policy. -- Kesh 04:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. I suppose you right in that, but come on...it's all one sided here....Check out the First World article...Cali567 04:25, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Hi there, thank you for standing up against any anti-Koreanism or anti-Asianism from Cali567 in the 1st World page.

Kind Regards,

Seong0980 4:13, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

HAHAHAHA...is that what you thought it was?????? You have a humor almost as good as coelcan {or whatever}.....Please don't cry if I've offended you...K?....I want EQUALITY in the article....but then again who doesn't???? Your welcomed to write an ALL ASIAN 1ST WORLD page if you'd like....your a funny guy ;] Cali567 04:22, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Please Mr. Cali, you do not have to be so obvious that you capitalized every possible insulting/racial word such as ALL ASIAN, etc. Please it isn't nice to go on such a heated response in someone else's talk page, especially when Coelacan wanted to do was help resolve disputes. Administrators are our friends, they are here to help us, and yes even you.

Seong0980 28 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not an admin. I'm just trying to give everybody a fair shake. Seong, please see the very useful recommendsation at Wikipedia:Resolving disputes#Second step: Disengage for a while. Keep in mind that the other user has now been given a final warning for personal attacks against you, any more will result in a temporary block. So you can disengage for the moment. Please take this time to go find reliable sources. — coelacan talk — 04:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I see...good guy bad guy...Well I suppose we can talk this over. I do not see my words as racist in any way. ALL ASIAN means just that....all Asian, not that I want you to explain how it is a slur, but I'm confused. Cali567 04:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Cali, you go get your sources too. — coelacan talk — 04:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Coelacan! I have conducted my first defensive arguement for South Korea in the 1st world discussion. Everything had been cited and sources labelled, if the points are not strong enough, please make any suggestions to see if I could further prove my point.

Kind regards, Seong.

-- Seong0980 28 January 2007.

Commons

Do as you like, they're pretty tired of me at Commons--although it's mutual. SB Johnny is so gung-ho, I thought I should give it one more try. Ahhggg! KP Botany 19:54, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Probably safer not to go too deeply into plant taxonomy, something most plant taxonomists don't do well.

However, with biological organisms there are certain levels of classification that are accepted as major for that particular organisms. Mammals, for example, are discussed by order in the scientific literature. Plants are discussed by family in the scientific literature.

So, if I were writing an article about a plant family, the Aristolochiaceae, for example, I would probably seek an image by plant family, see what was available and make my decision that way.

Which, by the way, is precisely why I categorized this into its family. When I first went to the page, there was no image of Aristolochia californica that I could add to the article, because I went to the family page and looked for it in the image gallery, rather than going to the species. A. californica is well-studied for the relationship between its secondary metabolites certain butterflies that mimic it, so I wanted this particular species to add an image, to add information about this relationship between its mimics and the chemicals the plant makes.

The compelling reason is simply that some folks use the image galleries to see if a picture is there and others use the categories pages, mainly because it seems to an unfamiliar user as if the category page is offering you a choice, not that the pages are also images, but that either you go to a page or you go to images. The compelling reason is simply so the image appears in the gallery in both the family and the genus. Users who are writing articles about a genus should be able to go there and find those images, and users who are writing articles about a family, should be able to go there and see, at a glance, exactly what assortment of images are available.

Plant databases, by the way, have tended to sort plants exactly this way, by genus and by family. It's intuitive to folks working with plants, who may spend more time with plants than with cyberspace--which, really you have to.

The underlying problem, though, is that both methods are offered, some people prefer one over the other and go in and simply change what others have done. KP Botany 21:01, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar Thank You!

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For helping out a hapless Wikipedian despite their experience editing. Thank You! Russia Moore 06:02, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

First World

You are correct, sources are essential. However I listed those nations as indisputable examples. Those are nations we don't urgently need to source as they are the least likely to be challenged. However, I fully support sourcing that article. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 07:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree, you have my full support, and I will now withdraw from commenting on that edit war except to comments addressed or intended for me. PS: PLEASE archive, I'm currently on dial-up and this page is a horror. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 07:52, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I will continue participating (after this tirade of accusations of racism is over, this is ridiculous). I have removed the examples. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 08:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't kill it exactly, it's just that it takes about 30 seconds to load which is inconvenient. :( I'm simply using dial-up until they fix my broadband (they've been saying they'll fix it soon™ ever since last september :( ) and it's killing me. +Hexagon1 ^(t) 08:24, 29 January 2007 (UTC)