User talk:Minderbinder~enwiki/Archive/Archive 1

Archived talk...back to User talk:Milo H Minderbinder

Note: since undated posts aren't automagickally bot archived, these may be out of order.

Hiya, thanks for your comment. I agree that a simple accusation of bad faith, when accompanied with examples, is not necessarily a personal attack. However, in that particular post, I saw no examples, and I would point out that Fenton has actually indicated his support of the Lostpedia article, so it made no sense to me to be attacking him for bad faith. In other words, he's agreeing with your side, why attack him? :) --Elonka 23:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Right, it's a very confusing discussion, I agree.  :/ Which is why I think it's even more important that civility guidelines be encouraged. I think that another concern that I had about the statement that I removed, was because it came from an anonymous editor, so it seemed particularly ironic that it was an accusation of bad faith. Also, in off-wiki discussions that I've been having about the matter, it seems that one reason that people are so against having a Lostpedia link, isn't just based on the notability of the site itself, but because they're just plain irritated with what they regard as rudeness from many of the self-admitted Lostpedia editors. :( As such, if you do have any pull with that community, it might be worth giving them the "Catch more flies with honey" speech. In fact, if some of them were to go in and remove anything that might be even remotely regarded as a personal attack or uncivil comment, you might see more of the "Delete" !votes switching. Civility is a big deal on Wikipedia.  :) --Elonka 23:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I saw your username and had to ask, being a fan of Heller's Catch-22: was Milo's middle initial H? --Badger151 16:52, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think so. --Iron Chef 19:27, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to let you know that I pointed the closing admin on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lostpedia (second nomination) to your comments calling the validity of that AfD and his judgement in closing it into question. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Classy move, Milo. Rather than debate the issue (which I agree would be pointless anyway), it's a great idea to try to stir up some more trouble for the opposition. Sorry to be rude, but as with at least one other Lostpedian, I'm no longer able to AGF, because of exactly such moves as this.

As for "subterfuge and misrepresentations", I totally stand by those characterizations, as applied to the whole prolonged, multi-pronged Lostpedian struggle to get a link to your site on Wikipedia. The specifics are all covered, in detail, in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lostpedia (second nomination), with all the related links to the Fansites discussion, the previous AfDs, etc. Review those, in detail, and you'll see all the evidence that I'm not going to bother to gather and bring to your attention again. See you around. -- PKtm 19:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bother with supplying pointless diffs, Milo, because I've already cited my evidence, and I'm tired of the Lostpedian filibustering that simply tries to wear people down. Not to mention putting words in their mouths, such as claiming misquoting on a verbatim quote (with the idea that repeating a falsehood enough times will convince people). As I said, see you around. This will be my last message to you. -- PKtm 22:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank Milo, I appreciate it (and I'm sure the others using the page do too!). I looked the conversation over and there isn't a clear place where I could "break" it to move the off-topic stuff without just confusing things more, so I've decided to just leave it as is. I hope that if anyone wants to continue it that they'll do so on one of your three Talk pages. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Yeah, it was a tyop. I've corrected it. >Radiant< 16:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I'd recommend using a signature that has your username instead of a completely different name, it's confusing and potentially misleading. For reference, you can see WP:USERNAME and WP:SIG"

I will go and reread those, and then make my decision. Thank you.

I'd also recommend using the "show preview" button before posting, I've noticed you often edit a page then immediately follow it with multiple fixes.

This is a matter of personal preference and habit, perhaps not the best habit, but nevertheless, they are my habits, and if I feel my methods are, in actuality, truely deterrent and detrimental to accomplishing a given goal, then I will rethink my ways; otherwise, I thank you for your opinions.

"it's recommended to leave others' comments on your talk page (or at least move them to an archive)."

They have been moved to an archive. You may see for yourself. SolelyFacts 17:52, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware of this, and that is how Wikipedia works. You don't see them because they are not there. Spam on my user talk page is not permitted. What do you want? Want to argue with me? Are you so bore that you will not do something productive; instead, you opt to hassle me about every little thing? You don't even have a user page. If you wish to continue talking about this and any other concerns you made have, you are welcome to do so. I am always open for productive communication. SolelyFacts 18:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is your reason for reverting? Please reply on Wikipedia talk:Notability (web)‎ so we can discuss. SolelyFacts 22:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I explained my revert in my edit summary. And please don't edit the header to this, you're not supposed to edit other people's comments on talk pages. Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:07, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say I am "not supposed to edit the header"? It may be suggested, a guideline, not rule. Please tell me where to look. SolelyFacts 23:16, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on my talk page. SolelyFacts 23:33, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I most definitely plan to continue with investigation. Though perhaps you could assist in this matter. For example, your first edit was on October 20, yet you exhibited great familiarity with Wikipedia procedures. Can you please explain? Also, though I did mean to bring up the question of your account being new (which it obviously is), it was probably an overstatement to use the term "highly uncivil," and I do apologize. Statements of yours which I did have concerns about were things like, "Put up or shut up" [1], or accusing another editor of "making up their own rules" [2]. I also was not happy with your accusation that good faith objections were merely "stalling" [3], or your reference to "weasel words." [4]. As for sockpuppetry accusations, I am still convinced that there is sockpuppetry in the discussion, and I am preparing a CheckUser request, but the first one will be on some other accounts, not yours, as I am still trying to do what I can to assume good faith. If you could please explain why you, as a new user, have such a sudden and strong interest in matters of Wikipedia policy, I would be very interested.

I hope that helps clarify things, --Elonka 21:54, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your polite and thorough reply, it does help to set my mind at ease (and is actually really refreshing!). Also, if I might make a suggestion, I would recommend creating a userpage when you have an opportunity? Having your name show up as a red link does have certain negative connotations within Wikipedia culture, but adding some info to your userpage, even if minor, will fix that right up. Thanks again, and if I have other concerns, I promise I will bring them up (and hope that you will do the same!), --Elonka 22:40, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Milo, your chronic incivility has actually gone way beyond a "put up or shut up". It includes the blatantly disrespectful "I'm glad you've finally admitted that you don't assume AGF, I haven't seen evidence that you ever have", directed at me. There are more that I could dig out, but I don't tend to feel much inclined to dialog with people who say things like that, because I've found that generally there's no convincing them anyway. -- PKtm 00:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have just filed a request for comments concerning Rrfayette (talk · contribs). Given that you were one of the editors most involved in the dispute surrounding WP:WEB, I would appreciate it if you could look at it and possibly comment on what is missing. Thanks. Pascal.Tesson 14:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good question but frankly I have no idea. I have never filed an RfC before and frankly I hope I never have to again! My uneducated guess is that it is probably ok for you (at least right now) to add more stuff directly, especially since no one has endorsed the RfC yet (which might mean that no one has read it). Once people start signing the statement it probably gets trickier. I have also contacted an admin (Cryptic) to know whether or not it is ok for me to alert other people of this RfC (currently, I only asked you and Cryptic to weigh in). Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 17:19, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting. I happen to agree with everything you say, and I invite you to change my essay accordingly if you so desire. It's a Wiki, after all. Mr Spunky Toffee 18:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm responding to your question on your user page, since I pledged to no longer discuss it on the LostNav talk page. I do not believe the link necessarily needs to be on the LostNav, but I think there should be a link somewhere, I don't care where. If I were writing the article, I would add it as an external link, under the subhead "notable fansites." Alternatively, given that there is a wikipedia article about Lostpedia (which I don't think there should be), I would put a link to that article under a "See Also" section. However, my understanding is that the Navbox is sort of a replacement for a "see also" section, hence my arguing for its inclusion there. Tulane97 13:58, 17 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

No but as the user insisted it was only fair I answered the question, wasn't it? Then again as you know, the slightest mention of Lostpedia on Wikipedia seems to bring certain people out in terrible panics. --Plkrtn 15:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

He was just helping me out, okay, Minderbinder? You don't need to worry about it. --SilvaStorm

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television), and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Wikipedia:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:17, 28 November 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks for removing the discussion under "According to my source and a close friend". That was the best way to the off-topic discussion. Primogen 19:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No it fucking wasn't and shouldn't have been removed. Stop encouraging mess.74.195.3.11 22:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted your changes. We don't achieve consensus this way on Wikipedia. - crz crztalk 17:25, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't go and change stuff. Solicit consensus, talk to people. You're being stubborn - that's why you've been reverted a few times already. - crz crztalk 17:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with your version. Please show me the old version you're referring to. - crz crztalk 17:37, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please hold off on AfD'ing List of Heroes. I'm currently discussing it with its creator and we may be able to merge the two without sending it to deletion. You can weigh in at User talk:LeafGreen Ranger. Thanks! Kafziel ^Talk 19:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, I'm replacing yours! We don't need that all repeated everywhere. It will just confuse everyone, trust me. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I sounded abrupt but I've done a lot of admin work at WP:RM. You'd be shocked how many people get confused at the simple procedure the way it is. If you start making Survey sections in more than one place, it will be total chaos.  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 21:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And yes, please do double check. I'd be surprised if I didn't mess up a copy/paste somewhere... Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television). For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

I believe that several of my comments have been taken out of context, or at least misunderstood. I never meant to imply a formal ruling on the validity of WP:TV-NAME, that's not my (nor MedCom's) place to do so. I understand that I said "does not reflect consensus", however I was not referring to the overall guideline, I was referring to the the recent batch of page moves, which obviously upset people. In addition, it occurred during an attempted mediation on the subject, which--whether they were with consensus or not--would obviously upset people involved, given the tensions on the subject. Finally, I did not say that all of the page moves should cease and desist permanently, I merely told Yaksha that she needed to stop because her actions were upsetting the potential mediation. I wasn't intending to offer a ruling on anything involved, I just told everyone involved that what was going on needed to stop, if mediation was to be successful. I feel this falls within my scope as a mediator.

Respectfully, ^demon^{[omg plz]} 20:52, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thank you for questioning it. It is important for the MedCom to remain neutral. ^demon^{[omg plz]} 21:47, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page needed to be moved, as the 'h' on 'head' is not capitalised. I tried to move it, but it didn't work. Doug has sorted it out now, though. --SilvaStorm

Yep, Doug Bell (talk · contribs) took care of it. By the way, Help:Moving a page does mention why cut-and-paste moves are a bad idea: it says, "you should never just move a page by cutting all the text out of one page, and pasting it into a new one; old revisions, notes, and attributions are much harder to keep track of if you do that." Looks like Doug explained that to Silva too. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:41, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you're going to be throwing around accusations of vote-stacking, please be sure to be consistent about it. [5] --Elonka 18:38, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did the people he contacted have an edit history such that they would all be expected to agree with him? And I'd like to point out the contrast in tone between his notice (looks to be the same in the places he posted it) [6] and yours [7]: "Attack on The Wire episodes - FYI, there's a group of editors that are working their way through Wikipedia, disrupting category after category of television episodes." That doesn't sound like a neutral "notification". --Milo H Minderbinder 19:00, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Milo, why don't you just submit it as evidence to ArbCom and let them sort it out? Trying to convince Elonka that she engaged in vote stacking seems pointless. –  Anþony  talk  21:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied to your concerns on my talk page. The Transhumanist (AWB) 18:27, 14 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Hiya, I'm actually having hopes that we're making progress in our discussion at the RfAr page, but I'm a bit concerned that that spot isn't really the proper place to be talking. As such, I invite you to a section I've set up at User talk:Elonka/NC summary#Milo H Minderbinder's comments, where we can talk one-on-one? --Elonka 21:34, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I often find that in a dispute, especially where there are multiple people involved in a public forum, that sometimes the best chance of de-escalation is to have some private one-on-one chats between the primary parties. Do you ever use an IM client? I'd welcome the opportunity to talk to you directly. --Elonka 21:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, to keep things on the record, how about we chat, and then post the transcript of the IM conversation? Or, we could meet in an IRC chat room? --Elonka 21:47, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duely noted :). JoshHolloway 14:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

Hi Milo,

I know we've had some disagreements in the past, but after reading some of the ongoing controversies you've gotten drawn into, I wanted to drop you a note to say how impressed I am with your quick-study on Wikipedia policy; and how you've been brave enough to jump into the fray of discussing such policy, even under (to put it mildly) stressful conditions. So kudos, Milo: here's hoping you stick 'round to help improve Wikipedia with your perspective.

Best, Leflyman^Talk 06:26, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome. On an unrelated note, I finally came across an old guideline which I think explains the past controversy we had over edits to an AfD discussion: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Maintenance. I think the guideline has been orphaned, or at least not been noticed in quite a while, and could do with some review/updating. (It still uses outdated terminology of "VfD", the prior name for "AfD".) --Leflyman^Talk 23:18, 25 December 2006 (UTC) [reply]

I saw an edit you made on the Desperate Housewives page asking why it said there were 24 episodes on season 2. I'm not the one who added that, but I do know the answer--the 2-hour season 2 finale was divided into 2 episodes on the DVD, so there were the 23 episodes plus that extra hour. And you asked if they announced how many season 3 episodes there will be. There will be 24 episodes total. Season 3 will also have a 2-hour season finale. Just thought I'd let ya know about that :-) Cheater1908 02:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

whats your problem? i have nothing to do with the 17 or 16 or whatever episodes you re talking about. and i dont get it whats the problem of stating that shannon's one of the central characters in the episode. spoiled brat probably...—Preceding unsigned comment added by Vozas (talk • contribs)

Feel free to place this award on your user page, as a token of appreciation for your contributions. If you're willing to help spread the good cheer to others, please see the project page for the Random Smiley Award at: User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward

User:Pedia-I/SmileyAward1

Hi, could I please ask you to kindly stay the hell out of my business on Lostpedia, and that includes not going around to see what pages I may have created or edits I may have done. Thank you. --SilvaStorm

No, I saw that, and am confused as to why some articles for episodes of other TV shows have (**** episode) in the parenthesis, when Lost just has (Lost). If you ask me, it looks bad, and needs to be more specific. --SilvaStorm

Well I'm not the only one - someone important - Elonka - also agrees with my moves, so you should talk to her about this as well. --SilvaStorm

I'm sure there are a lot of other users who would beg to differ. --SilvaStorm

...that you have an awesome username. That's really all. Thanks for your time. Axem Titanium 03:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I would just like to express my gratitude to you for being a level-headed and sensible individual. It seems that we have some childish and immature contributers amongst us, and I just felt the need to show you praise for being a calm and logical individual. You have certainly displayed a great level of common sense and have made it easier for me during our mutual discussions.  Anticrash  talk  23:18, 8 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Be a little more observant please. Actually work out what as been going on before you take the sanctimonious attitude. Michaelsanders 14:37, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then you clearly haven't followed what happened. If you had, you would know that I was trying to keep the correct spelling of 'defence', and Reaves and Han were trying to revert it to 'defense'. Take your whining to them, and stop annoying me by scolding me for something I quite obviously have not done. Michaelsanders 15:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(My two cents) -I wasn't trying to revert it, I did it once. I mistakenly reverted the spelling without looking (though an edit summary other than "Blind American Idiot" would have helped) and Han got caught up in it. This essentially stems from his lack of edit summaries (something like 30% for non-major edits last I checked). John Reaves 15:28, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"This policy does not apply to self-reverts, correcting simple vandalism, reverting the edits of a banned or blocked user, or other specific scenarios listed in the Exceptions section below". Repeated changes to an unacceptable spelling, despite warnings to the contrary, is, in my book, vandalism. Michaelsanders 15:38, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, we'll let the admins decide. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:39, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You do that. Just remember: 1)There is nothing at all in the 3RR policy regarding reversions to correct data 2)Editors are encouraged to remove false data. 3)Vandalism has to be removed. 4)I have been rude, and have apologised. You are being threatening, and have not apologised.

Have fun. Michaelsanders 15:47, 9 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Those were different reverts. The first two were to the previous version of 9/1. I then made a substantial rewrite of the article (which is not a revert). I reverted back to that 3 times. I have not exceeded 3RR. Michaelsanders 16:00, 11 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Wikipedia is a Catch-22 (We can do anything you can't stop us from doing). Yes, Milo I read too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.232.140.196 (talk) 21:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Dear Milo, Turn to God the Father and his Son Jesus Christ and stop the propogration of all of these wiki-lies!

A irrelevant comment.--St.daniel 02:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Your username renders the circular nature of the debate at Talk:Barrington Hall particuarly ironic, no? MastCell 19:49, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's certainly no shortage of irony there. --Milo H Minderbinder 19:52, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really would prefer not to have to make an ANI report about you, so I am going to ask you very plainly not to blank the section you keep blanking again. Even amongst those who "agree" with you, there was established consensus to leave the section with fact tags while the source was being discussed, and there is established consensus that one of the items is not disputed at all. Note also that J. Smith does not appear to dispute the validity of the source now (although I had to remove his comment). Escalating from fact tagging the section to deleting it during discussion appears especially unhelpful, I think. Deleting the whole section again without discussion after new information was provided appears equally unhelpful.-Cindery 20:30, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I advise you to read the WP:RS discussion about this, which links to the ANI discussion about this. At no time are you even permitted to speculate about whom I might be, or what relationship I have to a notable person. You can directly quote me, that's all.-Cindery 22:03, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cindery removed your comment from ANI citing BLP. I have reverted her but perhaps you might consider reviewing your comment in the light of her unhappiness. --Spartaz 22:05, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Milo, you need to write your comments sans speculation about who I am or whom I am "in contact" with--you may quote me, that is all. That means you probably need to read the discissions, if you want to use a quote. I think iwould also be helpful for you to discuss why you blanked the section after 1) there was agreement even among disputanst to leave it with fact tags 2) why you blanked it after J. Smith did not object to the identity verification of the source, which was the issue.-Cindery 22:18, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The administrators noticeboard is not the place to settle disputes. Please see resolving disputes for how to do that. However, there are merits to be found in the issues you have raised, and they will be taken under consideration. Steve block Talk 23:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm happy to keep an eye on things, but you really need to let this go now. Steve block Talk 23:08, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Some people make a specialty out of provoking others, as a means of thinning/distracting the opposing ranks in a content dispute. But it appears as if there's an admin on the case, and continuing the dispute is only going to drag you down to others' level. Easier to preach than practice, I know. MastCell 23:19, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you should consider filing an RFC on Cindery. I'm certainly open to co-signing. Steve block Talk 12:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ping, are you willing to co-sign an rfc? Steve block Talk 16:06, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I couldn't figure out how to start a discussion about an issue I had, but how is my community message board bad? I am not running it for commercial purposes. Its sole purpose is to start some community discussions in the area. I love to post messages on forums and I thought it would be a good idea for individual cities to have their own discussion group. I wasn't spamming, I was just trying to get my links out so that people knew about the site. My intentions are harmless; I just want people to be able to have discussions about their local community. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nuorder (talk • contribs) 15:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

So, there is no way I could add the link? I just want people to discuss the city. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nuorder (talk • contribs) 17:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Feel free to email me if you have any further difficulties with them. I would be happy to assist you. Regards, alphachimp 20:05, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:08, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have a new log-in and have been unblocked as long as I refrain from 'you know what.' I would appreciate if we could come to agreement on allowing some of the external links that I have placed in Arlington Heights, IL and Arlington High School (Arlington Heights, IL).

First of all: my 'spammy links' are not the only contributions that I have made to Wikipedia. I stopped using my original user name for a couple of good reasons. I contributed to those articles (2) under the former user name. Secondly, I hate spam, so when you accuse my links of being spam, lets just say you cause the release of a few catecholamines, dilate my pupils, increase my heart rate ... OK let's stop their before I get accused of 'you know what.'

Now let me ask you why you categorized my links as spam? The Wikipedia Spam (electronic) Article and Forum spam probably define the spam that you are trying to fight as follows: That would be entries that try to increase search engine visibility in highly competitive areas such as weightloss, pharmaceuticals, gambling, pornography, real estate or loans, and generating more traffic for these commercial websites.

[Arlingtoncards.com] is a website about Arlington Heights, Illinois as a community and about the closed high school formerly known as Arlington High School. There are affiliate and banner ads placed on some of these pages, but if you thoroughly look at the site you will notice that the high school content has minimal ad placement. There are ads on the site, I agree. That is how the expenses for the site are covered. Any reasonable person can view the site and see that it is not a spam site trying to promote viagra, diet pills, pharmaceuticals or gambling. Oh, but guess what? There is a horse race track in town, so I take that back there is a page on horse racing and gambling -- [Arlingtoncards.com/horseracing] and [Arlingtoncards.com/gambling]. FYI ... I never linked to those pages from Wikipedia.

We can put this to bed if you let me link to [Arlingtoncards.com] on Arlington Heights, IL and Arlington High School (Arlington Heights, IL). I think I am also justified by including a few deep links on the high school page related to homecoming and archives for the years that the high school was open. By the way, you eliminated the Arlingtoncards.com links on the Arlington High School (Arlington Heights, IL) article but you left the external link to [Illinois High School Glory Days ...]. Some of the content and all photos on his article on Arlington High School were given with permission from the Arlingtoncards.com site. He has an excellent website. Both [Illinois High School Glory Days ...] and [Arlingtoncards.com] have been positively reviewed in the Daily Herald.

Next time you start deleting links or taking any action, please think about my motto: 'Don't hurt innocent people.'

--T54 15:44, 27 January 2007 (UTC)T54[reply]

Why would you revert a link to an article that doesn't exist? It is common practice on wikipedia to link to articles that are likely to exist in the future. --Measure 23:29, 26 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Hi MHM -- I would like to continue the COI discussion. Do please respond on the talk page. Sdedeo (tips) 23:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Milo, I'd appreciate it if you just...trust me. Trust my judgement and don't systematically revert my edits because they don't meet some arbitrary criteria. Believe it or not, I'm generally just trying to help, and what I do "without reason" now, will always make sense in the end. That's it. No need to reply. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 00:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Hi Milo -- please let us drop the metaargument and continue the discussion of COI on the talk page. If you do not wish to discuss further, that is fine, but since you and I are the only people involved in this particular debate right now, I will edit if you do not continue to engage. Sdedeo (tips) 16:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Woops. Sorry, I was going to report him this morning but I asked him to stop on the talk page. I didn't notice you'd reported him already, hehe :) thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 16:56, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it best if I merged my comment into your 3RR report so there isn't a dupe, so I did it. thanks/Fenton, Matthew Lexic Dark 52278 Alpha 771 17:02, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That box you added at the top of the article is really a good idea. Hopefully people won't continue readd the information. I'm totally fed up with having to revert everytime. Wonder how I didn't think of something like that earlier. Cool! – PeaceNT 17:14, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I bet we still get people trying to add it again anyway. Hopefully it shouldn't have to stay up too long. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:17, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider going to the talk page as opposed to doing blind reverts that do not meet consensus. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:59, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• ...says the person responsible for most of the blind reverts. Very ironic. Anyway, Milo, the reason I'm on your talk page is that you asked about deleting that disputedtag tag (and its cousin, a disputedsection tag). I tend to agree with you in that they're mostly used for the now-well-known style of reasoning that "I don't like it, therefore there is a dispute". But it does have the occasional productive use, and it was on TFD in the past and got kept. Perhaps we should reword it, or make a clear statement when the tag is or is not appropriate? >Radiant< 15:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd totally be up for tweaking the tag or the information that goes along with it. I'll put both on my watchlists and take a look. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please explain the consensus you claim exists on the talk page to the revert you just made? Thanks. --badlydrawnjeff talk 14:27, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good morning. I agree that it would be nice to have been able to tag the copyvio content instead of merely blanking it. Unfortunately, the primary copyvio tag I usually use is {{copyvio}} which is specificially worded for the scenario where the copyvio is a direct copy of some other site. It doesn't apply to this situation (excessive use such that the content no longer qualifies under fair use) and I'm afraid that adding the tag would have created more confusion than clarity.

I do know of several templates that work for non-fair use for images but none for text. If you can point me to such a tag, I will gladly start using it.

And if you can't find an appropriate template either, maybe we should draft one. Thanks for your help. Rossami (talk) 15:43, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit, I'm not a copyright expert, which is why I'd try and get others involved. If long plot summaries are truly a copyright risk, it would make sense to have a new template to flag that. Otherwise, you could always solicit additional opinions at the copyright talk page, the WAF page or elsewhere. --Milo H Minderbinder 15:50, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, I was wondering why my minor editing for language didn't take, until I had the bright idea of checking the history of the 3rr page. Might I ask why you removed my edits to correct my own grammar, speling and emphasis?Arcayne 20:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's odd. I didn't do it on purpose, looks like an edit conflict but I'm not sure why it overwrote your version instead of telling me about the edit conflict. Sorry about that. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here ya go. That post and the one right below it.--Woohookitty^Woohoo! 16:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just protected the page. When I see people talking through edit summaries and not on the talk page, it's time to protect. Otherwise, what'll happen is that even if Ed gets blocked, the war will probably continue when he returns. Need to try to get everyone to agree. --Woohookitty^Woohoo! 16:21, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for looking at it. FYI, those warnings were from those filing the 3RR report, not a result of it. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:23, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't removed any images. ed g2s • talk 16:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's an example: [8]. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:50, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's a redlink - the image has been deleted, check the history before making assumptions of bad faith. ed g2s • talk 16:54, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At the time you removed it from the article (12:21, 28 January 2007), there was an image there, not a redlink. The image was deleted later: 22:03, 7 February 2007. Could you quit making accusations of bad faith, not checking the history (which you're guilty of yourself) and such, and please answer the question? Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome to remove all of the references to the AA-EVP, me and the book my wife and I wrote. I have every intention to do all I can to keep the facts correct for EVP. Wikipedia is a public forum, and as such, there is a clear obligation that its contents be as correct as possible. So far, there has not been much evidence that you all are able to do that without oversight from someone who know what EVP is. Tom Butler 00:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to try to start an Arbcom case--the POV pushing and edit warring at that article are insane, as well as the continued insistence of the COI editor. Have you prepared one before, or been involved in one?-MsHyde 02:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It might come to that, but I'd recommend giving it a little time. There have been admin reports for COI and 3RR so someone may step in. Looking at the sources, there may be a case made to just delete the article as not notable since there only seems to be one mention other than fringe sources. Let it play out for a couple days, step back and see if other editors step in. --Milo H Minderbinder 04:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Milo, in an earlier exchange we had on the COI Disscusion page you asked for an example of the COI circumstances I was talking about. The entire exchange is quoted below but immediately here was your question.

I'd be more concerned about the hypothetical "COI party puts crucial info on the talk page but nobody at AfD notices" situation with an example showing it exists.

I have an article in the AfD category. It is entitled Prometheus Process. It was created and worked on for about a month in good faith before the COI was raised. The COI is clear, acknowledged and I have not participated in the article since. During the initial COI/AfD round, I attempted to provide external references to show NPOV, verifiabilty, and notability. They essentially went ignored and un-acknowledged. In the second AfD round, I added information the the article talk page Talk:Prometheus Process to provide additional references about the article and its subject matter. It contains almost 60 independent links relative to the subject and also provides free access to other reference material.

Yet, this morning when I check out the status of the articles AfD page Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prometheus Process, the only new entries are recommended deletes, where the rationale is Its all about the Contributor, not the contribution. with no acknowledgement or explanation that the information on the article's talk page doesn't support NPOV, Verifiability and notability. Since I cannot participate in the AfD discussion, I have no way to draw attention to the material on the articles talk page. I could engage the other participants directly, but once they've made their vote, they can easily just ignore any of my comments.

COI and AfD Guidelines Do Not Provide Level Playing Field For NPOV Just looking at one pair of statements in the current WP:COI and WP:AFD guidelines show how COI can be used very effectively to suppress NPOV discussions of any article.

In WP:COI it says: avoid participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors

In WP:AFD it contains the statement: A five-day public debate and discussion on the merits of the article and its best treatment. Applicable to all articles where deletion is unsure, seriously contested, or may need debate, and all borderline or controversial cases.

One only needs to raise a COI issue, force the article into the deletion category and the current guidelines eliminates any contribution by interested parties. In fact, the phrase "articles related" is so vague that COI can be raised easily with little merit. Once raised however, getting the article into the deletion process is easier because the the contributor and other interested parties with real or percieved COIs have been eliminated from any debate. The phrase "public debate and discussion" and "seriously contested" in the AFD guidelines may sound collaborative, but are not given the COI guidelines because the COI guidelines eliminate some of those in the public who might want to discuss, debate and contest the merits and deletion with facts, references and clarifications. This effectively suppresses any real debate of the NPOV of the article.--Mike Cline 12:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

If an article goes to AfD, involved parties shouldn't participate in the AfD discussion, it doesn't mean they can't still make comments on the article talk page. If people are biased against a company, they're probably more likely to keep an article and leave in negative information about the company. Are you aware of any cases where articles were deleted purely based on POV? Whether an article exists certainly shouldn't be decided by editors with COI, as far as I'm concerned, that's potentially worse than editing an article. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:45, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Milo, my concern may actually be one of tactics, it is not that an involved party decides on the deletion, but merely contributes to the body of information used to evaluate the deletion decision. If indeed an involved party can freely, and without being labeled COI, identify all the relevant information neccessary to evaluate an article's notability, NPOV, etc. on article's discussion page before making recomendations to keep or delete the article AND those commenting on the AfD page have in good faith reviewed and continue to review all that relevant information on the discussion page, then "public debate and discussion on the merits of the article" has been allowed. However, should COI guidelines discourage even the hint of discussion by involved parties on the disscussion page or anywhere else for COI or any other reason and that deletion decision makers don't refer or review the articles discussion page during the deletion process, then the real public debate is stifled. It is really just too easy for someone involved in an AfD discussion to say "I can't find anything" relevant to this article, when they don't know where or how to look for it. They take one shot at it and that's it. The presence of a negative does not prove the positive. I hope you see my point.--Mike Cline 16:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC) I find it unlikely that in the case of an AfD, none of the editors participating, and no editor supporting keeping would either point to the talk page, or copy relevant information either into the article itself or the AfD discussion. This seems like a solution to a problem that doesn't exist - can you provide an example of this hypothetical problem actually happening? --Milo H Minderbinder 16:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Milo, I must admit that I do not, in the least, understand what you just said. 1) DO or DO NOT editors, mediators and senior contributors participating in an AfD discussion review and refer to information on the disscusion pages of the articles under consideration? 2) If they do, is it evaluated from an NPOV perspective regardless of who contributed it?--Mike Cline 16:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Editors should do both. And if relevant info is posted on the article talk page, I think it's likely that an "uninvolved" editor will either point it out on the AfD or copy it there (or put it in the article if it's appropriate). I'd be more concerned about the hypothetical "COI party puts crucial info on the talk page but nobody at AfD notices" situation with an example showing it exists. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC) Milo, thanks I appreaciate your thoughts on this.--Mike Cline 21:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I would appreaciate your thoughts on this. In good faith, all I desire is that the article's subject be included in Wikipedia because it can be written from an NPOV, it is notable and verifiable according to WP guidelines. If it is not, then I would like someone to point out why?

Thanks --Mike Cline 14:24, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was very surprised by your deletion vote on the Prometheus AfD page, especially the comment that most of the references were written by people who invented the term. Did you look at the references under the links section grouped under "Prometheus Process Related Case Studies". All that material is independent 3rd Party stuff, that I nor my company had any direct involvement in creating. Why are these types of references not suitable to show the notability of a widely used business process? I would think that independent articles partially crediting the award of the Baldridge National Quality Award to a specific Business Process would provide notability, but I may be wrong! Please address this for me.--Mike Cline 17:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reminder. I have not touched that article since yesterday and have no intention of getting into another pointless edit war with User:Hipocrite. Once consensus is established (if ever) we will work from there. Thanks again. Cheers. L0b0t 15:11, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears you're getting perilously close to RFA cliche #1 :) as such, perhaps you'd be interested in a nomination? >Radiant< 12:24, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cliché 1? What's that? And are you talking about RfA RFA? --Milo H Minderbinder 13:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Look it up in the WP:G. I was talking about WP:RFA. >Radiant< 13:46, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very flattered, I wouldn't think there'd be any risk of mistaking a newbie like me for an admin. The idea of trying to become an admin interests me, but I feel like I don't have enough time and experience under my belt yet, particularly with writing articles. If in a few months you still see me plugging away and feel the same way, feel free to ask me again at that point. Thanks for the offer, it means a lot to me. --Milo H Minderbinder 13:58, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Elonka

Comment from Elonka: Have you tried an actual RFC yet? If not, I highly recommend it as a way to bring in some fresh eyes. It would also be helpful to try and boil down the dispute into a single sentence/question, so that it's easier for outside people to comment. I have to admit that I spent about an hour reading the discussion, and I couldn't entirely tell where to weigh in, because the core issue was difficult to identify. For example, pick a specific change to the article that keeps getting reverted back and forth, cite both versions on the talkpage, and ask for community input on which version to use, or for help in coming up with a compromise version.

Thoughts? --- LuckyLouie 19:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Creating a workshop version is a consideration. IMO, the article as it stands is a vestige of the Tom Butler-designed rewrite that occurred a few months ago when WikiProject Paranormal took on the article as a "collaboration of the month" project. At that time, a decision was made to write the article from a scientifically credible POV, using AA-EVP sources as citations. IMO, it went downhill from there. You are correct in assuming that the article may stand for some time as it is, due to a consensus of pro-EVP editors. However at some point, fresh eyes will arrive, note the POV problems, and the battle will begin anew.

Are there other articles about controversial fringe-science-paranormal topics that we can look to as a guide? Specifically I was thinking of Dowsing. There may be others. --- LuckyLouie 20:11, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been looking at Bigfoot, Loch ness monster seems pretty good as well. Looking at the featured article list, the only one that comes close is Nostradamus. It uses phrases like "...his enthusiasts...credit him with predicting..." and prominiently mentions academic sources not supporting the idea that he had true predictions. I'm thinking the easiest way to start would maybe try and edit the intro so that it gives a better perspective - I tried moving the Status section into the intro but was reverted. A rewrite that includes that info would probably be better anyway. --Milo H Minderbinder 20:28, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been following progress on this article for a while. That said, I don't expect to resolve its problems in a week. Or a month. It's sort of a long-term proposition. Taking frequent breaks helps. :-) OK, let's look at your proposed intro:

• Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) is the phenomenon of anomalous voices said to be of paranormal origin heard on blank recording media or through electronic audio devices.
• While EVP has been studied, the publication of this research has been in journals specializing in the paranormal and other topics outside the mainstream. The concept has not been accepted by mainstream science. Critics say that what is percieved as EVP is radio interference or pareidolia (mistakenly perceiving random sounds as speech). Proponents say that EVP is due to paranormal factors such as psychokinesis or messages from spirits, extraterrestrials, or other dimensions.
• EVP has appeared in popular culture such as television reality shows, books, and fictional works.

Here I must represent the concerns of User:ScienceApologist who had very specific issues with the acceptance of EVP as a valid phenomenon. (He's on a Wikibreak, but he'll be back). If you look over the discussion from a few weeks ago, you'll see he has some very compelling arguments based on WP:FRINGE. Basically, what he was saying is that EVP is an "alleged" phenomenon. It is a "phenomenon" that is only recognized by its proponents. The vast majority of the scientific community do not recognize EVP as anything other than a belief. I tend to agree with that assessment. Therefore we must make it clear that it's an "alleged phenomenon that proponents say is X". So, a better opening might be:

*Electronic voice phenomena (EVP) is said by proponents to be anomalous voices of paranormal origin heard on blank recording media or through electronic audio devices.

--- LuckyLouie 22:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with that (although I'll bet that wording will have more opposition). Any other suggestions? --Milo H Minderbinder 22:35, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You asked me earlier for the email of another user and I couldn't answer your question. I have since discovered the "Email this user" feature on the left hand sidebar beneath the "search box". Basically you go to a users page and, if they have email enabled, click "email this user" and Voila. Hope this helps. --- LuckyLouie 21:06, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your note. I hadn't seen that and have now reverted my edited and chimed in a little bit on the page in question. (Proposal 4, I think, offers the best way forward.) semper fictilis 13:58, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes; and the edits were pretty minor with no change in meaning. But they ended up with a different current text than the one being discussed in the sandbox, which could become counter-productive. Anyway, all the best, semper fictilis 15:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

excuse me, could you just explain me why the hell don't you let people know that "hearts and minds" tells not only boone's but shannon's story? the truth is obviously stronger than a stupid consensus of three persons against one!! so stop ommiting information please! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vozas (talk • contribs) 19:21, 19 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Am I the first one to notice that your username is the same as a character in Catch 22? One of my top 10 books, by the way. Cla68 23:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're about the third...it's nice when people catch the reference instead of thinking it's "mindbender" or something like that. And yeah, great book. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:44, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I strongly considered using User:Hungry Joe before settling on my current username. MastCell 23:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think some of us choose the character from that book that we feel we identify with the most or that we find the most intresting or compelling. I identify most with Orr. I've had some interesting conversations on this topic with others in unexpected places. Once when I was walking down the street late one weekend night in Hachinohe, Japan about 11 years ago I started talking to a vendor from Israel selling jewelry on the street. Somehow the conversation drifted to Catch-22 and we discussed which character we most identified with. He said his was Milo. It was one of those random conversations with a stranger that stays in your memory. Cla68 03:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a friendly note about this entry, to say that if you really believe there is a COI there, then I would follow the WP:COI guideline on how to handle conflicts of interest. Anything else (such as the comments on Davkal's page, are borderline personal attacks, "Using someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views — regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme." It's much better to WP:AGF and avoid even the appearance of such an attack. Thanks! Dreadlocke ☥ 07:50, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have made no disparaging remarks or personal attacks, just pointed out the affilitation and potential COI that Tom has freely admitted to. I have also made no suggestions of dismissing or discrediting their views, simply pointed out that Tom's COI exists. --Milo H Minderbinder 12:24, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have reverted the article John Edward three times in the last twenty four hours, please don't revert it again (and please don't revert war in general), you may be blocked per WP:3RR. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I most certainly have not! My first edit of the tag was not a reversion, it was an edit. I have have reverted your edits twice. I suggest you take your own advice about 3RR. Don't leave any furhter bogus warnings on my talk page. Dreadlocke ☥ 16:56, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're attempting to add in the book cover edit, forget it - that's a single stand-alone reversion. Dreadlocke ☥ 16:58, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take it to an administrator then. In the meantime keep your false warnings off my talk page. Dreadlocke ☥ 17:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		I award you the Barns tar of Diligence for tireless pursuit of violations of Wikipedia policy. Including reporting those who violated the for theWP:3RR in the John Edward article. Wikidudeman (talk) 09:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		You deserve a Barnstar for your tireless attention and contributions to the Electronic voice phenomenon article. - LuckyLouie 17:35, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having a bit of trouble getting the Parapsychology article NPOV. Right now it's nothing more than a bias rant. Do you think you can spend some time helping me improve it? Wikidudeman ^(talk) 10:43, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look when I have a minute. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:57, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you're trying to do, but it's pretty pointless to delete almost the entire article to try to make it NPOV. Try something else. --Averross (u♠t♠c) 17:20, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got it now. Okay, go ahead. --Averross (u♠t♠c) 17:32, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All clear. --Averross (u♠t♠c) 17:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Rational Skepticism

This project seeks to help add neutrality and factual accuracy to all articles related to paranormal whatnot. Please join. Just add your name to the Project team.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 12:37, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you were correct about my having violated 3RR, according to some of the admins the first edit I made to remove the NPOV tag would have been a revert. Something I completely disagree with, but will abide by. So, I apologize to you for the comments I made and the attitude I displayed. Dreadlocke ☥ 16:56, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the apology. Maybe you missed it, but your removal of the tag wasn't taking it off after the mediation, but was reverting the re-addition of it (after someone else had already removed it per the mediation). Splitting hairs, I know, but still a revert of a fresh edit. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's splitting hairs a little too close for my comfort - and not something I would have done to another editor - but I must bow to the truth of the matter. Dreadlocke ☥ 20:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where does it say that you can edit my posts even if I change them after they've been responded to? Do not edit my posts ever again! Get an admin to do it, if you feel it's necessary. Dreadlocke ☥ 23:09, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't edit your post, I restored the original version since you edited it after it had been responded to. Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Own comments says not to do it: "It is best to avoid having to change one's comments. Other users may already have quoted you with a diff (see above) or have otherwise reacted to your statement. Therefore, use "Show preview" and think about how your statement may look to others before you save it. Changing or deleting comments after someone replied is likely to cause problems, because it will put the reply in a different context." --Minderbinder 23:12, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, please don't try to play these word games. You clearly and undeniably edited my post when you reverted it to an earlier version (what you call "restored"). You are not allowed to do that. If you read what you just quoted, it clearly says "best to avoid", not "never do it". These are the only conditions you can use to edit other's posts according to WP:TALK. None of my minor changes affected the meaning of my post or affected your response - and even if they did, you shouldn't be touching my posts. Don't do it again. Dreadlocke ☥ 23:14, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You violated WP policy, and I was merely correcting it. In the future, if you want to edit posts people have replied to, use strikethrough or one of the other options listed at WP:TALK If you have a problem with it, get an admin to take action. --Minderbinder 23:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, dude, WP:TALK is not a policy, it's a guideline. Policy is not editing other's posts, which you violated. I see you continue to believe you can edit my posts, I suggest you cut your losses and admit you did the wrong thing. Dreadlocke ☥ 23:27, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Policy is not editing other's posts" And which policy would that be? You're not thinking of the guideline WP:TALK, are you? I stand by my actions. --Minderbinder 23:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think there's another policy about editing another's posts. I'll look it up. You may stand by your actions, but that doesn't make them right. Dreadlocke ☥ 23:31, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Find it. --Minderbinder 23:34, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look around. But make no mistake, the real point here is that you don't have a policy or even wording in a guideline to back up your editing of my post (or restoring-whatever you want to call it.) Try not to lose sight of that. I'd say that editing another's post as you did is rude and breaches the policy on civility. But, the main point is - you done wrong. Dreadlocke ☥ 23:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You violated a WP guideline, I fixed it. Now find that "policy". --Minderbinder 23:48, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to bother with looking for a policy for you, hell it may not even exist - you may be right, I was just thinking of the same guideline. But, we'll let ANI sort out whether you "fixed" someting or committed a breach of a guideline yourself. You can't "fix" another editor's post like that. Dreadlocke ☥ 23:58, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It may not even exist. --Minderbinder 23:59, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Give me some time to read through the discussions.--Isotope23 01:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 12:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually think that Russell29 (talk · contribs) has a pretty good middle ground with this edit. Thoughts?--Isotope23 15:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like that edit as well. The sticky bit seems to be the infoboxes and tables where there isn't room/format to do a "sort of featured/flasbacked" compromise. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:12, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm not exactly sure how to address it there. IMO at least, it is a judgment call whether or not these were "Boone" or "Boone/Shannon" episodes, sans any sort of "official" word from ABC, etc. It's not clear cut. The only clear cut dual flashback was Rose/Bernard.--Isotope23 16:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a judgement call, isn't the solution just to go with consensus of editors? Looking at the discussion, do you feel there's consensus? --Milo H Minderbinder 16:36, 27 February 2007

I'd say go with WP:CONSENSUS. I reverted the episode change already as well as asked the editor to stop calling edits "minor" when they are not.--Isotope23 19:45, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming he keeps reverting this (he has been since November), is there anything that can be done to try to get him to stop, or is this just something that will get reverted indefinitely? --Milo H Minderbinder 19:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think marking them as "Boone" flashbacks featuring "Shannon" is the best solution. If the reverts continue without comment or an attempt to discuss on the talkpage, let me know. When you have one editor ignoring consensus it can start to wander into WP:TE territory. If I could offer any advice, I'd try an RfC or RfM to see if a WP:CONSENSUS can go on record. Like I said on the talkpage, what I don't want to see is a slow moving edit war where depending on what time of day someone looks at the article will determine which version they see. I've already been involved in that sort of thing elsewhere.--Isotope23 19:52, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've protected the articles for the time being, pending a discussion.--Isotope23 14:26, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:39, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I will handle it Isotope23 14:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

you don't have a word in this. you have as much consensus as me so leave me alone and find a solution

Lighten up dude. I'm trying to get him to work with you. In no way is that a personal attack. – Lantoka (talk) 19:01, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I think you misread my comment. I didn't say that you're unilaterally disrupting consensus, I said you think Dreadlock is. – Lantoka (talk) 20:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The WP policy is that blogs may be linked if they are written by a recognized authority. The 'official' status of my blog happened about a week ago, and there are plans for news of this to appear on the web but it may be another week or two before it happens. I won't be linking to my blog again, but if someone else were to be so inspired, they could certainly make the case that it should remain. Keep in mind that Public Parapsychology is not a personal blog, it was created to relay news in the field and be a resource to the general public.--Annalisa Ventola _{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:12, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, what the hell is your problem? This and this are not personal attacks, yet at the first sign of trouble you rush to the NPA template. Do you know how rude it is to keep accusing your fellow editors of personal attacks like this? I really suggest you re-read WP:NPA, since these two latest examples clearly don't qualify.

As you say, "comment on content, not contributors". Well, behavior is content... unless you'd like to argue it's a contributor. Behavior can and is discussed: by admins, by mediators, by ArbCom, by fellow users, even by posting that NPA template you keep leaving on people's talk pages. – Lantoka (talk) 17:05, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're entitled to your opinion. I'd suggest reading WP:CIVIL as well. My "zealous" action was simply to ask the two editors to cease their negative comments about other editors. We'll see if that happens - hopefully further action won't be required. And for the record "Dude, what the hell is your problem?" probably isn't the most civil comment either. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:14, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I highly doubt posting that template on established user's talk pages will do anything but exacerbate the situation. It's considered highly rude. I've seen admins remove the template when it's posted to their talk pages, for example. And it's just insulting when you use the template and what they've posted isn't even a personal attack. Seriously, read WP:NPA. And furthermore, I described your action as zealous because you have a history of (in my interpretation of the policy) incorrectly accusing people of personal attacks.

Trust me, I'm not the only one that's gonna be pissed over this. I'm just a spectator and it's making my blood boil. How do you think MartinPhi and Dreadlocke are gonna react when they see that? You would have been better off either ignoring the comments, or if that's not acceptable then responding directly on the talk page as you did to MartinPhi. – Lantoka (talk) 17:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm willing to ignore the an uncivil comment, but they continue to do so, even after the situation has moved on and there's no reason to discuss earlier edits. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:26, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I put up the U.S. cover, then it was gone, so i put it back up..then i kept doing that. The U.S. cover is so much better, though

• I know you don't like me, but please don't post unnecessary comments like this on my talk page. It does nothing to contribute to the discussion. -- SilvaStorm

The page didn't even have a discussion to decide whether it should be moved to the shorter title in the first place, so there is nothing wrong with moving it back. -- SilvaStorm

The current version of the lead came from discussion on the talk page, not mediation (and I never did see the second mediation, where is it?). And it certainly can be modified further. Editors just need to know that there have been long discussions about it, and that edits to the intro will be heavily scrutinized and probably edited or reverted if people don't agree - a change just needs editors to agree on it. In other words, it's like many other articles here on wikipedia. --Milo H Minderbinder 19:58, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I said. I included references to mediation to emphasize what a hotly debated topic that is. Hopefully it'll make somebody overly rash think twice before totally rewording our lead into something completely POV. And also, I didn't say that it can't be modified further, I just said it should be discussed on the talk page first. As for what mediation, well, Stevertigo kind of got pushed out in the middle and opted to stay out of things, but that doesn't mean that it didn't go through mediation. In fact the case is technically still open... I just posted about that though. – Lantoka (talk) 20:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know about the one mediation, where's the other one? --Milo H Minderbinder 20:02, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, you'd probably have to dig through the talk page archives. I know there's two because people kept bringing it up during this one though. – Lantoka (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd strongly suggest that when Vozas (talk · contribs) returns from his latest block you initiate an article WP:RFC and try to get some outside input from editors who are not normally contributors here to form a consensus. Out of courtesy I'd wait until he returns to editing so he has a chance to argue his side if he chooses to do so.--Isotope23 16:08, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the last paragraph on page 5 of "Failure to Replicate Electronic Voice Phenomenon" by Imants Baruss.

"For example, during the time of his burial service, at 1:22 p.m. on October 21, 1987, Friedrich Jürgenson’s image purportedly appeared on the blank screen of the television set deliberately tuned to a vacant channel in the home of Claude Thorlin, with whom Jürgenson had previously worked on EVP"

This directly supports the statement made.

perfectblue 19:57, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can tell you basically follow every edit I do on Wikipedia, so please answer me this: If you spent ages recreating a template from scratch to fit Wikipedia, do you think you'd like other users to come along and nom it for deletion for useless reasons, such as claiming its broken (when it's not) or saying it is copied from Lostpedia. Sure I used the Lostpedia template as a guide, but I had to change things to make it fit in here. And what makes it worse is that the guy who nominated it - who doesn't even have an account - made it temporarily mucked up in the first place. It is a perfectly working and handy template that should be allowed to stay, and is made easier by the fact that it is "ep" and not "Lostep" which takes longer to write. I would've thought you'd agree with me, but I see I cannot win, so it is most likely going to be deleted. Thanks a lot. -- SilvaStorm

I didn't nominate it, and I didn't claim it's broken. If you're going to introduce a major change that could potentially affect dozens of pages, I'd suggest discussing it first instead of "EPISODE TITLE TEMPLATES MUST STAY!" --Milo H Minderbinder 12:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've been pretty helpful in the past, so could you help me out? Just a simple thing...

An article that I'm trying to improve is constantly being vandalized. Specifically people keep removing a picture from it for baseless personal reasons. The article is Bodybuilding and the image is the 1st one listed in "Areas of Bodybuilding" with the caption "Natural bodybuilder posing." The image isn't the best image in the world but it's the best FREE image I have that fits the description listed. So can you keep an eye on it for me? I have a feeling it will be removed from new users pretty frequently and I can't watch it 24/7. So if you see that it's been removed can you add it back as it was? Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 05:35, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the edits and comments are mine, but some are not. I don't have the time to pick through them right now. A general glance through the edits and comments do not seem to indicate anything particularly problematic about the IP comments even when they are not mine. So I will take ownership for all the edits even though they aren't mine just to make things easier. --ScienceApologist 19:28, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Michael, I just wanted to let you know I've filed Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Martinphi. Sorry I didn't get it in quick enough to help your 3RR situation. --Milo H Minderbinder 14:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. You might want to file a CheckUser request too. But I am still confused as to why User:Stifle thought I had violated 3RR. Michaelbusch 16:13, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to jump in; I've been following the EVP talk page from time to time, ever since I noticed a certain MsHyde there. The likelihood that Myriam Tobias is a sockpuppet of Martinphi is very high, based on, among other things, the timing of their edits (often edit in the same general time frame but don't overlap at all). If you have the diffs to indicate that the account was used to violate WP:3RR, which it appears you do, I'd second the suggestion that you go right to a checkuser request. MastCell 16:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the suggestion, I've filed the request. --Milo H Minderbinder 16:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to double-check the diffs you've cited at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Martinphi; a few don't match the date/time stamp you've listed. Might be worth just cut-and-pasting the relevant 4 diffs to WP:RFCU to make it easier on the checkuser. OK, I'll stop bugging you now. MastCell 16:58, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not bugging at all, thanks for catching those. I've added diffs to RFCU and fixed those in the sockpuppet case. I'll double check them again, but if you find any more mistakes on either page please let me know. Thanks. --Milo H Minderbinder 17:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The same verbiage appears on Wikipedia:Community noticeboard/Header, and WP:BAN. >Radiant< 13:41, 15 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I have taken it to CfD. — BillC ^talk 20:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good call. --Minderbinder 20:57, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are you the one responsible for the change to "Purported psychics" and "Purported spiritual mediums"? If so, would you please tell me the steps to request that it be changed back? The word "Purported" is not neutral, in my opinion. I should have been allowed to participate in the original discussion, but no one told me about it.--Caleb Murdock 12:44, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What's the point of having a discussion about changing a category name if almost no one knows about the discussion?--Caleb Murdock 01:26, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My initial impression is that a mediator who will have to bring in 3rd parties to help him interpret physical science concepts is not desirable in this particular case. --- LuckyLouie 23:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, you're becoming a regular at WP:RFCU! 2 for 2, not bad. It's a sad statement on the state of affairs at EVP, though - I thought maybe after MsHyde/Cindery's unceremonious exit, things might improve. MastCell ^Talk 03:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Can I help at EVP? (So you know ahead of time, I think the whole notion's thoroughly debunked codswallop) Cheers. Gwen Gale 19:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I don't see how you can take that stuff out: while you can read about the reactions of all those people in the forums it should be quite clear that all of the complaints of the fans were based on information from specific TAPS para-radio shows. How can you say that a show is not a valid or encyclopedic source? --Ira-welkin 14:59, 20 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

We were both attempting the same thing on this article and our edits clashed, with the result that I probably rolled back an edit you intended to make. You might want to check the article again. — BillC ^talk 16:54, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks fine to me. Thanks for letting me know. --Minderbinder 17:52, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One real example is Electronic voice phenomenon, where they have insisted that the "scientific consensus" should only include EVP experts, and thus should be presented as the mainstream view (including listing fringe theories first and in more detail). They have insisted on including details of some experiments that were self published or released via press conference because they are "historical". They have insisted on presenting details of an experiment as fact even when it hasn't been reproduced or had third party verification of methods or equipment. They have insisted on listing credentials that are either unsourced or sourced to questionable fringe publications. They have insisted on removing terms like "alleged", "purported", "said to be" etc in favor of phrasing that flat out says that unproven concepts actually exist. It has been argued that an article on a given topic should have all info that we can find, regardless of reliability because "that's what the reader wants" or "it's interesting".

Wow. I couldn't have described it better. --- LuckyLouie 22:07, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that you edited List of The Wire episodes within the last few months I wonder if you have an opinion about the use of screenshots in this article and would welcome your opinion here if you have time.--Opark 77 22:47, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

This topic is getting really fucking boring, and the cabal of Dreadlocke and Martinphi are over there revert warring just now, I have spent 3 reverts over there but they are still at it....sad eh? Belbo Casaubon 21:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While the topic is getting boring, that's no reason to make personal attacks. What's up with that comment you left? --Minderbinder 13:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed your comment on the Trumpet article questioning whether Malcolm McNab is "truly among the great modern trumpet players" and I thought I'd comment. It's a fair question since McNab has labored for most of his professional career in relative obscurity, showing flashes of brilliance only through the haze of studio orchestral soundtracks. If this was as far as he went I would not have added his name to the article. However, all that changed last November upon the release of his Exquisite album. I have studied trumpet for many years and I have never (repeat) never heard better classical trumpet playing. Most of the artists mentioned in the article are of the jazz genre. Although I have listened to my share of Bill Chase, Maynard Ferguson and many others, comparing the range and technique of these artists to a classical master like McNab is a bit like trying to compare a Picasso to a Rembrandt. Both are brilliant, but each in its own way. Whether you are yourself a trumpet player, or even just interested in uncovering a true gem for your own edification, I highly recommend that you acquire a copy of McNab's Exquisite. If you do, I believe that you will agree with me that McNab is one of the great trumpet players of our time, and perhaps one of the greatest of all time.

This is the first comment I have ever posted. Please excuse any unintended breaches in protocol.

Rwl10267 01:53, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info. And you've got the commenting thing down, header, signed your post, no problems. --Minderbinder 11:58, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're up for another round of "I like polls so we may not recommend against them" on WP:PNSD. Please comment. >Radiant< 12:12, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it, materialization was studied by the SPR and such folks during the spirit medium days (mediums manifesting ectoplasm, etc.). Also I believe Uri Geller claimed to manifest stuff, and he was/is studied by Parapsy. If you think this subject should rightly belong in the parody section, let me know. I see WP has an article called Materialization which someone has plastered the term Parapsychology all over. LuckyLouie 15:24, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm puzzled by our mediator's lack of involvement. Could it be he's waiting for you to complete your "statement"? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2007-03-13_Electronic_Voice_Phenomenon#State_your_position) --- LuckyLouie 19:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thnks for your welcome..I notice you are sceptical of the other side, why is that?? Crystal Healer 22:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Here's a thought... there was an anti-voting essay (Voting Is Evil) but that had to be placed on meta; yet there's (of course) also a pro-voting essay on meta, and yet people insist on having two of those on enwiki as well. That's rather weird, wouldn't you say? >Radiant< 14:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I guess this was bound to happen eventually, but I went ahead and initiated the WP:RFC on Martinphi. I thought you should know since you mentioned an RFC earlier. It's accessible at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Martinphi. Feel free to make expansions, corrections, or improvements wherever you see fit. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 01:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's interesting to see how the RFC draws people out into the open. What's alarming and sad is to see how Martin's compatriots see nothing wrong with his behavior, and some of them may be even more deserving of RFCs. Their statements in this RFC will make half the case against them. The other half is already history! -- Fyslee/talk 15:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice comments Fyslee, just file RfCs on everybody. Anyway, I actually came in here to thank you Mindbinder for altering your certification and endorsing MastCell's take on tweaking the requested outcome. The alterations make the RfC a lot more reasonable and though your position is very clearly stated, you're not being a jerk about it. Thanks.

--Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 18:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey there, could you put in a request to have the LostNav template unlocked? I want to myself but I'm unsure how to go about this. It'll be good to finally get this issue sorted! Tphi 23:24, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please leave the redirect in place. Thank you. J. D. Redding 15:25, 7 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Would you care to set up an e-mail account with Wikipedia? I'd like to discuss the forthcoming RfArb. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 18:44, 10 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Please do not revert my edits again. It is common practice to have quotation marks around the name of an episode (see WP:MOS#Quotation marks). You also restored the upper case letters at the start of every word in the title ("Lost Season One", for example), when the gramatically correct way to refer to this would be "Lost season one" - with italics, which you have also removed. Finally, you also removed the {{tl:nowrap}} templates from certain titles. Please do not do this again. -Trampikey^{(talk)(contribs)} 14:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But the other side of the argument has made it clear, no ifs ands or buts, if it's unsourced, it must go. Not it can, but it must. I was just bringing the policy in line with what they're saying *shrugs* SirFozzie 22:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you looked at all Burntsauce's contributions, that's basically his thing. Going around, removing e erything that doesn't have a <ref> after it. Was just frustrating, and not that he was just targeting PW articles either (I'm only pulled in because of the similarity Burnt had to another (banned) user. SirFozzie 23:23, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Template:pnc for the discussion, which will certainly spill over into larger issues. Your thoughts would be appreciated. --Kevin Murray 23:21, 16 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Hi Minderbinder,

I am new to posting on wikipedia, and you recently deleted all of my links that I have added. I have read the links you posted in my talk section, and appreciate your concern and commitment to keeping the external links on wikipedia relevant and non-commercial. I support you in that effort.

However, you mistakely assumed I am associated commericially with OurStory, which I am not. Additionally, none of the links I posted attempt to earn me any money. The timelines I manage are freely open to the public to browse and reference.

I am a biographer by hobby, and am using the OurStory service beacuse I like the timeline they provide. It is a service that I couldn't find else where on the web, and as a history buff and biographer, I think it is valuable. I run a number of profiles on their service, which are told collaboratively with other people on the site, and I particpate in other people's biographical projects.

I do respect the fact that external links should provide information that positively adds to the discussion, or provides valuable information that is not already in the entry. And I understand that in some cases the information on my timeline projects does this and sometimes it does not. So, in respecting this, I will only add my links back to entries where I think my timeline provides valuable (or missing) information on that subject, for the wikipedia user. You can see my comments on those individual discussion pages.

But, as a final thought, I hope that you can appreciate that, in and of itself, a biographical (graphical) timeline is a useful external reference tool. It is something I have been looking for for a long time. For example, when I created my biography on Barack Obama, in my research I could not find a biographical web source that provided dates for important events that make up his life (including the wikipedia entry, offical Illinois sentate, or US Sentate biographies, or even his current campaign page). There was nowhere I could go to get a sense of the major events in his life, without reading 3 pages of text. So, in a case like that, I think the timeline is an external reference that is contributing to the entry.

If you think it is best, I can alter the way I leave links, so that it does not say Our Story in it. I just followed the example that is widely used on wikipedia for external links to IMDB.

If you would like to further the general discussion, please post on my Talk page again. And, please engage me on the discussion page for the individual entries where I am adding the links back. If you plan on re-deleting them, please review the timeline first, and provide a reason why you feel it is not worthy of being listed.

Thank you! Biographyfan 23:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll leave it as is; but I think Radin's world wide blog with its condemnation and cognitive distortions about the Wikipedia is notable. Especially to the readers of the Wikipedia who want to know about him. It gives a direct indication of how clearly Radin, a four time president of the Parapsychological Association, reasons. (I could be wrong, but I think he had more than just a bad day.) Being the contemporary star of parapsychology, all of Radin's reasoning powers that are directed toward research are worth noting. Whatever. User:Kazuba 18 Apr 2007

I think it does illustrate the guy's point of view (and in this case is an example of emotion over rationality), but it doesn't really fit in the article and seems overly wikipedia-centric. Tons of people write blog posts about wikipedia, but when someone comes to a WP article about a person, they're interested in info about the person, not info about how that person has whined about wikipedia. --Minderbinder 16:39, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted to let you know, a case has been requested at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Paranormal. Feel free to add yourself as an involved party, otherwise participate, or follow along if you're interested in it. --Minderbinder 14:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notification. --Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 15:01, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the alert; I added myself as an involved party. Sorry for not being too active on this in the past week. I've had a brief crunch time in my coursework and also took a semi-break from dealing with Martinphi's pontificating and Davkal's belligerence. Simões (^talk/_contribs) 15:06, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know, only... how do I contribute?

perfectblue 16:23, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Jumping in, since I'm here already) You can go to the WP:RfArb page, scroll down to the "Paranormal" section, and you'll see "statements" from other editors. You can edit it to add a section with your name and your statement. These statements aren't intended to be comprehensive presentations, but are meant to help the Arbitrators decide whether to take the case or not (if they accept the case, there will be an opportunity later to present a more detailed statement of evidence). There's some guidance at the top of the WP:RfArb page on how to craft your initial statement. MastCell ^Talk 19:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hope you don't mind - I jumped in with a brief statement at the RfArb request. I hope ArbCom agrees to take the case, as I don't see any other viable method of moving forward at this point. Unfortunate. MastCell ^Talk 19:32, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any outside input is appreciated. Thanks. --Minderbinder 19:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with that - while I have disagreed with you, I think you do a very good job of being fair and neutral, regardless of whatever personal beliefs and biases you happen to have. As a procedural note, the inital Arb discussion is just material to help the committee decide if they want to take the case or not. If they take it, then there will be more discussion on a different page that goes into much more detail with diffs and discussion of individual editors. Just to be clear, I certainly don't consider you one of the editors engaging in the POV pushing I spelled out. --Minderbinder 19:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Nealparr ^{(yell at me|for what i've done)} 20:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, did you decide your old username was too long, or did Joseph Heller's estate threaten legal action? Just curious why you decided to shorten it. MastCell ^Talk 21:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been using minderbinder for years various places, and when I first signed up here it wasn't available. Once WP started the WP:USURP policy I asked for the switch mostly for consistency with other sites. I doubt the Heller folks would care. --Minderbinder 21:55, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At your suggestion, I looked at this case. Since I'm just coming back from a four-day break, I'll need a bit to decide if I want to become involved in it. I do want to see the outcome.

I did have one comment on the case. Just before I went on break, I was involved in an editing dispute on Topics in ufology with User:Nima Baghaei. Nima's edits show a pattern somewhat similar to Martinphi's. I admit to a certain level of personal involvement, in that Nima has been classing areas of legitimate astronomy and physics research in the same category as such bollocks as Extraterrestrial energyzoa theory.

• Extraterrestrial energyzoa theory - i was cleaning up and subcategorizing the ufo articles and I saw this one so i subcategorized it, i do my best to make thing easier for people to acccess and I even tried my best to improve the quality of the article hoping it could be given a chance (given how open wikipedia is, others should also be allowed to add publications if they find any on the paranormal subject) (:O) -Nima Baghaei ^{talk · cont · email} 03:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be reasonable to include Nima on the list of involved editors? Michaelbusch 02:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If Nima is included, perhaps I should be too. But there I am also uncertain. Michaelbusch 02:57, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've listed myself as 'occasionally involved'. Re. Nima, the 3RR violations alone are enough for a block. Michaelbusch 16:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Add me to the list of involved parties to the Paranormal arbitration. Thanks.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia:Community_sanction_noticeboard#Tendentious_editing_by_User:Netscott. >Radiant< 16:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take a look. --Minderbinder 16:21, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that you should include more information on the policies Martinphi has violated on your Arbcom statement as you did in his request for comment. I think the people reviewing the Arbcom request should see how many rules he's actually broken including creating a 'meat puppet'. I also think you should link to Talk:Parapsychology to mention what has been said there as well.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 08:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those are both good ideas, but should wait until the case actually opens and an "evidence" page is created. It looks like ArbCom is going to take the case, so the evidence pages (where the case will actually be argued) should be up within a few days. MastCell ^Talk 17:51, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

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

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 01:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Do you plan on adding evidence? It can be done here Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal/Evidence. You probably are already planning to do so, I just wanted to make sure you knew. I added some evidence concerning parapsychology etc. You could add evidence previously mentioned in your statement as well as evidence against Martinphi(similar to his request for comment), Davkal, Tom Butler as well as other problematic editors. I just wanted to mention this to cover all bases in case you didn't notice the evidence page, which you probably did. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 02:30, 24 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

		The Original Barnstar
		I am awarding you this barn star for your work in helping to improve the neutrality of Wikipedia. Wikidudeman (talk) 14:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just looked in on WP:AN3RR and was closing up cases there. It looks like your report went stale. Sorry about that. Let me know if the revert war is ongoing; if you have a more recent 3RR report and no one is touching it, bring it to my talk page. ··coelacan 05:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Time for a checkuser? [9] - LuckyLouie 19:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:27, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's possible but it's possible it's just a newbie who jumped in and made some tasteless edits, if you guys want, request a checkuser. --Minderbinder 22:19, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I doubt it's not a sockpuppet. Look at the user contributions. Do you think a checkuser would accomplish anything?Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously a Straw-man sock puppet. The user makes pointedly bigoted statements on his User page and claims to be an activist on WP -- with an account created 3 days ago. - LuckyLouie 22:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If it is a sockpuppet, a checkuser may show that it's the same user, but if they're using a different machine, it may not show up. Proving a sockpuppet would block the account and would certainly serve as more evidence for arbcom, but if it isn't (or even if it is but can't be proven) there could be some heat over false accusations (counter accusations of bad faith and such). You'll want to have a good idea who's behind it since they can only run a check against specific accounts - it's possible it is a sock but it won't check out if a hunch is wrong and you check against the wrong account. --Minderbinder 22:35, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If we try a "check user" it might be interpreted as "fishing" and rejected. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 22:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting relationship between User:Chemist3456 and User:66.183.94.108 seen at Chemist3456's very first edit on WP. User:66.183.94.108 never appears again after the User:Chemist3456 account is created 32 minutes later. - LuckyLouie 23:17, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that as well. Probably the same person. This was that IP's first edit [[10]]

Then it was later reverted by User:Chemist3456. I have a feeling that Chemist will keep a low profile if indeed it is a sock puppet or meat puppet or whatever else. I doubt it will make any more telling edits in the future. You could still request a User check because as Minder mentioned it might help in this Arbcom if it is indeed someone part of the Arbcom. I'd support you in it.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 00:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how checkuser works, but is it possible to run IP checks against all the parties (including myself) who have posted to the arbitration? Then "bad faith" isn't implied against any one person or one side. It's not bad faith to suspect a brand-new user who jumps directly into an ongoing abritration with over-the-top, bigoted statements and disruptive behavior. The launching of a Straw-man sock puppet is certainly a sign of desperation, and I have a feeling whoever is behind it will eventually create the cause of their own undoing. - LuckyLouie 02:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A check user against people you suspect would be best. They might not label it fishing.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Understood. - LuckyLouie 06:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks on reverting vulgar vandalism on parapsychology! Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 00:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

I believe you should include User:Dreadlocke into your arbitration. He has a long history of edits that meet the criteria that you're critiquing as per Martinphi. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:28, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto. If anything, Dreadlocke is worse. Bubba73 (talk), 19:50, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean here "If that's not a perfect example of OR and why we don't allow it, I don't know what is." The UFO has been identified as having been Venus. Bubba73 (talk), 19:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for clearing that up on the other page. Since your comment was right below mine, I thought you were talking about the UFO actually being Venus (which comes from reliable sources). Bubba73 (talk), 23:27, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to take a look at what is going on at Help:Creating policy. Two editors are trying to eliminate this. Radiant is trying to demote it to a help page. I don't fully support the content, but without some guideline on creating guidelines, it will be a free-for-all. --Kevin Murray 17:05, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I haven't seen your comments on the talk page at all. Your edit summary also does not seem to indicate that you have read the talk page, afaict. Generally we advise people to discuss things on the talk page, and also to read the talk page before reversing good faith edits. In many cases, good faith edits will have good faith explanations on the talk page. That's what the talk page is for. So use the talk page. Thank you.

To summarize the talk page content briefly: As far as we can tell, this particular page has failed/been overwhelmingly rejected in the field.

We held a discussion in advance. After a while there was little further input, and we updated the status of the page. And that's all there is to it.

Would you care to revert yourself, and check talk page discussion first? Thank you in advance. --Kim Bruning 23:37, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith. I have read the talk page, and I don't agree with your good faith explanations. --Minderbinder 23:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, we're talking, that's a show of good faith! :-)

I haven't actually seen you explain your precise position, or the arguments in its favor anywhere. So it's very hard to take your position into account when forming consensus, and we certainly would like to hear your opinion. Would you care to correct that situation? Thanks you! :-) --Kim Bruning 00:13, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I put the disputed tag at the page in hopes of compromising away from the edit war of yesterday over whether this is rejected. I sure don't see any consensus supporting an assuption of rejection. I would say that there is enough objection to describe it as disputed. --Kevin Murray 22:45, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you are adding an image back to the article Lost. While there is a fair use rationale that claims this is a fair use, you might consider moving this one image to the top, before the list itself, along with some commentary. It seems out of place having it beside one episode in the list. And several other admins insist that commentary must accompany any fair use image.

If you continue to add the image without discussion, the most likely result is that the article will get protected from editing - this is what was done with other lists of episodes when the images were reinserted. CMummert · talk 22:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you're a "vandal". Matthew 23:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did label that edit vandalism, because it is. This has been going on for a while, and if you cant wrap your head around the fact that fair use images are not allowed in LOE's, then you really should cease editing the wiki while you acquire the proper schooling needed for reading comprehension. No, thats not a personal attack, it's a suggestion for further education, which we should all be thinking about, really. Education improves lives.

Dont add the images back, read WP:NONFREE and dont make pointless comments on my talkpage. -M^ask? 23:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really (@ mask), don't tell people to go to school when you can not construct your own message properly (addendum: I don't care if mine has errors). Matthew 23:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Where in WP:VANDAL does it say that restoring an image that arguably is justified by wikipedia policy is vandalism?

Where in WP:NONFREE does it say that fair use images are not allowed in LOE's?

Thanks for the education. --Minderbinder 23:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you are upset at the fact that ed g2s got unblocked. Several other admins supported the block, and I would have supported it. But once someone is unblocked, it is rare to block them again for the same actions. Next time, instead of going to 3RR for things that may not be clear-cut, you should go to WP:ANI. You'll get a more nuanced opinion there. You need to be deliberate and sober in wording your complaint, because many frivolous complaints are made.

Meanwhile, I have been discussing the Lost episodes page with ed g2s. His concern is that the image needs to be actually discussed in the article, and I believe that concern is supported by consensus. I am urging both of you to find some compromise on the matter. I'm going to unprotect the page. If (when) you add the image again, please make sure there is text in the article that directly refers to the image. CMummert · talk 14:02, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. I have made a report at WP:AN, and there's a fair amount of discussion already. I'm also trying to get clarification on whether there's a blanket prohibition on any nonfree images in lists. I don't believe any policy forbids it, but some editors continue to insist that they aren't allowed. I'd just like to see a decision on how nonfree content is to be used that's based in consensus, and I'd like to see the abuse of admin powers stop. If there are policy violations (which I feel is arguable at this point, and not clear cut), they should be dealt with without resorting to violations of wikipedia policies. --Minderbinder 14:13, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to send you an email but your Wikipedia email is not enabled. JoshuaZ 17:05, 11 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Hello there! Seeing as you edit a lot of Lost pages, I was wondering if you would support or comment on my nomiation for Paulo (Lost). Thanks, thedemonhog talk • edits • count 17:22, 19 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Kim, Radiant, and Tony are trying to deprecate this guideline again. --Kevin Murray 14:16, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey. You've been pretty helpful in the past and I need your help once more. Can you keep an eye on the Bodybuilding article? Someone keeps removing an image from the article which has been justified for being there. Their reasoning is baseless and personal and I don't want to break any 3rr rules. I justified it's existence on the talk page many times and it's the only copyright free viable and quality image that exists at present. Can you restore the image and revert their edits? Thanks.Wikidudeman ^(talk) 03:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

You're back -- after a long absence... Have you been following events? ScienceApologist has left, and Martinphi has, well, see for yourself. Regards, — BillC ^talk 23:24, 23 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've just seen a little bit. Hopefully there's much more to come in the arbitration decision, I see little so far that will make a difference in solving the ongoing problems. --Minderbinder 12:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Minderbinder, I urge you to remind the arbitrators of the entire point of the arbitration including your evidence against MartinPhi as well as other's evidence against TomButler and Davkal. I've been reminding all of them but I'm getting little to no response. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 14:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to see you're back. In the interest of courtesy, I should let you know that I mentioned your name here (I hate it when people bring me up in discussions but don't notify me; I didn't leave a note at the time as you appeared to be on break). I'm glad you've returned. I do think the ArbCom case is likely to close without clearly calling out Martin for his disruptive behavior, despite ample documentation of it. I think he has already interpreted this as a vindication of his editing tactics. I did note something to this effect on the Proposed Decision talk page, but my experience is that it is unlikely to make a difference. MastCell ^Talk 20:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For the record: The ArbCom decision is not a vindication of my editing tactics. It is a thorough vindication of my understanding of NPOV. If you still believe your statement "I see little so far that will make a difference in solving the ongoing problems," then I find little hope that your POV-pushing will subside, now that ArbCom has clarified the rules relative to paranormal articles. However, I ask that you re-consider your editing behavior and the editing philosophy behind it. Martin^phi _{(Talk Ψ Contribs)} 03:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is the new draft at Wikipedia_talk:Neutral_point_of_view#A_simple_formulation OK with you? Do you have any comments or suggestions? Tim Vickers 19:31, 27 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Hey Minderbinder, I just nominated List of Lost episodes for Featured List status again and was hoping you could support or comment on the nomination at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Lost episodes. Thanks. -- Wikipedical 07:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, I noticed that you were a frequent editor of the Parapsychology article. The article has gone through a lot of work and improvements and has recently been promoted to Good Article and is currently being nominated for Featured Article. If you believe it's Featured Article material then please go here Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Parapsychology and show your support or add input for improvements that can quickly be made. Thanks. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 06:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

The above titled Arbitration Case has closed and the decision has been published at the linked location. Dradin (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and any other editor who is involved professionally or avocationally in the paranormal is cautioned regarding aggressive editing of articles which relate to the particular subjects they are involved with. Kazuba (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is cautioned to extend good faith to Dradin if he edits and to avoid including disparaging material about Dean Radin on his user page. For the Arbitration Committee, Thatcher131 03:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Your input would be appreciated: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Martinphi ScienceApologist 21:37, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let me first of all make clear that I derive no benefit from promoting homeopathy. I have received no consideration nor offers of consideration from anyone. I do not understand how you say that Dana Ullman has some inherent COI by virtue of being a recognized expert who has published books in the field. We do not prohibit chemists from editing chemistry-related topics, and indeed we encourage those with relevant academic knowledge to help us build a better encyclopedia. Just because homeopathy is a controversial area of study does not mean we treat experts in that field as less deserving of respect. —Whig (talk) 20:16, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say he has inherent COI, I'd say he has the potential for COI. I'm sure nobody would have objections to him making corrections to articles on the subject, just edits that slant the article toward a sympathetic point of view. And looking at the article history shows an edit that does just that. --Minderbinder (talk) 20:26, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think everyone has the potential for COI, so that's not really relevant. Your position that he is unable to make contributions to articles other than corrections is simply untenable. —Whig (talk) 21:54, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I would appreciate it if you would supply the diff that you think was objectionable. —Whig (talk) 22:33, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really my position, it's what WP:COI says, partiularly WP:COIC. This is all a moot point now anyway since the arb enforcement section has been closed, to be honest I'm not that interested in debating this with you. Cheers. --Minderbinder (talk) 22:52, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This will be my last reply, then. As an editor in the opposing camp put it so well, "WP:COIN is for obvious conflicts of interest: Editors adding information about themselves or their specific interests. Specific interests include employers, friends, family members, etc. It does not apply to professions, areas of expertise, personal beliefs, etc. If DanaUllman has edited Dana Ullman, that would be an obvious coi. Homeopaths editing Homeopathy without editing about themselves or their specific interests is expected and welcome." (in fact, Dana did at one time edit his own article and was blocked for it, but has learned the rules and complied with them since.) —Whig (talk) 22:56, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree that he can edit the article in a manner that isn't COI. Unfortunately, looking at the edit history, it appears he hasn't done so. --Minderbinder (talk) 23:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, I did not wish to reply further. I only note that I asked you to supply a diff, because the edit history doesn't prove anything. That's all, and I'm done here. —Whig (talk) 23:02, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minderbinder, under your logic then, conventional medical doctors could not critique homeopathy because of COI due to the potential benefit that they might get from people who seek their care instead of homeopathic care. Let's not get too crazy here. If I refer to my own website on the article pages, please cry out COI (though this won't happen). In the meantime, perhaps be pleased that some experts (and not just armchair philosophers with axes to grind) are still editing here. DanaUllman^Talk 15:10, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome back to the asylum :) MastCell ^Talk 21:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your revert here: Take a look at the ref section in the main episodes list. The ref is displayed with a red error message there. --- Oh, hold on. I've figured it out: The problem is that only the table is being transcluded into the main list article. Ugh. This means all refs that are being used both in the table and in the rest of the article should be formatted so that the full ref instance is in the table. I'll go ahead and do that then. Dorftrottel (canvass) 22:09, April 15, 2008

There, that should do the trick. Dorftrottel (vandalise) 22:15, April 15, 2008

Thanks for figuring that out. I was just looking at the Season 4 article, where it didn't have an error, didn't realize it had an error when transcluded elsewhere. --Minderbinder (talk) 22:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose there's no easy, technical way to permanently resolve this. Maybe an according hidden notice (added to the existing one in the section) might be a good idea? Dorftrottel (troll) 23:02, April 15, 2008

Maybe something along the lines of

* Also, please note that the table is being transcluded onto the main episode list article ([[List of Lost episodes]]). This means that references that are used both within the table and also in the rest of this page must be formatted so that the full instance of the reference appears within the table. Otherwise the empty ref will result in an error message in the main episode list article.

? Dorftrottel (warn) 23:09, April 15, 2008

Wow- do you really stand behind that source and content? ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 21:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Minderbinder aus Deutschland? :) --Gwynplain (talk) 16:04, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. US of A. --Minderbinder (talk) 16:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I am user Minderbinder from the German Wikipedia. I am glad we seem to share a taste for literature. Minderbinder-de (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the new conditions for editing at the Quackwatch article, your name was added to the list because you have been participating at the talkpage recently. If you are "done" with the article, meaning that you are not going to participate at the talkpage anymore, it's fine that your name be removed from the list. However, if you continue to participate, your name is going back on, because the list is for the use of the administrators to keep track of current participants. Let me know if you have any questions, --Elonka 21:19, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is disruptive.[11] If you continue with these kinds of actions, per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy, you risk further restrictions, from page bans up to potentially having your account access blocked. --Elonka 17:17, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that disruptive, and why would you even have any objection to it? You did edit the article [12]. That list says "Note: Being listed here does not imply that these editors were disruptive. It is simply for reference, a list of those editors who have recently been actively engaged with this article." Since you were actively engaged with the article, per that edit, it seems perfectly appropriate for you to be on that list. In addition, what part of the Homeopathy RFA are you referring to? --Minderbinder (talk) 17:22, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Me adding one tag, does not count as involvement. See WP:UNINVOLVED. You, however, have been involved in many ways, from editing the article to participation at the talkpage. When your name was originally added to the list of involved editors, you removed it. I said okay, as long as you stayed away from the article. But you didn't stay away from the article, so your name went back on the list. Then when I added your name, you added my name to the list of "involved" editors, which is not accurate. That's the disruptive part. Please don't adjust the list at all, just let the uninvolved admins do it. As for the Homeopathy case, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Homeopathy#Discretionary sanctions, specifically: "Any uninvolved administrator may, on his or her own discretion, impose sanctions on any editor working in the area of conflict (defined as articles which relate to homeopathy, broadly interpreted) if, despite being warned, that editor repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behavior, or any normal editorial process. The sanctions imposed may include blocks of up to one year in length; bans from editing any page or set of pages within the area of conflict; bans on any editing related to the topic or its closely related topics; restrictions on reverts or other specified behaviors; or any other measures which the imposing administrator believes are reasonably necessary to ensure the smooth functioning of the project." --Elonka 17:26, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So if adding one tag doesn't count as involvement, then why did you add me to the list of involved editors - that is the only thing I have done on the article as well (with the exception of format fixing, or do you consider that editing that would constitute involvement as well?). Please make up your mind how you're defining "involved" in this case, either we should both be on the list or neither. And based on the quote from Homeopathy, I stand by my edits - fixing a list of users and adding a tag are not remotely disruptive, nor have I remotely come close to violating anything mentioned there. --Minderbinder (talk) 17:32, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "just one tag". You have been heavily involved in the editing of the article, as well as participating at the talkpage. You are clearly "involved" with the article. --Elonka 17:48, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see any evidence that Minderbinder is heavily involved in the editing of the article or talk page. Elonka, please provide your evidence. QuackGuru 17:54, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Review the article history back in March 2007 and earlier. He is significantly involved with the article, just not particularly recently. GRBerry 17:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We are talking about recent edits. Remember that Minderbender was removed from the list recently and there were no problems with that. Then Minderbender was added back to the list because Elonka claims Minderbinder is heavily involved. I do not see any evidence supporting Elonka's conclusions. QuackGuru 18:06, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your concern was already addressed and refuted below. GRBerry 18:09, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence of heavily involved has been presented by GRBerry to support Elonka's conclusions. QuackGuru 18:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Please show me where I was "heavily involved" with editing the article. Before today, I hadn't edited the article in over a year. I count two edits back then, both reverts to different things. Today's edits constitute the addition of one tag and fixing the format of a number of references, which didn't change the content of the article at all - my edits have had no more effect on the article content than your edit. Please back up your accusations or retract them.

I'd also request that you remove my name from "Editors under ArbCom restrictions" since I am not under any such restrictions. Thanks. --Minderbinder (talk) 18:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• (ec) Minderbender - Before today, you hadn't recently edited the article much. Indeed, March 2007 was the last time you'd been active on the article page - but back then you were involved in reverting extensive edits. In recent months, your only talk page contributions appears to be claiming that Elonka is an involved admin. If that was all, we would think of you as an involved party for the purpose of managing the dispute, but not as an editor who was actively working on the article. Today, you also resumed editing the article, so now unambiguously belong on the list of recently active editors of the article. That list is a convenience for those of us trying to manage the dispute, and neither praise nor blame attaches to being listed there.

As to Elonka, an admin does not become involved merely for using their tools to manage a situation. Please read WP:UNINVOLVED, including "one of the roles of administrators is precisely to deal with such matters and if necessary, continue dealing with them". I've looked at the one diff of Elonka's edits to the article; there is no plausibility to extrapolate from that diff to being a signifcant editor of the article. And you were attacking her as involved prior to that diff, so I can't believe that it is the real basis for your actions. Instead, the attack appears intended to drive off an admin that knows the situation so that for at least a bit more the dispute can not be effectively managed. This is a common strategy among those who might face sanctions, but in the long run neither helpful nor well received. Please drop this line of attack. I, and I'm sure the other admins also, will monitor each others actions and let one another know if we have concerns. Additional noise from those who clearly are disputing parties is not helpful, and sometimes counterproductive.

And as to that diff, why don't you go do what is thereby encouraged - i.e. go find clearly reliable sources for the claim that the site has been recognized and received awards? It is indeed bad practice to cite the recipient for receipt of awards (think of all the various scandals involving falsified resumes) but with all the various things on that page it should be trivial to cite some of them from the givers of the awards. Your time would be better spent on improving the article than on attacking Elonka. GRBerry 17:58, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the reverts, one was a revert of a revert, a major one going back weeks done by an anon with no reason given. I'd hardly say that would even be controversial. The other was reverting the addition of a number of links that were controversial and didn't have consensus to be added.

Now that I have edited the article (although they were extremely minor edits) I have no objection to having my name on the list - at the time I removed it I had no idea if I would end up editing the article. I do have an objection to being listed in the Arbcom category, could you please move it to the list of editors which is more appropriate?

For the record, I don't consider Elonka a "significant" editor of the article, I was merely applying Elonka's own standard for that list, which is any edit regardless of how minor.

As for the accusations of "strategizing" and assumptions about my intentions, please AGF. Pointing out that it is bad form to go to the last admin to take action against an editor instead of just going to the notice board is hardly an "attack".--Minderbinder (talk) 18:12, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<nowiki>On my talk page, you said I vadelized the Barrack Obama Article. In no way did I mean to do this. I was trying to delete vandelizem, not vandlize it. Thank you. Marshall T. Williams (talk) 23:39, 16 September 2008 (UTC)</nowiki>[reply]

Should Wikipedia become a one stop Movie, Book or TV Guide?
Please make your views known at WT:NOT#Wikipedia is not a Movie, Book or TV Guide. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in this Talk:Joe_the_Plumber#RFC:_Career_and_LicesningMattnad (talk) 20:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was extremely amused to learn that I am your sidekick. I guess we should spend more time hanging out together. ; ) - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:34, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but it's been so long since I've interacted with you (I must have at some point), now I haven't the foggiest idea who you are. --Minderbinder (talk) 16:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Last year we may have individually contributed to some of the same articles, RfC's and arbcoms. Which is why I found the sidekick statement amusing. But in retrospect, I probably shouldn't make light of someone who genuinely believes there is a tight-knit cabal dedicated to thwarting their aims. LuckyLouie (talk) 17:54, 15 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This commet is from File talk:HesABullyCharlieBrown.jpg.

This Image needs to be replaced with a screenshot of the title, is there anybody who is able to accept my request? 68.34.4.143 (talk) 19:24, 31 December 2008 (UTC) — [reply]

I don't see why that replacement needs to be made. And if it did, I don't have an alternate image. --Minderbinder (talk) 23:19, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]