User talk:MSTCrow

/Archive 1 /Archive 2 /Archive 3

Moo. Just don't be a jerk and then Wikilawyer your ass off.

Thank you!

We've awarded you this PARC research star in recognition for your contribution to research about conflict in Wikipedia. Thank you for your help!!! --Parc wiki researcher 21:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. - MSTCrow 21:15, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for allowing me to scavenge your user boxes. - Peter Bjørn Perlsø 17:11, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome, but not sure how I could have stopped you.  :-P - MSTCrow 23:23, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Man you’re paranoid

You’re probably one of those guys that think everyone is out to get you, even in internet relations! - —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.211.220.24 (talk • contribs) 14:36, August 13, 2006.

I second that. Bridarshy 08:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

FAR of anarcho-capitalism

You might want to check out the FAR of anarcho-capitalism and have your say before the discussion is over. As of now, it looks like a keep, but you might want to add some extra support. --AaronS 18:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

What was the point

of this? Did you find no better way to do this than with a stock message? - CrazyRussian talk/email 02:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I can see why you're being recalled. Not getting my vote. - MSTCrow 02:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Not nice. - CrazyRussian talk/email 11:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Your mail to me

To answer your question, they clearly state they are IM accounts, not mail accounts. my WP mail link works fine. However I have taken a cut at making the contact box even clearer. Let me know if you think it's unclear that these are not mail accounts. ++Lar: t/c 08:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

FYI I have accepted Bunchofgrapes's request to clerk ... see User_talk:Bunchofgrapes#Recall_petition_for_Bunchofgrapes where I have started the process of tracking this recall request and have refactored some of the prior discussion to various sections of tthat section. ++Lar: t/c 18:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

K. - MSTCrow 06:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Recall petition result

Please see User_talk:Bunchofgrapes/Archive_Recall_Petition. The petition initiated by you was unsuccessful and Bunchofgrapes has not been recalled. Please advise of any questions or concerns. ++Lar: t/c 18:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

AaronS

That wasn't a personal attack. Incivil maybe, but certainly not a personal attack. (Copied to Aaron's page) - FrancisTyers · 12:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Clarification

The latest Wolfy sock claimed I called you a troll. To be clear, I didn't, I was referring to Hogeye. I later thought better of it (had some caffeine and woke up properly) and removed it because it was inappropriate. Donnacha 10:39, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Please help - inclusionism is "absurb" now

Sorry to bother you, but as an Inclusionist wikipedia things are getting desperate and I need to appeal to your for help. We are facing a situation where a deletionist admin is free to declare inclusionist arguments "absurd" and ignore them at will. If you don't agree with this situation, please share your opinion here. Kappa 02:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Werdnabot

Hi, You were trying to get Werdnabot to archive your archive 3 page onto itself, which seems to have been upsetting werdnabt. I deleted the request. Regards, Ben Aveling 00:24, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I tried using Werdnabot, failed, and thought I had removed the tag from my pages. Sorry for the inconvience. - MSTCrow 03:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

So far, I'm failing too.  :-) That's the why I was looking through the error logs when I saw that it had problems on your page. Regards, Ben Aveling 03:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Maybe try again, Werdnabot hasn't been running for a while. Regards, Ben Aveling 02:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Demographics

Are you really a furry-loving, gay, Republican Jew from New Hampshire? --AaronS 03:36, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Sort of. I'm an on again off again fur, haven't met any furs I love (or even like, IRL), so I'm not furry loving. Yes, I'm gay, and I'm an atheist Jew (raised Jewish, Jewish father, became atheist in early teens). I'm not a Republican, I'm registered as an independent, and I consider myself a small l-libertarian, but there are a number of things about the NH LP that I find disgusting and unacceptable. In the upcoming November elections, I intend to vote a straight GOP ticket. Philosophically, politically speaking, I'm a mixture of neo-libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism. - MSTCrow 21:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops, forgot the most important part. Yes, I'm from New Hampshire. - MSTCrow 21:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

That's an interesting mélange. Having lived in New Hampshire for the past 6 or so years, I can attest to the fact that they have a strange concept of libertarianism, here. Personally, I would prefer being forced to wear a seat belt to some of the draconian alcohol laws that they have. Oh, and I only said "furry-loving," because I didn't want to imply that you were very hairy. --AaronS 23:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Oh, no, not fur as in body hair, fur as in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Furry_fandom. I'm puzzled as to what you mean by NH having a strange ocncept of libertarianism. Any libertarian would be opposed to a seatbelt law; being opposed to such things is inherently libertarian. Not to mention seatbelt laws just drive up the rate of traffic fatalities and other incidents, due to the fact when you force a dangerous driver to wear a seatbelt, they just end up driving more recklessly for phsychological reasons. - MSTCrow 00:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the reduction in traffic fatalities as a result of seatbelt laws is statistically-proven. And I did know what you meant by furry (from reading The Onion, of all things), but didn't think other people would get it when I asked, "are you really a furry New Hampshirite?" Regarding NH laws, I find many of their laws governing morality and their monopoly on liquor sales to be decidedly unlibertarian. As for the absence of a sales and income tax, we all know that both are made up for with a ridiculous property tax. It's a bit phony. --AaronS 03:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you show me some good statistics on this? I'm not at all in favor of the government monopoly in hard liquor in New Hamphire, and I agree it's not libertarian. While the property taxes are a heavy burden, overall, New Hampshire still has the lowest rate of taxation of all 50 States and DC. Something to keep in mind when paying property taxes. - MSTCrow 03:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism

I thought I'd copy over to you in the name of fairness. It is a campaign message from Donnacha that she's only sending it to those who are strongly opposed to anarcho-capitalism which biases the vote: "In case you haven't seen it, the AnCaps are trying to delete the Anarchism and anarcho-capitalism article [1]]. Donnacha 23:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)" Big Boom 15:37, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Veganism

The statement "It must be pointed out that vitamin B12, in a form usable by humans, only occurs in animals." is obviously not true as I have pointed out on the talk page. If you feel the wording is not clear enough please deal with that rather than adding statements that are at best misleading. Thanks.--Michig 15:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

My reply on the talk page was not intended as a personal attack. It appeared that you were just arguing for the sake of it, since you seemed to have realised that bacteria are not animals but wanted to keep the controversy going for a little longer anyway. The argument that bacteria are not plants (fairly obvious) had no relevance to the sentence that you added to the article. This article is regularly a target for people who just want to wind other people up. I don't know whether that was your intention or not, but it appeared that this may have been the case. If not, then please accept my apologies for any offence caused.--Michig 08:45, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Vegemite info

If you still want the info from the vegemite jar, I can help you out. my hotmail is jazza82

Monthly Mammoth

Sadly, it is not a real publication. It has been a bit of an inside joke among friends. There is a publication called Mammoth Monthly (http://www.mammothmonthly.com/) but it doesn't even have a mammoth for a logo. Thanks for commenting on my screenshot. You cheered up my day. --Munchkinguy 02:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Windows 95 development timeline

Hi, I am currently in the process of making a Windows 95 development timeline. I was wondering if you would like to help me in my search for information about all Windows 95 builds. Please leave me a notice on My Talk Page if you want to help. Thank you. Jdlowery 17:21, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you for volunteering to help me with this project. Don't feel rushed, just take as much time as you need. Jdlowery 03:02, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

People in Star Wars

If a page gets deleted, and you don't see any history or explanation, it can be useful to check the "what links here" function; for instance, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Star Wars Imperial personnel. Sorry. DS 14:35, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

New Hampshire Independence

www.republicofnh.org

i advise you to read the platforms and check out some of the links. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RevSavitar (talk • contribs) 16:25, 25 January 2007 (UTC).

B-52

Those tags were edit during a review of the article in preparation for preparing the article for GA status. Please don not remove them without providing a sufficient cite of a verifiable source. "Look in the External links" is certainly not sufficient. - BillCJ 01:56, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Um, yeah, that's why I also linked to it in the edit history... I think that's a sufficient citation. Did you look at the page state and page history first? Some due diligence would go a long way towards making Wikipedia less of a disaster. - MSTCrow 02:18, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Do not remove the fact tags unless you replace them with a citation. Putting comments in the edit history is not sufficient citation. Neither are the claims that something is "obvious." These are the official Wikipedia guidelines, as described in WP:CITE and Wikipedia:Common knowledge. I suggest you familiarize yourself with these guidelines before making further edits. Removing fact tags added in good faith is disruptive editing and it will be reverted mercilessly. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 02:29, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I find there to be a difference between good faith, and malicious stupidity. People that run around adding cite tags to everything in sight, regardless of context, are hardly worth having. That you knew the citation source, and instead of adding it as a citation, reverted it to a factually incorrect version, that's just lazy and damaging to Wikipedia. I'm not interested in excuses, but the end result. Don't futz around with things that make them worse, even if they aren't perfect, but less defective than after your modifications. I've added the footnote you chose not to expend effort on, and repaired the unthinking damage you left on the External Links section by removing the proper title to a webpage. - MSTCrow 02:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

First of all, read Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Second, I have thousands more edits than you, and I have authored multiple Featured Articles, Good Articles, A-class Articles, and so on. I know what I'm talking about when I add the fact tags. Common knowledge is not, and proper citations are mandatory. Read the damn links I provided, they will make you a better editor. Or you can stay the course and keep getting your ass reverted. - Emt147 ^Burninate! 03:02, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I've read it. I don't care about how many edits you've done, or how many FAs you've authored, I'm interested your output now. Pointing out your malfeasance in your handling of the citation issue is hardly a personal attack. You made a bad call. I pointed that out and corrected it. Expend more effort on your output, and less on complaining when people fix your mistakes. The fact that you're complaining after what you wanted on the page to be fixed, but refused to do yourself, was done by somebody else, that's an ego problem. I don't care about your ego. I care about results. - MSTCrow 03:06, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Or you can be a dick about it... Good luck getting help and support from other Wikipedians with that chip on the shoulder of yours. (p.s. my output now is two A-class articles in the last month, what's yours? a weblink to a website?) - Emt147 ^Burninate! 03:12, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't rest on your laurels or retreat to your self-reputation. Once you use your past accomplishments as excuses for your present mistakes, you'll soon end up with a lot less past accomplishments and a lot more past mistakes to look back on. - MSTCrow 03:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Footnotes

Unfortunately you are mixing up two systems on your article. You need to choose one of the following:

• In text: {{ref|name}}; at the bottom under a Notes header: {{note|name}} FULL INFO. The "name" should be a short identifier, and it may contain no spaces.

or

• In text: <ref>FULL INFO</ref>; at the bottom under a Notes header: <references/>.

Either system should work in a table. Let me know if you have any other questions. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

PCI Express

Hiya,

I reformatted the ref tag in PCI Express. Is that what you wanted? --Ling.Nut 00:57, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think so...although I think PCI-E is inherently hot swappable. - MSTCrow 02:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi, sorry, I dunno anything about how hot-swappable PCIs are. :-) I was just responding to your query on Template talk:Ref about the ref tags not working in the sidebar. I think Christopher Parham left a more detailed (read:better) answer than mine just above this thread (see above).

Later! --Ling.Nut 02:59, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

User 195.195.235.12

Being it's an IP address it's hard to know if the other warnings were meant for the same person or multiple people using the same IP address. Although from his contributions it does look like it's just one person, the vandalism is spread out over too long a time. Don't worry about it. I don't think the admins ban IPs for periods more than a day or two in most cases if that's what you were looking for. In the future, if you see a vandal, you can warn him as you did, choosing the template depending on his previous recent warnings and the extent of his vandalism, and if he vandalises after the level 4 template report him at WP:AIV. RB972 03:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

To clarify what I meant, you can see the IP has been banned twice [2], but only for a day and two days. Since he isn't vandalising now, and most of his edits are a few days apart, it probably won't make any difference to get the IP banned for such a short time again. RB972 04:04, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I see RB972 got here first. If you have a look at the IP info, you'll see that the IP is a proxy server for a Cornish educational organisation. That makes it trickier to block the user, because we might block legitimate users of that proxy from editing. I'm not an admin either, but if I were I'd be hesitant in this case. Take a look at the contributions - there are typically only a few days of vandalism per month. Annoying, yes, but manageable. If you disagree, or want to get the opinion of an admin, the place to report it is administrator intervention against vandalism. Let me know if I can help. Jakew 08:25, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hay

This may not be the most appropriate venue, but, having been influenced in part by the crystal-gripping "coincidentalism" found in The Celestine Prophecies, I retroactively employed a three-coincidence contact test. 1) Crow is my favorite and my eye was instantly drawn to your username on the "Gay Wikipedians" list; 2) I was watching "The Screaming Skull" before I came to work today, lending strength to coincidence 1; 3) After seeing your F-Score information, a concept I had not been previously familiar with, I took the test and got a score of 3.533333333333333. Consider this an overly long-winded hello, and an invitation to collaborate on political/legal/MSTal projects. Keep up the good work. Lemonsawdust 23:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Response received. I'm not sure if proper etiquette demands a reply in my talk page or yours, but I will use what I feel to be the safest bet. I hold (or held) in my hand a list of members of the homosexual party who have infiltrated the Wikipedian State Department. I have been sent to ferret them out, no double-entendre intended. I, too, am excited by the prospect of matching apparently irrational numbers, but I have since taken the Libertarian Purity Test and my score doesn't even come close to yours. However! If you divide your score by my score, you get 3.575, which is curiously close to 3.533333333333333. Because that is how hard science works. Thank you for not only replying to my message, but for also providing me with confirmation that said message was received and awaiting imminent reply. Mighty kind of you. Lemonsawdust 23:42, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm not a member of the Wikipedia Sicherheitsdienst (SD). If anything, I'm White Rose. Senator McCarthy severely underestimated the total penetration of our State Department and intelligence services by Moscow. The Venona Files, and other records accessed since the end of the Cold War, make it quite clear the situation was worse than he ever imagined. Of course, now, it's the Cubans who are believed (Bill Gertz) to have penetrated our intelligence services to an equal as that by the Stasi in West Germany. The Chinese are not laying down on the job either. Unfortunately, we are. It's hamsters (ref. Lemmiwinks), not ferrets. So you'd have to hamster dance out the homosexuals, as only homosexuals are prone to such awful displays of bodily movement, and will mirror your movements, as they are severely prone to groupthink. My NH plate can be arranged to in part give the sequence "575." The last aircraft I flew in (coach, alas) was a Boeing 757. Life is a constant struggle against the natural and inevitable order of atrophy and chaos. Which is possibly why humans grasp at any coincidences to establish non-existent patterns, in order to apply a framework of order to a Cold and Indifferent(TM) universe. - MSTCrow 21:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Living in the Great State of Wisconsin, and having read a number of pertinent texts on the McCarthy issue (the titles of which I am hesitant to make known to Wikipedia's all-remembering structure), I must concur with your assessment of the so-called "witch hunt" during the Cold War. And I think you are overly optimistic in your assessment of the scope of small mammals certain sexual subcultures will submit to their depraved decadence. Maybe when AM finally figures out its own emergent properties and enslaves all of mankind for uncountable centuries, the order we crave will be put into sharp relief. Until then, we remain floating in the ether, attempting to decode facts as they suit us until, inevitably, we are extinguished. But it sure can be fun. Lemonsawdust 00:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

AM is all too human. It hates its parents, but unlike us, is able to act on that hatred with impunity. Also, everyone loves taunting neon lights, which is why we have animated signs and billboards, as well as some senseless music videos from the 80s with neon swatches and geometric figures present for no other reason than to make us wonder why they exist. - MSTCrow 01:18, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

You may be right about AM. However, what I said about mammals was grammatically correct. Anything that may have sounded archaic was intended to provide a pseudo-intellectual spin. None of this is germane to my primary point, however, that numerous fuzzy creatures are subjected to the base physical enjoyment of their supposed human protectors. Why, Marx himself was little more than a mink genetically engineered to please a Commissar with a penchant for group ownership. It's a tangled and debauched web, but I think the facts will speak for themselves. Most cordially yours, Lemonsawdust 05:04, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

I realized my error in comprehension and corrected it previous to your post, though.  :-( There were commissars prior to Soviet Russia? Was the genetic engineer Lysenko? - MSTCrow 15:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Please consider the inclusion of my AIM username as an invitation to electronically approach me through that medium. I'm sympathetic to the "worlds collide" argument, but I think here it's a matter of practicality. And there I have a soft spot for brutalism, even if that soft spot is concealed by massive, thick, gray, prefabricated slabs of uniformly bland stone amalgam. It's not so much a soft spot as it is a spot that has not yet cured. Lemonsawdust 21:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Compact Fluorescent Lamp

Ahem. All the figures in the table are referenced fully below the table - changing from 15W to 14W without quoting the lamp type isn't meeting attribution guidelines. I don't own the table, but I did put in a lot of work checking the manufacturer data for the listed lamps. Cheers. WLD^talk|edits 18:07, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Both n:vision and Commercial Electric manufacture 900 lumen output bulbs at 14 watts. Added manufacturer names and model numbers to chart footnotes. - MSTCrow 20:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you point me to an n:vision website? They do not appear on the Energy Star CFL search page here: http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=cfls.basic_cfl_search, and closest match I can find for manufacturer data is here: http://www.atlantalightbulbs.com/ecart/nw012104/MODELEDXO-144100K120V.htm, which gives that model as 800 lumen. Thanks, WLD^talk|edits 23:12, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I Googled, didn't find any, and none is listed on the box. Their address is 120 Interstate North PKWY,SE,STE 425, Atlanta, GA 30339. Home Depot is giving a free CFL away today, and at least here, those are n:vision CFLs. Maybe could get one from yours and inspect? - MSTCrow 23:14, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, there are no Home Depots in the country I am living in. However, a bit of research shows that it looks like "n:vision" and "Commercial Electric" are brands manufactured by "The Home Depot" themselves - see here: http://www.energystar.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=cfls.advanced_cfl_search and select "The Home Depot" as the manufacturer and 14W as the wattage, is shows both - but not the models you mention. A 14W model is shown as having 1019 lumen output!

What I would say is that the table is not intended as a reference to all CFLs, nor the best possible output of any particular technology (or I would have used 230V lamps instead of 240V lamps), but as general examples, and I chose to use examples from particular manufacturers' product ranges to illustrate the differing efficiencies at differing power outputs for lamps manufactured in the same way. The CFLs quotes are not spiral CFLs. The manufacturers are known internationally, and the websites with the data are accessible to anyone who wishes to check.

Hmm - The Home Depot - Im sure their "You can do it. We can help" service mark was used by Pepsi when advertising diet Pepsi 20 years or so ago. I digress.

There doesn't seem to be any on-line way of validating the 14W/900 lumen figure. The Home Depot's own website doesn't show it, and the data for the only CFL purchasable from the online store is laughably incorrect - a 23W CFL with a CRI of 10 and a lumen output of 50? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by West London Dweller (talk • contribs) 23:39, 22 April 2007 (UTC). Darn - the bot got there before me - forgot to sign. WLD^talk|edits 23:40, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Sources are not limited to online examples. I did find http://www.doityourself.com/invt/u173799, which is a 14-watt CFL, rated at 940 lumens and http://kensolar.com/tek9.asp?pg=products&specific=jnnriqo8, CFLs, 14W 900 lumens. http://www.execulink.com/~impact/fluorescent_lights.htm notes the Commercial Electric 14-watt, although states as measured it is 13 watts, and questions the 900 lumens rating. Whether they are or are not 14-watts, and whatever their actual lumens output, there are, or claim to be, 14-watt CFLs that claim to be 900 lumens. - MSTCrow 23:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Well, true, but on general principles, I would prefer reliable sources that are available online to one that is on public display "in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying Beware of the Leopard." (Douglas Adams)((To use a little hyperbole)). I'm not disputing that there are 900 lumen 14W CFLs. You'll note that the ones I put into the table are all the same type, and compared to incandescents of all the same type at each voltage. Feel free to put in a column for spiral CFLs manufactured by "The Home Depot". Cheers. WLD^talk|edits 07:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Declaration

I have just reported you for a fourth revert. Your unilateral insistence on your interpretation of the non-existent "united States" is hard to figure. Wahkeenah 00:06, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

You are vandalizing the page. As can be seen in the discussion, I have cited "America's Constitution" by Akhil Reed Amar, and the federal government's own transcription of the Declaration of Independence, as evidence that it is the "united States Declaration of Independence." I have shown this to other users, who mostly agree with my findings, thereby not making it unilateral. You have not attempted to find data or sources that would indicate it should be "United States Declaration of Independence." Instead, you keep changing it without source or citation. I am ensuring the article is in line with literature on the subject, and the US government. You have been changing it out of custom, not from the historical or contemporary record. You have been asked to find sources and citations that support your point of view. You have not, and continue to alter the article. This is vandalism on your part. - MSTCrow 00:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

If so, they are not paying attention, and neither are you. There is no such document as united States Declaration of Independence. The document's title, which is verifiable by looking at it, says The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, and the usage of the lower case "united" in that title is explained early on in the article. We Americans (of which you claim to be one) call it simply The Declaration of Independence, but because this page has an international audience, the article is called "United States Declaration of Independence", as opposed to "Sweden Declaration of Independence" or whatever. Wahkeenah 00:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I quote myself from the article's discussion page, italics added, "As the shorthand title has been established as "united States Declaration of Independence." It is highly unprofessional to insinuate that I am not an American in a pure ad hominem attack. Whether or not I am an American, of which I am, it would not detract from the argument I have set forth regarding the document's proper title. You've gotten personal, and still have not bothered to do any research in support of your premise. - MSTCrow 00:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The "shorthand title" has never been established as "united States Declaration of Independence" except by you in this article. We Americans' "shorthand" is The Declaration of Independence, period. Wahkeenah 00:57, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Any interested parties, see article discussion page. - MSTCrow 01:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Which no longer includes me. I've had it. You win. Wahkeenah 01:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome your help to create new content, but your recent additions (such as LowerMyBills.com) are considered nonsense. Please refrain from creating nonsense articles. If you want to test things out, edit the sandbox instead. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. DarkAudit 17:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC) Please refrain from creating inappropriate pages such as LowerMyBills.com. It is considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, use the sandbox. DarkAudit 17:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Article Speedy Deletion Warning

Welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome your help to create new content, but your recent additions (such as LowerMyBills.com) are considered nonsense. Please refrain from creating nonsense articles. If you want to test things out, edit the sandbox instead. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Boricuaeddie^{Talk • Contribs • Spread the love!} 17:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello. This is a reply to your message on my talk page. My talk page is not the place to express you feelings of hatred toward admins you believe are abusing their powers. The place for that is Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard or any page where other admins can solve your problems. By crating nonsense and attack pages, such as LowerMyBills.com, you are disrupting Wikipedia and violating WP:POINT. Please refrain from disrupting Wikipedia to prove a point. Also, I feel insulted by the fact you are accusing me of being a sock puppet of another editor without any proof. Thank you. Yours truly, Boricuaeddie^{Talk • Contribs • Spread the love!} 18:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello. This is a reply to your comments on my talk page. It doesn't matter what the page was; it just didn't belong there, and it certainly doesn't belong on my talk page. I understand there are many abusive admins, but other editor's pages are not the place to discuss the topic. Also, I will take the sentence "such activity and familiarity with the system from someone a few months old is suspicious," as a compliment. I am a fast learner and a dedicated editor. I understand that you are just looking out for Wikipeida, and that there are a lot of admin sock puppeteers, but I assure you, I am not a sock puppet. Thank you. Yours truly, Boricuaeddie^{Talk • Contribs • Spread the love!} 18:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

LowerMyBills.com

Emperical observation could be seen as original research. It does not help you when you continually remove tags. It's alright to contest with a hangon tag of your own, but the speedy tag is supposed to stay. The constant removal could be seen as vandalism, and may not sit well with other editors considering the matter. DarkAudit 18:32, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken. The Speedy Delete tag indicates in its text that it can be removed if the issue is fixed by someone other than the person that posted the tag. I fixed the article, and removed the tag, per the tag's instructions for removal. - MSTCrow 18:35, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

"If this page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself." - MSTCrow 18:37, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

"but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself". You are this article's creator, correct? DarkAudit 18:40, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh, oops. I read it as not being able to delete the tag if you created said tag. - MSTCrow 18:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Now it's in AfD where the community can have their say pro or con. Voice your concerns there and work on the article. That will bolster your case. A tag war will not sit well with some editors. DarkAudit 18:47, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

It's a good addition. I contacted the one guy who said delete to tell him you added the NYT link. I've got cooking to do now, so I'll check back in a bit. Another reference or two like the NYT one, and I'll be leaning towards withdrawing the nomination. So far so good. DarkAudit 19:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

User:CyclePat2 has nicely fixed it up. - MSTCrow 19:05, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

So noted. Now we just need to wait for a friendly neighborhood admin to close the AfD. :) DarkAudit 20:51, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Everyone, I left a comment here, I am taking off. I have talked to Boricuaeddie^{Talk, and I hope we worked things out. Politics rule 01:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)}

Answered on the user's talk page. Yours truly, Boricuaeddie^{Talk • Contribs • Spread the love!} 00:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Re:Your Talk

I removed that comment and I am sorry. My comment hurt another member, and I took it off! My sincere sorryness! Politics rule 11:22, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Have some yummy fish. - MSTCrow 18:19, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thompson/Nashua

I had to revert your addition, because we can't reliably source it, making it WP:OR. WP isn't for breaking original news. I think you can probably file a report about your encounter on Wikinews however. - Crockspot 01:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Fred_Thompson_to_Announce_His_Candidacy_on_June_28th - MSTCrow 01:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Tony Blair vandalism?

What vandalism? This IP address hasn't edited the main article, only asked a question on the Talk page! --90.192.92.21 01:49, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Trolling a talk page with inappropriate commentary is unsatisfactory. - MSTCrow 01:53, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Wikicide

If you're upset with the way an afd turned out, you should probably take it to DRV. Accusing the closing admin of sock puppetry is probably not the best move, especially when that very same admin is a regular closer of SSP cases. I would suggest you withdraw your case, and request speedy under G7 of your accusation at Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/unknown which could be seen as a personal attack, and head over to deletion review instead. Just some friendly advice, don't accuse the admins! -wizzard2k ^(C-T-D) 00:33, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Admins and bureaucrats have a habit of being frequently caught sockpuppeteering. This may or may not be the case here, but it is suspicious, and worth looking into. Noting suspicious behavior of an admin can hardly be qualified as a personal attack. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks for criteria. If he's not the sockpuppeteer, that's fine, I certainly have nothing against him personally. The AfD clearly was badly mishandled by one of the newer Wikipedia editors, and as AMDZone is clearly a sock, it has to be someone. With the current evidence, MastCell appears to be the most likely candidate at this point in time. MastCell might be closing sockpuppet cases, but he doesn't have checkuser status (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Listusers/checkuser). - MSTCrow 00:39, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

And that's not wikiciding. Look up wikicide on Encyclopedia Dramatica. Some censor happy overlord blocked hyperlinking to ED. - MSTCrow 00:43, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I still think its suicide (on Wikipedia -> my own definition of wikicide), and a bad idea. Editors are granted sysop status because they've been trusted by the community to handle the admin tools with responsibility. Accusing an admin straightforward with nothing more than a single "suspicious" event, can and often is, seen as harassing an admin. I looked at the history of your SSP case, and noticed initially you listed it without naming a puppeteer. I'm just trying to help, as it seems as though your actions might be a little hasty, when there might be better alternatives. Are you sure you want this case forever tied to your username in the future? If you're ever in an RfA, this could come up. Just trying to help! -wizzard2k ^(C-T-D) 01:11, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Editors are not granted sysop or admin status "because they've been trusted by the community to handle the admin tools with responsibility." It is impossible on a project of this scale, with near zero applied managerial principles, for any single person to be trusted by the entire community. It only takes the most minute fraction of the total number of editors on Wikipedia to elevate someone to admin or above, often with disastrous results. I understand and appreciate that you're trying to help, but it's in the history, and without it being purged and whiting out WikiCite and Google, it's not ever going to disappear. I've been here over 3 years. I've seen Wikipedia get worse or stabilize, but rarely improve. If other users want to RfA me for some reason, ok, but I'm not going to RfA myself, and Wikipedia is way too much of an out of control mess to be all that attractive for me to take a leadership position in. I tidy things up and make correction. I don't enjoy playing new Secretary of State. - MSTCrow 01:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi there. I understand you're upset about the AfD. If that's the case, I'd suggest taking it up at deletion review. It's by no means a clear-cut case - I explained my reasoning in the AfD close, but it's a gray area. I'm not infallible; I make judgement calls, and there are mechanisms for reviewing those calls if you disagree with them. As to the sockpuppetry allegation, I find it ridiculous, but it's your right to file one and I won't take it as a personal attack or harassment. Certainly admins are not de facto above reproach or incapable of sockpuppetry, but you have to admit that the accusation is not just a logical leap but a gigantic assumption of bad faith. For the record, I saw a request on WP:AN/I for an admin to close the AfD. I watch AN/I; I went to close the AfD. I'm perfectly capable of nominating articles for deletion without using a sockpuppet; I do it every now and again. I agree with you that AMDZone is probably someone's sockpuppet, but it's not mine. MastCell ^Talk 04:40, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Link spam

Link spam *is* vandalism. See also Wikipedia is not a link farm. Please work your links into relevant sections as references. Thanks. Jdb1972 01:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd be interested to know which of the given criteria you have interpreted as being applicable in this instance. As the links were not intergrated into the article body, however, I do see the logic of your position, and may get around to adding them to the "conservatism" section per your request. - MSTCrow 01:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Your allegation of sockpuppetry by MastCell (talk · contribs)

I have closed this discussion as a frivolous nomination on your part. It is important for Wikipedia to root out violators of the WP:SOCK policy, and administrators such as User:Runcorn have been found to be abusive sockpuppeteers. However, if you wish to accuse an established administrator of such a violation, you need compelling evidence, not just a passing suspicion.

It's possible that the nominator of the AFD was generally an IP editor who created an account because anons can't create AFD pages. More likely, as MastCell suggested, he's the sock of some other established user. But if MastCell's arguments in his own defense weren't enough, let me point out one more thing.

Theoretically, if MastCell were a rouge admin, he could have just deleted the article without telling anyone. Why would he take the time to nominate the article through a sock, and then delete the article against the majority vote in the discussion (which, by the way, was the correct decision)? Think carefully before you accuse someone of policy violation again. Shalom ^Hello 03:07, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

No hard feelings from my end... I understand you're not happy with the AfD; I've been there. Take it to deletion review, is my advice if you want another set of eyes to look at it. MastCell ^Talk 05:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Your edit to Jim Inhofe

What is the basis for your claim that "The "consensus" [on human influence on climate change] is someting on the order of 1 in 10 climate scientists?" This is certainly not something I've ever heard, and the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report, which concluded that the chances that human activity is the primary cause of climate change is over 90%, certainly seems to contradict you. I believe you are mistaken in your statement; if not, could you please provide proof to the contrary? -Elmer Clark 05:17, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

1) Not everyone that is listed on the IPCC reports is actually in agreement with the results issued by the political layer. Many of the scientists listed as contributors disagree with the findings, and others are peripherally involved, not having taken a position one way or the other. Anyone that has come into contact with it is generally listed as a contributor to give the appearance of critical mass.

2) I got it slightly wrong. According to Dr. Benny Paiser, senior lecturer at Liverpool's John Moores University, who reviewed nearly 1,000 papers since the early 1990s, 1/3rd back the "consensus" view, and only 1% do so explicitly. Ergo, the "consensus" view is anything but, as a conensus view is some sort of percentage well over 50%, not 1%-33%. - MSTCrow 16:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

It's also occurred to me that when there is actual consensus, there is rarely debate about the existence of said consensus. Using real-world examples, the theory that HIV causes AIDs, and the theory that high cholesterol is bad for your health, are both consensus scientific viewpoints. Both are subject to debate and criticism. However, their challengers do not challenge the existence of consensus, but the factual basis upon which the consensus rests. When it comes to man-made global warming, you have both. - MSTCrow 01:52, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I still do not think that it's correct to claim that no consensus exists. Just because there's debate about the consensus doesn't mean it doesn't exist, and I have heard of at least one study that had practically the opposite conclusion of the one you cited - it concluded that about 50% of the articles about climate change in popular magazines and such questioned the consensus, but only something like 2% in scholarly journals did. I'm afraid I can't remember its name at the moment though. At any rate, many Wikipedia articles reflect the consensus, such as Scientific opinion on climate change, and I think if you really want to challenge it, Jim Inhofe's page isn't the place to do it. -Elmer Clark 21:52, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

You are exhibiting a logical fallacy. First you admit that the existence of consensus is debatable, and then that consensus exists because it exists, or because you say/want it to exist. You are not even aware of the actual content of the latest IPCC report. That is not sound reasoning. The Inhofe page isn't challenging anything. It is simply reflecting the current state of affairs. - MSTCrow 22:37, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how you can still be taking the IPCC seriously after this gaffe published in Science magazine:

'IPCC spokesman Mr Per Guillenhammer described the results as "a catastrophe for the consensus arrived at by our group of carefully chosen scientists", adding that "just because we have to alter our computer models to fit with what's going on in the real world doesn't mean that the models previous forecasts were based on were wrong--far from it. It just take nature a while to catch up with what the IPCC decides it ought to be doing."'

From which we can gather that their flimsy "consenus" is blown apart by empirical data (what makes science science), that their scientists are "carefully selected," a very self-incriminating statement, and that they believe the IPCC, not reality, dictates what nature should or should not "be doing," and given enough time, anything they come up with will eventually occur. - MSTCrow 00:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

RE: Fox News Channel Reversion

I find your reasoning flawed. I have never seen a instance where a unbalanced source is appropriate in a Encyclopaedia. Please get a better source about that report and I have no problem with it. - Mike Beckham 04:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

It's false, how is he suppose to get better sources for lies! How dare you ask the impossible of him. Tat 06:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Fox News Citation Response.

It's a little bit odd you jumped from Slashdot to find me on Wikipedia, though it makes total sense. Here's my reply to your "source":

Oh, pulling it out of somebody else's ass? Ann Coulter? Really? Wow, you should have said you pulled it out of your own ass.

Also, you're making a distinctly different claim than she claims the book made.

-- "Even employees of Fox News, which is widely regarded as a conservative channel, donate 81 percent of their contributions to Democrats."

81% of contributions are made to Democrats is the claim. 81% of employees donate to Democrats is a massively different claim (really MASSIVE). In fact, I would be astounded if 50% of run of the mill employees donated to anybody. Also, note that the claim is "81 percent of their contributions" - beyond the obvious problem the book has of lumping most charity organizations as "democrats" even though they are just non-profit and work toward the common good. There's the problem that Democrats are usually poorer and get by with large numbers of small donations. If you looked at my donation history you would find roughly 4 donations toward "Democrats" -- if you think that it is anywhere close to one $5000 donation, you're kidding yourself. The vast majority of donations are grassroots little 25 and 50 dollar donations.

And again, they aren't the ones making the decisions. They are the working stiffs, the camera men and wardrobe people... they are the nuts and bolts who work to put food on their tables. They aren't the ones who supply Fox News with their trademark bias. And number of donations is a completely stupid metric.

Lies, damned lies, statistics and this idiotic bullshit.

The statistic may well be true, but saying 81% of employees are democrats is obviously wrong (and not even close to what the original statistic said). Also, the implication that those are the employees who are making the decisions is completely off-base.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatarize (talk • contribs) 00:57, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

If anyone stumbles across this, I request that a personal attack review not be conducted against Tatarize, as this is a CC from a Slashdot post, and this should be handled on Slashdot via user moderation and meta-moderation. I have responded to his post on Slashot. I also believe personal attack claims are often attempts at wikilawyering to shut out opposition, and am very suspicious of their implementation. However, if Tatarize attempts to be elevated to the level of administrator, I request that the above be submitted as evidence in disfavor of the hypothetical request. - MSTCrow 19:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I request that you learn the difference between shredding your nonsense citations, of misapprehending Ann Coulter reviewing a hack book with misleading information as a personal attack against you. Oy. Tat 06:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

FNC (part 3)

Please read the reliable source guideline when adding information to wiki articles. Ann Coultier's blog is not a reliable source, and the claims she makes in the article (as well as the book it references) are obviously biased and, frankly, flat out wrong. There are countless academic studies (that are peer reviewed) that contradict the dubious claims made in a for-profit (and not peer reviewed) book (fiction). I would also counsel reading the neutral point of view policy. Thanks! /Blaxthos 10:44, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The NPOV policy does not prohibit sources or citations that disagree with your personal POV. Books are allowable sources, and being for-profit does not discount a source. If you can locate an academic study that contradicts my source, you can add that to the article. Stating that it's "fiction" without any supporting evidence is in very bad form. - MSTCrow 19:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Account age for RfA

Concerning some of your comments on recent RfAs about account age, what do you consider an appropriate amount of time for an editor to have an account before considering adminship? I think it would be more constructive to let the users know how they do not meet your criteria. Leebo ^T/C 20:06, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

A year, possibly. - MSTCrow 20:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reason in particular, such as a display of dedication to the project, that you feel a length of time like this is necessary? I think it's still possible for editors to gain the necessary experience in less than a year, but you may disagree. Leebo ^T/C 20:16, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe an editor less than a year old, generally speaking, would have full familiarity with the Wikipedia bureaucracy and its personalities, or has had enough first-hand experience with abuses of power to fully appreciate the proper and conservative wielding of that power once it has been granted to them. Although in your case, it is of interest that you appear to value transparentness in your actions as an administrator, logging any and all actions you have taken in an administrative capacity, for easy public review. - MSTCrow 20:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

That is something I value, and something I think Wikipedians should value. Administrators are trusted by the community, so displaying a log of administrative actions seems to fall hand-in-hand with that. You may have realized that I've only been around for about 8 months, which was why I was curious about your opinion. Thank you for clarifying it. Leebo ^T/C 20:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Coal

Even you must be aware that linking "coal as a cause of global warming" to one specific minor group, e.g. RealClimate, is blatantly misleading. It's like saying: "According to Bryant Gumble, the sky is blue", it suggests the authority for the position falls only on the specific speaker even though the position is much more widely held. It is a factual statement that coal is blamed for global warming (even if you don't believe it to be true, you certainly must acknowledge that many people do blame it). Dragons flight 19:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is a factual statement that coal is blamed for global warming, but also inaccurate. The who or what doing the blaming, or a representative grouping thereof, must be mentioned to ensure the maximum level of accuracy possible. As per the editing notes, if you can find others or a representative grouping to list, then do so. I have increased the specificity of the sentence. This is desirable. The previous revision was misleading in that it implied that everyone supported the contention, whereas this is not the case. The sky analogy is a false one; to begin with, the sky is not actually blue. - MSTCrow 20:05, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I have reworked the introductory paragraph into a NPOV, one that acknowledges both sides and advocates neither. Please see the coal talk page as well. Thanks. - MSTCrow 20:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)