User talk:Antaeus Feldspar

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

RE Catholicism

No Problem, I've listed it on Vandalism in Progress and asked for a 24 h page protection.--Samuel J. Howard 02:05, Sep 17, 2004 (UTC)

I agree with you on the removal of the inappropriate section, and have reverted to your version twice now. If it is reverted again, I will list this on Wikipedia:Requests for comment. However, I would ask that you please tone down your comments on the talk page. Yes, the anon is being childish, but your comments come across as unnecessarily acerbic. This simply fuels the "flames." I think if you deliberately restrict yourself to neutral-toned comments and refuse to stray from content related aspects, you'll steal his fire. Just think of how you would write if you were *discussing* this with your mother instead of *arguing* with a stranger. It might be a good idea to archive the talk page and start fresh. Just remember to stay on topic (the topic is the article, not the other user) and friendly. Logic is on your side, so don't let it get emotional. SWAdair | Talk 03:05, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Heh; since my mother isn't the kind of person who would vandalize talk pages or litter even the most heated discussion with insults to the family of the person she disagreed with, it's hard to picture this being a discussion with her. I do agree with you -- the discussion should be about the content, not about the personalities. However, when you articulate numerous reasons, based on the content and the article, why the content should not be in the article, and the response you get is not any actual answer to those points, but "I see you've decided to pick on little semantic things, to make yourself appear to be in the right" -- honesty, as much as w

e both wish there was, is there any basis to believe this is someone acting in good faith? After this user has vandalized both the talk page of the article and one's own user page?

I'll try to take the high road. However, since ClarityMS07 and his various alter egos have shown their willingness to take the lowest of low roads, it won't be easy. -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:17, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have very little doubt about the reasons for this anon's actions or methods. ;-) That's why it is even more important for you to take the high road. I expect he'll revert again and then I'll be listing the article for RfC. When that happens a lot of eyes will be trained on the article, the article's talk page and this talk page. Let's make sure they see sane, rational discourse. Your version has logic going for it, but others coming into the middle of this need to see that you are focusing on logic. I expect the anon(s) will continue using flame bait for argument, which will only show his "C of RCC" section for what I believe it to be -- a deliberate attempt at disruption. SWAdair | Talk 09:25, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Good point -- and good prediction. ^_^ -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:39, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to archive the talk page and start fresh. I agree; for obvious reasons, I don't think ClarityMS07's slanders on myself and my family should stay there any longer than is needed to convince anyone getting involved but as yet undecided that one side is arguing from logic and principle and the other side, the side resorting to personal attacks, is arguing from spite and pique.

However, because of the obvious conflict of interest, I think I had best leave it up to someone else's judgement as to when the archival should happen. -- Antaeus Feldspar 01:25, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have archived the talk page (it was getting really long) and left a clear note directing people to the archive for previous discussion about the "C of RCC" section. Anyone checking into it will see it. SWAdair | Talk 02:50, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

With no sign of the anon in the last few days, it looks like the article may be back to normal. I'm removing the article from my watchlist, but feel free to contact me if that section reappears. Happy editing! SWAdair | Talk 04:10, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

User page

I reveted an anon edit to your user pageGeni 03:25, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Dracula

I just reverted an edit of yours to Dracula (you removed the mention of love story: [1]). As I made a second edit to the page straight afterwards, I thought I should mention it, in case you wanted to object and/or discuss it. Why'd you remove it, as a matter of interest? It's the most beautiful love story ever written (imho), which was pticly amplified in the Coppola film, albeit in ways not in Stoker's novel. Anyways, just thought I should let you know. :o) — OwenBlacker 22:53, Sep 23, 2004 (UTC)

Because I really cannot fathom how it reasonably can be described as a love story. Coppola's film, yes. Certain other renditions of the story, yes. Stoker's novel, no. Dracula is at best a seducer in Stoker's novel, and not in a way that has anything to do with love.

Furthermore, I asked the question how the original novel could be described as a love story back on July 21, 2004. That was two months ago, and no one who believed in the "love story" interpretation bothered to answer the question in those two months. To ignore the question for two months and then revert the edit still not having answered the question strikes me as very rude. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:44, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I'd not seen the item on the Talk: page (I've been on a bit of a Wikiholiday, so not really paying as much attention as I would otherwise). Rudeness really wasn't intentional. If noone else has justified it either, then evidently consensus is against me (I put the link in in the first place), though I would still assert that it is, in part, a love story between Dracula and Mina. Sure, the Coppola film amplifies that beyond recognition, but I never got the impression he was just a seducer. Maybe I've seen the film too many times and not read the book recently enough. I'll put it back on my list of books to read and get back to you if I still care… :o) — OwenBlacker 12:57, Sep 24, 2004 (UTC)

Well, the film is highly revisionist. Which is not, in and of itself, a bad thing -- except if you then go on to name the film "Bram Stoker's Dracula", as Coppola did, and was roundly criticized for. Coppola turns all Stoker's heroes into fools and hidebound squares, and brings in the "Dracula seeks Mina because she's the reincarnation of his lost love" aspect, which is nowhere to be found in Stoker's novel. The original novel really doesn't show Dracula as having any capacity to feel for another living being -- perhaps because he isn't a living being! -- Antaeus Feldspar 15:32, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Stolen Honor

Your additional material was removed for reasons posted on talk page. It belongs on Sherwood's personal article page, not on Stolen Honor. Please read the talk page archive. This issue has already been debated and resolved. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 17:36, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

This is, to put it bluntly, a lie. The matter has not been "debated and resolved" on the talk page. What you probably mean is that you have already "resolved" what you will believe on the subject and have decided to ignore further debate on the subject; however, this is not binding on myself or upon anyone else.

Now, looking at the article, I see the following paragraph:

Sherwood previously worked for former Pennsylvania governor Tom Ridge, whom George W. Bush subsequently appointed as the first Secretary of Homeland Security. In 2003, the Bush administration chose Sherwood to create and manage a new federal website aimed at first responders (police officers, firefighters, etc.). While working as a Ridge administration official, "Sherwood directed then-Gov. Ridge's award-winning broadcast TV and radio operations in Harrisburg". [4] (http://www.insiderpa.com/archive/insider6-2003.htm) He currently works as an executive vice president of the WVC3 Group, an anti-terrorism, security firm headquartered in Reston, VA.

Who added that to the article? You did. To quote you, "Stolen Honor article is not about Sherwood". Yet you decided that this information was relevant to the article. If Sherwood's employ under Tom Ridge is relevant, if Sherwood being picked to manage a federal website is relevant, if his direction of Ridge's media operations is relevant, if his current employment in the private sector is relevant, then surely the previous praise and criticism for his jounalistic activities is relevant -- seeing as how the article is about one of his journalistic activities, not about himself, a fact you seem to frequently forget.

Now if you would like to debate this further, I would recommend doing so on the talk page of the article itself, rather than my user page. Perhaps they would be interested in your claim that the issue has already been "debated and resolved"; they might find that information interesting, and just possibly surprising. -- Antaeus Feldspar 18:30, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If you restore that text again, I am going to file an RfA against you. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 19:16, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As I said before, deal with it on the talk page of the article. That's where this threat is going. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:33, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism in progress

Rex listed you on the vandalism in progress page for Stolen Honor. This hasn't been the first time he's pulled this crap, and he's been warned before not to use ViP for content disputes, but naturally Rex ignores the rules when it suits him. Just thought I'd give you a heads up. [[User:Gamaliel|Gamaliel File:Watchmensmiley20.gif]] 01:42, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the warning. No, this doesn't surprise me too much. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:10, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your note, Antaeus. Yeah, I see what you mean. I'll try and moderate my responses in future. Sahara 02:59, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You're welcome. (I find it helps to remember how many of the bad 'uns of history were brought down because they overreached themselves -- McCarthy attacked the Army; Hitler tried to invade Russia...) There's something else you should know about, too, a rule that you should be careful to obey to distinguish yourself from Rex, who doesn't: the three revert rule. I know it's frustrating, but it can also be a relief -- after three reverts, it's legitimate to take a break and say "I can't do any more on this without damaging my own cause." And when Rex breaks the rule, it just shows him up for what he is. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:14, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee proceeding

Of the pending arbitration proceedings against Rex, the first one has become so piled high with evidence that I don't know how anyone can sort it out, while the second has a fairly limited focus. Would you be willing to join me in initiating a third? We would try to keep it limited and manageable. Charge: Rex violated Wikipedia policy by listing edit disputes on Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress, after he'd been warned not to do so. Proposed remedy: 24-hour block. His associated personal attacks would be mentioned as part of the background, but we wouldn't go into a lot of detail about his multiple transgressions, because that would just mushroom.

I'll write it up but I'd prefer not to be only one bringing it. As I'm sure you know, your joining in such a request will touch off another firestorm against you from Rex. There's also a good chance that he'll file some frivolous cross-complaint against you. JamesMLane 03:22, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm game for it, firestorm and all. After all, it's not exactly as if he's going to stop harassing me, in any scenario short of surrender to him, for which he can cordially be invited to wait in vain. My only question is when will this be? I was actually planning to log off WP for the night. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:31, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Only one person can post it anyway. I can write it and state that it's brought on behalf of both of us. You could authorize me now to say that about a proceeding that's along the lines of what I described above. Alternatively, if you prefer to see the exact text before signing on, then just log off; I'll post a draft here and we can file it tomorrow if it meets with your approval. JamesMLane 03:35, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Either way works for me. I trust you to bring a proceeding that accurately and fairly represents everything I could contribute; if you'd rather wait and let me see the draft, then I'll check it as soon as I'm on WP tomorrow. Would you mind tossing me a link to how these proceedings work? I'm afraid it's something I'm not as up on as I'd like. -- Antaeus Feldspar 03:44, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I'll try to do it tonight. The whole panoply of dispute resolution methods is described at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution, which includes links to more detailed pages, including Wikipedia:Arbitration policy. JamesMLane 03:52, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Arbitration proceeding: User Rex071404 3

I've begun the new arbitration proceeding. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#User:Rex071404 3. The next step is for the ArbCom to vote on whether to accept it. Thanks for your help! JamesMLane 06:30, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

My answer to JamesMLane's most recent attempt at advancing his admitted agenda of getting me hard banned can be read here [2]. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404

]] 16:23, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Hey, Rex! Remember me? I'm the one that you listed on "Vandalism in Progress", after you already had an RfA opened against you for that exact same offense! Strangely enough, this cannot be blamed on JamesMLane; you were the one who knew the consequences and went ahead and did it anyways. If you do get yourself "hard banned", it would not be undeserved and it would be no tragedy; everyone else abides by certain rules and receives certain privileges, and there is no reason you should get only the "privileges" half of the equation. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:43, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

A small correction: The first time Rex abused the ViP page, an admin deleted his improper listing and explained the correct procedure to him on his talk page. No one started an arbitration based on his first mistake. The pending arbitrations arise from other matters. With Rex's earlier listing, though, he used up his free shot. Thus, his listing of you and Sahara could no longer be excused as the mistake of a newbie. For that reason, it was an appropriate basis for a Request for Arbitration. JamesMLane 17:06, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I wasn't aware of that.

I see Rex has answered at the RfA page with a couple of huge pastings (I corrected the formattings, since he included section headings that were one size larger than the section he was pasting into -- what do you want to bet he'll try to class that as "vandalism"?) Since two Arbitrators have already put in votes to incorporate this into the open RfA, should I bother answering any of his accusations there, or is the existing RfA the place for that now? (As we both know, Rex tries to argue that an accusation that isn't answered within twelve hours is a charge admitted to. Cause it's not like the person could have been away from Wikipedia for twelve hours, right? Impossible.) -- Antaeus Feldspar 17:25, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Nice to see how closely you follow things "Feldspar"... [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 20:08, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, Rex. This comment demonstrates that you are not acting in good faith, as it reiterates your accusation that I am a sockpuppet -- after you were warned that was a personal attack and unacceptable. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:36, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Frankly, I don't know how to answer your question. Rex's lengthy response is to the effect that, in the edit dispute over Stolen Honor, he was right. Of course, what he's nominally responding to isn't the charge that, in that edit dispute, he was wrong. The charge is that it was an edit dispute. I think his response strengthens the point I was making, namely that his "Vandalism in progress" listing was improper. Therefore, I don't know if it's worth your taking much time to get into detail about what should or should not be included in Stolen Honor. JamesMLane 22:09, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

ME 262

There is an egregious factual error in that article. Your participation in the dialog aimed at correcting it, is invited here. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 22:47, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rex, Wikipedia has watchlists, so that when an article that we have interest in is modified, we will be alerted. There is no justification for you to come to my user talk page, where you are not welcome, and leave notification of your edits. Either I am interested enough for the article to be on my watchlist, in which case your notification is redundant; or I am not interested enough, in which case your notification is irrelevant.

In either case, I will view further notifications of this nature to be harassment. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:16, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Dedham, Massachusetts

This page has been updated. Your comments and questions about any edits to it, are welcome. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 23:06, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Rex, Wikipedia has watchlists, so that when an article that we have interest in is modified, we will be alerted. There is no justification for you to come to my user talk page, where you are not welcome, and leave notification of your edits. Either I am interested enough for the article to be on my watchlist, in which case your notification is redundant; or I am not interested enough, in which case your notification is irrelevant.

In either case, I will view further notifications of this nature to be harassment. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:16, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for notifying me of your policy. I will take it that you prefer we not communicate. I will therefore, ignore all communciation from you in the future. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 23:26, 28 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Now that you have yielded at Dedham, Massachusetts, shouldn't you strike your talk page comment there which alleges that I edit to "harrass"? Were you to do that, I would count it as a good faith acknowledgement, and would redound it to your esteem, in my view. [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 18:15, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I have not "yielded", Rex. I do not back down in the least from my assertion, which you continue to substantiate, that you edit to harass. I do not care in the least for your empty offer to now, far after the point where you should have started, begin abiding by the "assume good faith" policy. You, assuming good faith? You, who even now absurdly leaps from the fact that I am a skilled wiki-user to the absurd conclusion and personal attack that I am a sockpuppet? The chances of you living up to that promise are even slimmer than if Michael Moore promised to stop shading the truth in his documentaries.

That is what separates us, you and I. We may both be lifelong Democrats, but unlike you, I do not consider my political affiliation to be a goal pursued at the cost of personal integrity. I find this tactic of yours, pretending to be a vicious, ethics-free Republican who takes it as fact that nothing but dirty tricks can advance his cause, to be reprehensible. If you are really so anxious to promote the Democratic cause, do it honestly -- not by smearing the Republican party through association with yourself. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:31, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Huh? Did you read this link? It absolutely 100% affirms what I said about Dedham, Massachusetts and the Establishment Clause. As for the other points, they range so far from this particular point, that it's better we dispense with Dedham 1st. Here is the remaining issue there: You have stated that my Dedham edit was to "harrass". Given our background, I see how you could have jumped to that conclusion. However, you are wrong regarding my Dedham edit and by admitting that, you can make a positive overture. Are you willing to take that step, or not? [[User:Rex071404|Rex071404 ]] 19:41, 29 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry about the delay in responding, but I'm afraid there will even more delay until I can look into it. I've been away for a few days and only have time right now to basically do a quick check online. I can see from glancing over the links you provided that I have no knowledge base on these topics. I'll have to educate myself on the material. In the meantime I would recommend becoming fully familiar with Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. SWAdair | Talk 15:35, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Horses that have unfortunately passed on

By my count, the vote was 16 votes for "Redirect or delete", 6 for keep. If you feel the procedure was filed badly, I'd recommend asking (kindly) on the Wikipedia:Village pump, and/or filing a Wikipedia:Request for comment. HTH.

Yours, a possibly not-logged-in User:Meelar.

I saw no sign of consensus in the deletion debate beating a dead horse. My count was 6 to keep, 6 to redirect, and 6 to delete, with one other voter supporting either deletion or redirection. There was no consensus for any option, thus by Wikipedia rules the article had to be kept. Moreover I personally found several of the arguments for retention highly convincing; especially those that pointed out that we have many similar articles on idioms. If you feel this decision violated due process, or that the vote was in some way unrepresentative feel free to relist this article for a second round on VfD. - SimonP 19:24, Oct 6, 2004 (UTC)

RE Arithmetic encoding

Ok. I'm not touching anything there, sorry.
But that page indeed is in need for some illustartion, and straight to the point explanation on how to do that. Believe me, I know that data compression students are looking for.

Oops it seems that someone repeated my mistake there. But if you don't mind, there is something I agree with. That "i.e." in the first line looks silly. Regards, Gnomz007 02:54, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

OK, I've made that change. Any others you recommend? I really have to hurry up and get this article to a point where it represents all I can do with it, and then let everybody loose on it to make improvements. I've just been concentrating on trying to give it a really solid foundation, and it's ... frustrating to watch the work of months suddenly ripped away. ^^;; -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:59, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry. I'm new here. I didn't realise it was a mistake to edit pages. I tried to keep everything that was there, while adding an illustrative analogy. I'm sorry you thought your material was ripped away. I thought I was keeping it. But I certainly feel the frustration of deleted work now. Perhaps you will consider including some of my work in your solid foundation? Maybe take another look at it? Scottcraig 03:46, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, again. I am still learning the protocol. And you are right about the clean-up page. I would never have found this page without it. Since I can't find where the suggestions for improvements have been going, I'll just put some here.

I still think my version is better for a few reasons. The main one is that the article jumps right into an example, which it then interrupts with a discussion. I think it is better to start with an analogy describing the method. Follow this with a complete example of the simple static case. Then discuss the adaptive case. And those diagrams in the history looked interesting, too. It was a shame to discard them.

And in general, the prose is too wordy, with too many asides within sentences. Go for simpler sentence structure, with fewer words. I don't have the page in front of me, but I remember the first sentence had these flaws. There was no need to define a message within the definition of arithmetic coding. A separate sentence would flow better.

And finally, I feel it would be better to do the examples in binary rather than decimal. It is just as easy, and that's really how the algorithm works in any implementation I've seen. To do it in decimal is analogous, but needlessly confusing. And speaking of analogies, your algorithm is an analogy as well. The real algorithm doesn't calculate all the interval endpoints; it just calculates the two it needs at each stage. And the decoding works more like how I described, by scaling the intervals to [0, 1) at each step.

I know my version was not finished, but it had some of the elements I describe here. Could you look at it again and see if it may be possible to work some of it into yours? Scottcraig 08:08, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Protest Warrior

I get the impression that in order to communicate effectively, we'd have to have reams of debate over just about everything. I don't see that as being the purpose of the article talk page, but I am willing, if you'd like to discuss this off wiki, here is my contact info. Just for good measure, here are my politics, so that you can have a better idea who your talking to. If you'd like to see what I had in mind Re: the article, have a look @ Talk:Protest_Warrior/temp. Cheers, Sam [Spade] 16:49, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I can't imagine that we have anything to talk about, since you announced up front that "There is absolutely no way that calling the protest warriors claims "straw man" arguments is going to be allowed in the article." Surely you can't claim with a straight face that my time would be well-spent trying to get even one such sentence put in the article for balance, something such as:

While Protest Warrior describes itself as 'exposing' the dangers of leftism, critics charge that by defining "leftism" with uncommon broadness and attributing extremist beliefs to the left in general, Protest Warrior is really engaging in straw man smearing of its opposition.

See, I think that's reasonably NPOV, but since you declared beforehand your unilateral decision that this particular perspective on Protest Warrior's activities would never be allowed into the article in any form, I really can't imagine what the point would be discussing it with you -- on the article talk page, on this talk page, in e-mail, in IM, it boils down to the same thing: you asserted your absolute unwillingness to have Protest Warrior's own description of their activities balanced by how those activities look to the people that are their targets. NPOV? Hardly. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:58, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Do you have a cite for that? Because if not, "critics" ads up to you and some other wiki's. We arn't here to express ourselves, were here to express reality. Find an expert whose authority you can appeal to, and cite the quote in a verifiable way, and it'l be fine. Outside of that, your "critics" are much the same as the "most scientists" who always seem to agree w random editors POV's, until we discover there is no documentation handy on what scientists think on the subject. I understand how you feel, my point is, are you a critic of encyclopedic status? If so, adding your own opinion to the article would be original research. I hope you see my point, Sam [Spade] 20:06, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

This is bizarre logic, that I, as a moderate leftist being tarred by Protest Warrior's broad brush, must find some sort of "authority" to cite in order to support the claim that moderate leftists object to being tarred with Protest Warrior's broad brush. I'm curious, must gay people find an authority to cite before they can talk about gay people's objections to Fred Phelps? Must black people Google for an official statement from the NAACP before they can state word one about black people's reactions to the Ku Klux Klan? I will remind you that NPOV states that "we should fairly represent all sides of a dispute"; I am sorely puzzled why you think requiring the targets of Protest Warrior's activities to cite an "authority" in order to have their side represented at all is in any way, shape or form "fair". --

Kirisutan Holocaust

Please look carefully at this article, and at the other contributions from that editor. I do believe this is vicious anti-Japanese "blood libel", and I'm not sure how to treat it -- vfd? speedy? report as vandal and let someone else deal with it? -- The fairly new jpgordon {gab} 05:29, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, that's in part why I put the substub tag on, to attract attention that might include someone who can confirm or deny it. VfD or speedy seem to be overkill for what is basically suspicion without proof, at least no proof at this time. You might ask at Wikipedia:RC patrol, though; I believe they frequently handle cases like this one.

Google reports no hits for "Kirisutan Holocaust". It suggested "Kirishtan Holocaust", however, which returns 151 hits. That's not a huge number, true, but the hits seem to stick with consistency to a basic set of very specific facts, which blood libels usually don't. Refining the search to sites in the ".edu" domain seems to indicate that if it's a blood libel, it's one which fooled the Asian Studies Department at the University of Redlands.

So, I think that it's probably correct information. I've created a redirect to it under the better-known spelling as well. -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:28, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Re: John Lott

Ugh. I had hoped he'd go away. Before listing him/her on ViP it'd probably be best to warn him about the three revert rule and explain that the removal of large chunks of an article without reason or discussion will usually be reverted. I'm not knowledgeable enough about the article's subject to really judge, but most of the text the anon removed had been there for some time, so some of it should probably stay. -- Hadal 05:58, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

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

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

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

Karma

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

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

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

David Vetter

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

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

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

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

Accuracy dispute on Canon (fiction)

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

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

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

Dedham, Massachusetts

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

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

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

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

Extraneous line breaks

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

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

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

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

Red-link recovery

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

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

Thank you

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

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

Concerning admins

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

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

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

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

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

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

Long Stand

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

Poll

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

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

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

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

Diane Duane copyvio

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

the other day

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

Rune mysteries

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

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

Thanks

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

adminship

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

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

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

patent nonsense

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

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

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Universism

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

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

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

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

Hey whats going on?

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

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

The Humungous Image Tagging Project

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

re: Hoaxes

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

Article Licensing

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

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

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

Option 1

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

OR

Option 2

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

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

"Impersonal attack"

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

Hate Groups and NRMs

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

Thanks for the help

Thanks Antaeus for the help on names.

Cheapy 00:47, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Mihir

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

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

merry christmas

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

Your statement

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

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

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

CNNBCBS

CNNBCBS is a division of ABC. By 2010, CNN, NBC, and CBS will have become a subsidiary of American Broadcasting Company.

This article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.