User talk:The Evil Spartan/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Thanks

For cleaning up what 122.162.197.242 (talk · contribs) doing to those pages I've worked on. I'm not entirely sure what was up with him. --ÐeadΣyeДrrow (Talk | Contribs) 21:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Copyright reverts

Thanks for dealing with these. If when you revert you happen to know when was the last "good" revision it would be helpful to put it in the edit summary so that if an admin comes by to delete the intervening revisions the work of finding the last good revision is not duplicated. Not a big deal, but if you already know which revision is good, it definitely makes it easier. —Centrx→talk • 03:05, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. I generally try to do so; I'm not sure which you're talking about (apparently it's a while, because it's been some times since I did such a removal). The Evil Spartan (talk) 03:54, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Iraq War totally disputed

I'm not doubting that you actually do dispute the neutrality and factual accuracy of Iraq War, but you need to say what in specific you think is wrong about it on the talk page at least, or the tag will be removed. SBPrakash (talk) 20:34, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I already did. Please review the talk page. The Evil Spartan (talk) 03:53, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Move and paste

That was not a move and paste. The original article "Jeroen van der Veen" described two entirely different people and I split it up, keeping the original paste as a disambiguation page preserving its history while indicating in the new article-lets where the text came from. In principle I could have created a new ambiguation page and moved the original to Jeroen van Veen (guitarist), since this individual had all but one of the edits, but considering that all those edits resulted in an "article" that never got beyond a one-line stub and the "Jeroen van Veen (pianist) people would have a hard time locating the original edit, that didn't seem like a good idea. Amazing amount of feedback I've gotten for that one minor and innocent edit on two relatively obscure people. Afasmit (talk) 19:05, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Possible 3RR block circumvention by Gni

Hi, not sure where the appropriate place to post this would be. Gni was blocked for violation of 3RR for 8 hours; however, I think he or she may be circumventing their block as this diff shows 67.158.119.138 may be Gni. A list of contributions from 67.158.119.138 shows the IP is making edits to articles before Gni's block expires at 20:27, 13 March 2008 (UTC). Thanks, --68.23.8.245 (talk) 17:04, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

This is absolutely the right place to report this, though you happened to pick the wrong man. I will alert two of the declining admins. In the future, feel free to try WP:ANI. The Evil Spartan (talk) 17:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

IP was blocked as he is most definately Gni. Keep me aprised if he comesback again before his block expires. I will be presently extending his block based on this IP sock abuse. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 17:24, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Note also that IP 67.158.119.138 is registered to Camera CTC-CAMERA. Boodlesthecat (talk) 22:18, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

NYT

Apologies, but I must have been diffing the wrong entries. In any event, I don't think that the (relatively small) amount of vandalism warrants a response of semi-protection. The vandalism is being caught - semi-protecting it, and thus blocking new and unregistered editors from contributing, would in my view be an over-reaction to the actual amount of vandalism taking place. _GB^T/C 18:50, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Enzo Maccarinelli

Can you explain your reverts?--Warrior at Welterweight (talk) 20:28, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

You are User:Vintagekits. The Evil Spartan (talk) 20:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

1. Proof, 2. That doesnt mean you revert good edits!--Warrior at Welterweight (talk) 20:39, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it does. If you are a sockpuppet of a banned user, policy is to revert your edits on sight, regardless of content. Redrocket (talk) 20:46, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

RFA

So this Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/The Evil Spartan isn't a blue link, and you've got no blocks, an impressive article count and good people skills? Whats stopping you from taking the mop? MBisanz ^talk 07:31, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

T.E.S. I still wanna give you a mop! I will not be ignored from trying to give a Greek more power to fight the Persians. MBisanz ^talk 09:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Wow. You actually make me consider not ignoring the request this time! Problem is: I've been around a while, and in the meantime I've made good number of controversial statements. Here's the thing about being an admin: if you've been around not long enough, they don't give it to you. If it's been too long, then you've probably made enough people mad they won't give it. I learned that the hard way via and RfA on commons! Now I don't doubt I would make a great admin (chutzpah aside), but I think you should take that into account, and my previous screenname (see my userpage on commons). The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:11, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Yea, looked you up, no huge skeletons in my view. If you dont want the mop its your choice, but I do think you'd stand a chance, and if not like we ban people who fail RFA. MBisanz ^talk 08:00, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Image error?

Hello, I noticed that on your most recent iteration of the Barack Obama vs. John McCain presidential election map, Obama's name appears below the color boxes, and "Hillary Clinton" seems to be in its place. I would edit it myself, but alas, I am not autoconfirmed yet. ~ Merqurial (talk) 18:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I knew there would be an error somewhere. If you find any other errors, please do let me know. The Evil Spartan (talk) 18:56, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I will, and thank you for being so courteous to a 9-month IP user newbie like me. ~ Merqurial (talk) 19:25, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Didn't you get the memo?

Sarcasm doesn't transmit well over the tubes ;) Sceptre ^(talk) 00:29, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Ha ha. Well that's why they invented the z in zomg, right? The Evil Spartan (talk) 00:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Farewell

Sorry to see you go, hope you'll decide to come back, your edits will be missed. MBisanz ^talk 06:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Dido. Tiptoety ^talk 21:32, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Optimistically looking forward to unretirement.Ferrylodge (talk) 22:26, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

CDI/MDI

I created the CDI article because it did not exist. It needed to exist, so I created it as a template copy and decided I could change it and make it different and better over time. Many of my younger friends are using drugs and I do not want them to die from CDI/MDI. The CDI article is a part of my Anti-Drug Death campaign to educate people about the real dangers of using these drugs in combination. Your helping me, is greatly appreciated.

Supercool Dude (talk) 00:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

United States presidential election, 2008

Hello TES. I had to revert your change at that article. The top of those articles are meant for the Election winner & runner up (and 'third party candidates, who effect the election results). We won't be able to put images at top of article until November 4, 2008. GoodDay (talk) 19:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Pittsburgh Pirates

What does "wrong kind of pirate" mean? I'm seeing it on the internet, so it's obviously a term that's in use. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:02, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

It's definitely not vandalism, but it seems to be used primarily in blogs or (pardon the expression) "parrot" sites of wikipedia. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm not finding it in use on their official site, so apparently it doesn't deserve status as a "widespread" nickname, or at least not yet. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I mean pegleg refers to these pirates, not these ones. I have never heard the expression, and I've watched the Pirates almost as much as anyone for the last 20 years. Even if it's not wrong, it's of minimal notability, and not referenced to boot. The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

We're kind of getting spread across two talk pages, which I admit is my fault. As I said there, and I'll say again here, there is no question it is in some use by some fans. You can argue whether a blog is an encyclopedic source, but you can't argue that it doesn't demonstrate the term's use among fans. But I also looked in Google under ESPN, and nothing turned up, and you know they would pick up on it if it had any currency, so I agree it's not notable enough (yet) to be listed among the "primary" nicknames. That's in contrast to "Bucs", which is all over the Pirates website. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I am certainly not seeing it all over the internet, as I just explained on the talk page. The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't say "Peg Legs" is "all over" the internet either, it's just a blog thing, so I agree it shouldn't be included. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:57, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Well actually,

I was in the middle of deleting everything there and starting fresh because some comments I do not need for future reference. --SamB135 (talk) 04:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Then you might be interested in WP:ARCHIVE. The Evil Spartan (talk) 04:52, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and sorry about the whole 'good faith' thing. --SamB135 (talk) 04:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Eh? Oh! Hmmm... (re User:Eurovisionman unblock request)

I have responded at the editors talkpage, but I am a little disappointed that an admired colleague should so... infer a lack of neutrality. As commented, I had not edited either article previous to reading the ANI report. As not commented, 55 hours for a block is hardly indicative of anger when it is on the heels of a 24 hour sanction. LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Your DRV nom

Consensus at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2008 May 19#Image:The-Incredible-Hulk--1-.jpg might become a lot clearer if you came back and commented again. GRBerry 22:29, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Ahmadinejad-Rabbis.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Ahmadinejad-Rabbis.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Epson291 (talk) 17:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Image:Ahmadinejad-NoZionism.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Ahmadinejad-NoZionism.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Epson291 (talk) 17:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Interesting

(Copied from User talk:Rrius) I figured you couldn't be replying to my comment yet because I had just finished. I'm sorry that I offended you. -Rrius (talk) 06:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You didn't really offend me. I get a bit snappy myself when perceive that others don't assume good faith, have a double standard, or ignore me (these are the three things that will set me off in a conversation). No worries. The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I was assuming good faith, really. You had an earlier comment further up the talk page, so it was natural to assume that was what you meant. -Rrius (talk) 06:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

You didn't really offend me. I get a bit snappy myself when I perceive that others don't assume good faith, have a double standard, or ignore me (these are the three things that will set me off in a conversation). No worries. The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I was assuming good faith, really. You had an earlier comment further up the talk page, so it was natural to assume that was what you meant. -Rrius (talk) 06:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The keyword is perceive. I perceived the failure to assume good faith - that doesn't mean you weren't actually doing it. The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Please revert that edit

I saw your comment in the "Mulatto" section of Talk:Barack Obama. Using the word "nigger" just bothers too many people to make it worthwhile. I'm trying to tamp down emotion as we discuss some controversial changes in the article. It would be very helpful if you'd remove that comment or word because it can be interpreted as goading, meant just to irritate people. I'm not assuming that was your purpose. As a favor, please remove it. It would really help out. I'd appreciate it. Noroton (talk) 21:28, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It wasn't meant in the slightest bit to offend. Feel free to remove it yourself, I won't be unhappy. The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Evil one, perhaps you could change it to "N-word" or some such euphemism?Ferrylodge (talk) 21:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

All right, thanks. I'm not offended. I'll wait first for your response to FerryLodge. Noroton (talk) 21:40, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know any, or I would. Anyone else who wants to change it can. I'm quite nonchalant when it comes to things like words (I have a thick skin myself), so I usually end up dishing out more than I should. Just remove it. The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:42, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, no problem.  :-)Ferrylodge (talk) 21:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Deleted image

Hi, is their any way I can see this deleted image: http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Dirty_Kuffar&diff=175648731&oldid=175165217 Thank you User:Arthur Warrington Thomas (talk) 15:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

You can ask the deleting admin for help: User:Shell Kinney. The Evil Spartan (talk) 16:32, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Request for your opinion

		Please Vote For Change We Can Believe In Or Even No Change at Obama Article
		Requesting your final opinion on the Bill Ayers language You previously !voted (here) on what language to use at the Barack Obama page. We're trying to get a consensus now. Please take another look at how the discussion has progressed (especially here) and consider what option might make the best consensus, then !vote again at Talk:Barack Obama#Call the question after detailed discussion: Option 3 or not?. Please keep in mind the discussion has been long, so if you can accept what seems to be a likely option, please do. This is one of Wikipedia's most prominent articles. Thank you. Noroton (talk) 23:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama article

You seem to be edit warring[1][2] over adding problematic non-consensus material there. I don't know if you've reviewed the history and the talk page, but this is an ongoing discussion and you seem to be editing in support of tendentious editor / likely sockpuppet. My hunch is that the article is very close to needing protection if people are going to keep trying to add the material. I urge you to self-revert, and instead participate in the discussion if you wish to contribute. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 17:14, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I am and have been participating in this discussion; I suspect protection is imminent. I have also, you may note, left a rather nasty request to stop socking on the user's talk page. The Evil Spartan (talk) 17:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Please take another look at the Obama vote

I've moved my vote into the "Option 3" column, and I don't think anything else could possibly pass. Could you support that option? I think that if you do change your vote, now is the best time, because other people may follow once they see movement in that direction. Please think about it. Link: Talk:Barack Obama#Call the question after detailed discussion: Option 3 or not?. By the way, it looks like Shem is building up a case that could get you blocked. Please be careful. Thanks, Noroton (talk) 21:08, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:COIN / Xplor International

I have done some significant edits to Xplor International, please take a moment to look over the article and let me know over at WP:COIN, and close if appropriate. The article is better now, I believe, but it still has a notability issue, along with reliable sources. Tiggerjay (talk) 04:44, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

United States presidential election, 2008

Please comment at Talk:United States presidential election, 2008#Candidates in the Infobox. -Rrius (talk) 20:45, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Please discussion first. That article has mostly gone with not having the images at the top of the article. GoodDay (talk) 21:08, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

That's big of you, considering the discussion has been on the talk page for at least 10 minutes now. The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:09, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Believe me, there's been past discussions over this since March 4th (when McCain became the presumptive Republican presidential nominee). GoodDay (talk) 21:12, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Could you fix the no candidates section aswell? GoodDay (talk) 17:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I could have sworn it was fixed. The Evil Spartan (talk) 17:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I just fixed it, no worries. GoodDay (talk) 18:08, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Xplor international

Thanks for your interest in our organization. As one of the 3,000 members (and one who has been active for 23 years) I appreciate any further help you could provide in improving our article Mrprtr (talk) 18:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, we can't figure out how to change the name of the title. It should be 'Xplor International' (please see www.xplor.org). ThanksMrprtr (talk) 18:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Once again, thanks for your interest in our organization. I am sure that you followed some of the external links to other web sites and found the programs that we have run over the past 27 years as a not-for-profit organizaton. An example would be: XML Forum: Introduction to XSLT, Xpath, XSL-FO.

Also many other large, legitimate organizations reference the organization: IBM

And if you Google on Xplor AND Documents you get over 40,000 hits (which isn't suprising for a 27 year old international tecnnical association).

Carl Sagan (in 1988), John Naisbitt and Alvin Toffler (in 1989) and even Dilbert's Scott Adams (in 1995) addressed the association general meeting.

John Warnock spoke on numerous occasions in the mid-90s as Adobe launched PDF.

The Public Printer of the United States lead a special Xplor session for government pinters and organizations that contract to them.

As we build this article and can find citations, we will be adding much of this material.

Again any constructive suggestions would be most appreciated.

William Broddy edp (talk) 05:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

At this point, I am not debating the notability of your organization. However, the page is unquestionably written like an advertisement, not an encyclopedia article, and it needs to be fixed. The Evil Spartan (talk) 05:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your observation. Could you point me to an article about another industry association that would be a good model? A couple of us have been trying to crack the code on how to dso this.William Broddy edp (talk) 05:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know any others in your field, however, I believe Adobe Systems is a good short article for comparison. The Evil Spartan (talk) 05:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I had a look at the Adobe Systems article and went through a number of the articles in Professional associations. My observation was that an article should be written in the third person and that it should focus on history and statistics.

I also noticed that the majority of associations are also flagged as adverts. Is this because their style is first-person plural, e.g. AIIM?

Am I cracking the code yet :-?

William Broddy edp (talk) 06:05, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

An article not only should, but must be written in the third person. The other article you have tagged also has problems sounding like an advertisement. Quite simply put: the article should sound like an encyclopedia article written by an uninvolved source, not like something you might find on the business's website. In fact, we often include criticism sections: see American Family Association. The Evil Spartan (talk) 14:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help in moving the article to Xplor International. After reading the process, it looked daunting.

William Broddy edp (talk) 14:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Glenn Beck and FAIR

I'm not going to revert you (yet) because I don't like to edit war. However what you are doing over on Glenn Beck is not acceptable and I think you know that. The question of how we ought to label (or not label) Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting has been debated for some time at the talk page of that article. You are well aware of this. Your preferred term "liberal" had no consensus whatsoever. Yes, I know there are sources which describe FAIR as "liberal." You also know that there are sources which do not. So why do we use your source which describes them as liberal rather than another one which calls them progressive, or simply calls them "FAIR?" Other than personal preference based on your politics, what is your basis for choosing one over the other when it comes to label FAIR (which I don't think is even necessary) in the Beck article? "The quote is sourced" is not a good explanation. We don't include any and everything that is sourced and there are conflicting sources here. More importantly, how can you possibly justify calling FAIR one thing on its own article but another on an article that mentions it? "This is Beck's article (not FAIR's)" is an absurd statement. Are you seriously arguing that we should use different adjectives for the same group based on the whim of whomever happens to be at article X or article Y, rather than agreeing on an adjective at the parent article and then applying that throughout the encyclopedia? Would you be okay with me running over to an article which mentioned the Heritage Foundation and adding in "right wing" just because one or two reliable sources used that term? I would hope not because if I did that I would be POV pushing.

I'm not going to rehash the whole argument with you and explain why "liberal" is simply inaccurate when it comes to FAIR because they are to the left of American liberalism. I don't know why you are so obsessed with labeling FAIR liberal or left-wing or whatever, but don't drag that dispute to other pages. There's a new discussion about it at the FAIR talk page so why don't you head over there again? Right now consensus was apparently reached to use the term "progressive" earlier in the article. If you want to change that consensus than have a go at it, don't insert your personal preferred term over at Glenn Beck or anywhere else. And please don't accuse me of trying to "sanitize" anything, whatever that means. I've already said (repeatedly) that FAIR is to the left of "liberal," which from your perspective is obviously worse. The arguments for describing them as progressive are thoroughly articulated at the FAIR talk page and that's the place to discuss this further. --Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 07:19, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I have stated before, and I will state it again: the term is confusing. The term on the main article is far less confusing, because of the context; however, in the Beck article, it would only lead to confusion. We can use "left-wing", a term you used immediately above; that would be fine with me. As for simply using the term that an organization uses to describe itself: would it be appropriate to refer to the Ku Klux Klan as an equal racial opportunity organization because they thus describe themselves? (I am in no way comparing the two, except to say that self-descriptions are biased and often confusing). The Evil Spartan (talk) 04:04, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't see how the term is all that confusing if we link to an article about progressivism in the United States. This section is an excellent general description of where FAIR is at politically speaking. My actual preference is to use no adjective whatsoever. The wikilink to FAIR on the Beck page allows readers to scan that article and get a sense of where the group stands. If we must use a term "progressive" makes sense because it is used both by FAIR AND by some third-party sources. Unsurprisingly, the term "left-wing" is not really used by reliable third-party sources, though personally I think that left-wing (which I only mentioned above as something you favored) or better yet "leftist" or "left-leaning" is basically accurate. If it mollifies you, you could add the modifier "self-described" before progressive but then we are pushing this whole labeling process even further and we don't generally do that on Wikipedia. Your Ku Klux Klan example is an apt one. In the first sentence of that article the only adjective we use to describe the group is "secret" which is indisputable (the sentence does mention what they advocate and actions they have taken, but that's rather different). If you look in this section of the Antisemitism article (one of many which links to the KKK article) you'll notice the phrase "used to build support for the renewal of the Ku Klux Klan" - not "of the racist Ku Klux Klan" or "of the white supremacist Ku Klux Klan" even though the Klan is clearly racist and white supremacist. This is typical best practices for Wikipedia. We don't label the group or person in question with either weasel or peacock words, rather we link to the main article so readers can learn about them there. Again, my strong preference is for no label whatsoever of FAIR on the Beck article, but using progressive is acceptable.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 18:21, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps the next sentence of Klu Klux Klan or Al-Qaeda would be helpful. And left-wing is sourceable. Look, I'm not trying to create a problem. But I believe the use of possibly confusing language in order to avoid huffing and puffing is silly and does nothing aid WP:POV, only to sanitize and lead to political correctness which removes from the value of Wikipedia. The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what you are getting in the KKK article, and quite frankly I'm not even sure that AQ should be called "terrorist" in the opening sentence but that's really beside the point so I don't want to continue with those analogies. Honestly this really isn't about being politically correct, it's about being accurate. It is utterly inaccurate to call FAIR "liberal." We could say that some people say that, but not in another article and not in the first sentence of the FAIR article. This leaves us with saying nothing, saying "progressive", or saying "left-leaning, "leftist," or something similar. I'm sure we would find more sources that say progressive than left-____, and that is the term FAIR uses for itself. My personal preference on the FAIR article is to remove any adjective from the first sentence, then let FAIR describe itself, and then explain how third party sources have described them. I would have no problem saying something like "a number of media outlets and commentators have described FAIR as 'liberal' or 'left-leaning.'" We could then source that heavily to things like the Times, the Post, TV news, and maybe media "critic" type people like Howard Kurtz (I'm sure he's said something about FAIR at some point). A sentence like this could be at the end of the lead. I don't have much energy to start work on this right now, but if you start a discussion over on the FAIR talk page I'll participate. I hate these silly battles over one word in the intro and perhaps a sentence along the lines I'm describing would calm things down a bit. We might also mention that FAIR criticizes "liberal" media outlets (they regularly rip into NPR and PBS for one thing, see here for example) but that they do so for being too conservative. That gives a pretty good sense of their POV without using labels.--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 06:37, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Map Image

In regards to your reverting of my edits on the map image, I think it would be in the best interest of the article to remain constant with all fluctuations among the maps as often as possible. I understand it may take quite a few edits to completely match up with all the fluctuations this election cycle may experience, but purposely not updating something out of complete disregard to the latest information available seems a little off-beat to me. And in regards to the SVG version, the program used to create that map was through a free, open-source program that is available for download and can import that map to be easily edited by simply using the tools in that program. The program is not difficult to operate, and I for one, will be trying to adjust this map as often as possible to correspond with the latest data that is within the article. There is no reason to remove the map, especially since you just admitted to the fact that you don't want to adjust the PNG map because of fluctuations. I am reverting your edits, but you are welcome to change the map to correspond with what you feel is necessary, despite it ultimately being incorrect, despite the ease of changing the map. CoolKid1993 (talk) 05:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, again, a few things:

1. It is not out of date, and it does not have to do with not trying to adjust. It simply averages the latest polls in order to cut out the odd polling results that probably are not indicative of the real opinion of a state. I try to update it about once a day, though I'm not perfect. After working on these maps for a few months now, I am convinced the algorithm is far superior to just using the latest data. I truly believe that if you try to replace the old algorithm with the new one, the page will be worse off for it.
2. Certain pieces of data are incorrect, which I mentioned to you: South Carolina and West Virginia, at least. Please rectify these.
3. Again, it is inconsistent. Please rectify this. The Evil Spartan (talk) 05:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Okay, sorry, thank you for explaining your reasoning for having inconsistent states colored what I presumed were just wrong colors. I simply thought it was the result of laziness, and not the average poll results. Again, thanks for the explanation, and I will be happy to readjust the SVG version of the map to what it should be if you could recolor the other map to what it once was. CoolKid1993 (talk) 05:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

In reference to your most recent comment on my Talk page, unless I'm mistaken, and I'm not because my comment is right above this one, I told you to fix the PNG map, so that I could correct the SVG map to correspond with your algorithm of doing the poll results maps. I do not know your algorithm, and have no idea how I am supposed to fix the SVG version to your specifications when the only specifications you've given me is "fix this state" and "fix that state." Either fix the PNG version to the correct colors, or the SVG map gets left incorrect because I have no idea what and how I'm supposed to be coloring these states. CoolKid1993 (talk) 19:54, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The PNG map is exactly as it read before you made the changes, with the exception that South Carolina is now dark red, not light red. I do not want to make the changes so as to leave an inconsistent map. The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:07, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

PS. I do not have Inkscape, and cannot download it as I usually use public computers. Unless there is a Linux version, and you can explain to me how the heck to do a temporary installation on it... The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:27, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

PPS. I have given an explanation of the algorithm on the talk page of the local image: Image talk:McCainObamaMatchupTWIN.png. The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:33, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

There, I apparently "corrected" South Carolina. Even though it wasn't even red to begin with before I changed it just now, as you seem to think. If you can't download Inkscape, then don't come whining to me. I will only update the SVG map when YOU, not me, update the PNG. I don't know how many times I've told you to simply correct the PNG map so that I can correct the SVG map, but I guess it obviously takes at least ten or twenty times before you get it through your thick skull. Maybe I should just write YOU in all caps and bold italics from now on. CoolKid1993 (talk) 18:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

For goodness sake, cool the fuck down, I have no issue with you, nor have I been inflammatory. We have to deal with each other; communication problems happen on the internet (and yes, I have found myself frustrated at my inability to communicate with both you and others ). Anyway, as stated above: the image I referenced in my previous post and to which you can refer is the one before: [3], with the exception that South Carolina ought to be dark red. Please change both images at the same time to avoid inconsistency- you can change the second image with MSPaint. And honestly, if you can't spend the time to read my posts in their entirety (this is at least the third time I've asked you to change West Virginia, and I've explained several times about how to get the old image), and don't want to spend the time learning the algorithm which I so nicely just posted for you even though it was explained on the page (or don't want to spend the time even changing the caption to be correct to your new algorithm), then please don't go removing the previous and upload a new one. The Evil Spartan (talk) 18:29, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not clueless as to how to get old versions of the map. I'm not changing anything else until you finally update the PNG map yourself, since even if I did change West Virginia, you'd bring up some other state that needs to be changed as well that you can just do yourself. And by the way, I have read your posts in their entirety, I'm not stupid, and your algorithm for updating this map is probably one of the weirdest and most confusing ways to use the maps. Nobody has ever used that formula in any of the previous maps that involved poll data. Either way, I might as well just fix West Virginia. If you want any other states changed YOU ARE THE ONE WHO WILL UPDATE THE PNG MAP, AND I WILL THEN UPDATE THE SVG MAP TO CORRESPOND WITH WHAT YOU ADDED. And no I don't need convincing why your system is better than updating the map with the latest results, so don't even bother, please. CoolKid1993 (talk) 19:48, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Out of curiosity

Hi, Spartan, I'm just wondering whether you're a sysop or not, because your decline to unblock a troublesome anon with Japanese ISP (you also visited to the SSP filed by the sockpuppeter) Your subpage on block says you're not an admin. But the unblocking privilege seems to only give endorse to admins. I also can't find your name on WP:LOA. If any chance, you're managing two accounts? --Caspian blue (talk) 23:14, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I cannot for the life of me find the clause on any policy pages, though I know it exists: a non-administrator in good standing may perform any administrator actions which he is able to do. I believe this is why non-administrators may close non-controversial deletion discussions. In my case, I will decline requests, but not the ones which may be controversial: only the ones that seem obvious to me. The Evil Spartan (talk) 23:59, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought you're an administrator until recently, because you're very active in Wikipedia spaces. Hmmm.. why don't you go to WP:RFA and become an admin? --Caspian blue (talk) 00:12, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Vintagekits

See my talk page. — Rlevse • Talk • 12:04, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Sexual Orientation

You recently restored a self-promoting piece of propaganda by journalist Chandler Burr to the article on sexual orientation. That was a mistake. I undid it, and will continue to undo it if it is reinserted again. See my comments on the talk page. Skoojal (talk) 05:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

That was utterly a mistake, apparently while I was vandal-reverting. Apologies. The Evil Spartan (talk) 05:20, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation; I'm relieved to learn that this was the reason. Skoojal (talk) 06:06, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

AN/I post

Hi. Regarding Dr.enh (talk · contribs) and your AN/I post: they're obviously well over the limit in terms of edit-warring against consensus, not to mention behaving snidely and uncollaboratively on Talk:John McCain. Again, I'd rather not see one problem user destabilize a high-profile article. I'm sorry AN/I has been less than responsive. If this editor continues his behavior now that a "final warning" has been officially given, you can let me know directly if you'd like and the response will hopefully be more punctual. MastCell ^Talk 18:55, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you a thousand for your quick response and vigilance; I will certainly do so. The Evil Spartan (talk) 19:23, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

RFC

I chipped in. If you need more let me know. He certainly seems to be a long-term disruptive user.--Cúchullain ^t/c 03:45, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Silly me, forgot to sign. I would appreciate if you would sign, or else the RFC will be deleted, despite the fact the behavior is clearly inappropriate. The Evil Spartan (talk) 04:39, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Good one here

But it could take pages and pages. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:15, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Why thank you. I was in fact so proud of myself that I went on to write an essay for arguing about arguing... The Evil Spartan (talk) 06:28, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Image:Current 2008 US Electoral College Polling Map.PNG

I've been given permission by 270toWin.com to use the figure, and have documentation to prove it (e-mail). How do I correct my mistake as far as labeling the copyright usage? -- Fifty7 (talk) 22:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, no big deal as I'm about to update the map, and probably will again if Silver makes a polling post tonight, but please don't update the map with inaccurate information. The colors are determined by the number labeled "Projection" on the right-hand side of FiveThirtyEight.com. -- Fifty7 (talk) 22:38, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, I was going to point you to WP:OTRS, to whom you can send the confirmation email. However, I see you've already gone to another image. As for updating the map with "inaccurate information", I haven't the slightest bit of idea what you're talking about. I am still convinced you reverted to the wrong version, unless you are throwing out the "538 regression" part. The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:58, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

references

Hi. I noticed that you reverted my edit at far left, and reintroduced a version at uses http://www.topicala.com/tag/Maoist as a reference. Would you say that http://www.topicala.com/tag/Maoist is A) a reputable academic source, B) a random collection of disparate information or C) none of the above ? --Soman (talk) 08:01, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

No, not here, because I hate little more than crossing posting. I will, however, post on the talk page, where doubtless it will be flooded by a bunch of people with an agenda to push, and my point will go unheeded (I've tried on this page before). The Evil Spartan (talk) 08:05, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Heads up

I left this message at User talk:Sindian, as you appear to have some knowledge of this matter. If you don't wish to get involved... blame me! LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:24, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Section deleted on CPI(M)

Hi,

I believe 'Soman, Ism Shism and other annon users' are working in tandem to escape the 3R rule are deleting well referenced articles in CPI(M) and far left in order to frustate editors. I checked the history of CPI(M) and observed 'Soman' and other editors have been doing this for a long time. Many good, relevant and well referenced edits were lost. As a result the CPI(M) articles looks like a propaganda piece of CPI(M) and has lost its NPOV. I have tried to revert material from some earlier edits.

I kindly request a detailed investigation to ensure this type of harrasment to editors is not repeated. Sindhian (talk) 21:46, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• It should be noted that there really is - a vast right wing conspiracy against Sindhian. I just got back from our daily vast right wing conspiracy meeting on Sindhian's recent edits. We had a vote and decided that Sindhian just might be a POV pusher. His edits speak for themselves - as well as the attack article he created in, Declassified documents related to the Sino-Indian war, which Sindhian used to attack the CPI (M). As it was an attack article, it was speedly deleted according to Wikipedia policy. My hope is that this pattern of attacks, as demonstrated in Declassified documents related to the Sino-Indian war - does not continue. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 22:29, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

AIV

Note that AIV is only for vandalism. If you wish to report suspected sockpuppetry, please do so at WP:SSP. — Werdna talk 06:05, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Michigan on state electoral vote map at [4].

As I type this, based on the average of the last three polls in Michigan which is a six point lead for Obama, that state should be colored medium blue. NOT the light blue that shows as I type this. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:55, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I will respond on the talk page. The Evil Spartan (talk) 18:51, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

about bot

Hi. A message came to me from you. I have never run bot so far. I do not understand meanings of your message well.--Nameless User (talk) 08:36, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I wrote an answer in User talk:Nameless User.--Nameless User (talk) 09:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Block

My block ended on June 6th. I was not blocked. Red4tribe (talk) 22:13, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

United States Presidential Election 2008 Mediation

Hi, I've accepted the United States Presidential Election 2008 Mediation, and you are listed as one of the participants. Please feel free to comment and participate in the discussion on the mediation page. BrownHornet21 (talk) 00:28, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

SarekOfVulcan RFA

Thank you for !voting on my RfA. If you supported, I'll make sure your confidence is not misplaced; if you opposed, I'll take your criticism into account and try to adjust my behavior accordingly.

See you around the wiki!--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 00:59, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your "Maps of most recent polling data"

Thanks for contributing charts summarizing the data in the Obama v. McCain statewide polling article.[5]

I think your charts simplify and make accessible the large amount of information presented in the article. I also appreciate the recent and more finely tuned color choices corresponding to various levels of support for a particular candidate. I'm not sure that 4-10% is really "likely," but I appreciate the information and effort that goes into making and updating the maps. My commentary on it all is posted on my personal blog: http://home.comcast.net/~rpilaud/site/?/blog/category/18/ --Robapalooza (talk) 22:29, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I remain surprised at how many people continue to watch this page on a regular basis. I highly recommend http://fivethirtyeight.com as an alternative. Their information is more in depth by far. The Evil Spartan (talk) 04:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

ANI comment - endorse ban

Hi. I noticed that you wrote "endorse ban" on the Giovanni report. For sake of clarity, given a suggestion has been made that his ban be extended to indef, could you indicate whether you were endorsing the 1 month ban or the idea of an indef ban? Otherwise Giovanni's supporters may kick up a fuss later on the technicality that some people did not make it clear enough. Thanks, John Smith's (talk) 22:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC).

Re: I stand corrected

I had removed English as an official language, having heard (mistakenly) that Arabic was the sole official language. I learned I was mistaken and fixed it. Josh (talk) 02:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and I'm asking for clarification. What source do you have? Right now, I only have one source, and the source says that only Arabic is official. The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

My RfA

I hope the other kids at school play with me...

Thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, which closed successfully. I felt the process was a thorough review of my contributions and my demeanor, and I was very gratified to see how many editors took the time to really see what I'm about and how I can be of help to the project. As a result, some editors changed their views during the discussion, and most expressed specific, detailed points to indicate their opinion (whether it was , , or ).

A number of editors were concerned about my level of experience. I was purposeful in not waiting until a particular benchmark occurred before requesting adminship, because I feel - as many do - that adminship is not a reward and that each case is individual. It is true that I am not the most experienced editor around here, but I appreciate that people dug into my contributions enough to reach the conclusion that I seem to have a clue. Also, the best thing about this particular concern is that experience is something an editor - or administrator - can always get more of, and I'll continue doing that, just as I've been doing. (If I seem a little slow at it, feel free to slap me.)

I am a strong believer in the concept that this project is all about the content, and I'm looking forward to contributing wherever I can. Please let me know if I can be of any help. In the meantime, I'm off to school...

Thanks again!

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Frank (talk • contribs) 13:39, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Barack Obama

Having read the link you referred me to, I was struck by the sentence "those who receive a template message should not assume bad faith regarding the user of said template". That said, I meant no bad faith by my use of a template, was indeed being expedient.

I stumbled upon Obama's page was struck with interest that a Minister of Wales had invited Obama for a visit because of his heritage - it highlighted to me the person's diversity of ancestry in a way the rest of the article did not. I agree that it was weighed much too heavily by previous editor, but wholesale deletion seemed to kill an important nugget too. Your deletion of the my compromise edit appeared to be knee-jerked article ownership on your part. Perhaps I was wrong and there is some deeper objection? If so, you haven't communicated it in a way I understand. Best wishes, EBY3221 (talk) 19:23, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Without knowing what this is all about, this comment[6] seems unduly confrontational and bite-y. Perhaps you can say the same thing in a way that would keep tensions low? Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 19:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Responded on EBY's talk page. The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. As I explained somewhere else on this whole tempest - I did do the discussion page due diligence (way too much alliteration) before making what I thought was a good compromise edit. Here's where I failed: by not actually starting a discussion topic on the issue before going back to re-make the edit in a leaner way as a response to your RV. It's a high profile article, and as such has special needs. That said, please remember in the future when you load up your flamethrower that some of us are wearing flammable pants, and may get singed. EBY3221 (talk) 02:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Right. As I said, I apologize for my tone, but templating a regular is itself use of the flamethrower, and was a ridiculously unnecessary step, aside from not using the talk page. The Evil Spartan (talk) 07:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Image question

Hi. :) Do you by any chance remember the history of this image? I see that you once listed it at PUI and several months later removed the tag. It is listed now at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2008 June 29/Images (though the person who listed it didn't tag it), and I'd like to find out what happened then. If you don't remember, no worries: I'll dig through the history of PUI until I figure it out. But I thought if you happened to remember you could save me some time. :) Thanks for any enlightenment you may be able to offer! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 22:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I seem to have caught you just as you were out the door. My luck! In any event, I have found the moment they were removed, here. Off to stage 2 of checking into it, which I guess is looking at your edit history and User:Garion96's to see if it was addressed and, if not, to ask Garion96. He recently left a note at my page, so at least my introduction will be easier. :D --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

You'll want to ask Garion. I was only clearing the backlog of images that had a PUI tag but weren't listed. The Evil Spartan (talk) 07:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I looked through his contributions for the period and didn't see anymore about it. Since a source has been uncovered, I've just gone on ahead and tagged the image. Image work has never been my thing, but I'm picking up a lot of experience lately. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 12:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Probably not a bad move. Many of the images I came across were quite questionable, and I couldn't ever figure out why they were delised. The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:58, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

More on Image Licenses

Thanks for your help on photo licensing!--and, no: I wouldn't fudge licensing on a pic. Especially not for a mediocre one, like the snaps I've been uploading! (j/k--wouldn't do it for a good one, either. Actually, especially not for a good one, now that I think of it).Scooge (talk) 23:37, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Re: User talk:Zorakoid

Thanks for the notice Spartan. I unblocked the user. Unfortunately, the more open proxies that are blocked, the more likely there is to be collateral damage. Spellcast (talk) 08:30, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Srbosjek

Vote to keep or delete this article here [7] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.39.144.157 (talk) 12:52, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Userpage

You know, your comments on your (new) userpage reminded me of this odd discussion about Leo Tolstoy's sexuality that I witnessed awhile back. Actually, in keeping with your observation, this appears to be a recurring theme on the talk page. MastCell ^Talk 06:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes; you see I am not altogether out of my mind to bring it up. The Evil Spartan (talk) 15:26, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, I think you're right, but you may still be out of your mind to bring it up... :) MastCell ^Talk 18:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I find myself extraordinarily frustrated at the way that Wikipedia confronts many issues. Why do we have to have a controversies section on every page? And the fancruft is unreal. This is only part of the whole "let's bring up the controversial issue which makes me mad at this person" attitude. If people want to call me full of hate for noticing such an obvious structural flaw (seriously), then I'm sorry it's come to that. The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:53, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that's going to happen. I agree completely about the "Controversy" sections; they're either attempts to put in every negative item possible, or attempts to segregate every negative item into a "criticism ghetto". It's not like Brittanica does this. MastCell ^Talk 22:24, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

My Irony Meter Just Exploded

You do realize that you just warned a regular from templating the regulars... using a template? That's actually kind of funny.
Anyway, I wasn't paying attention I was just warning all the various people involved in the edit war. I'll go back and change it to a more friendly sounding warning. L'Aqùatique[review] 03:03, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I do. In fact, I had to retrieve the template from ciiwiki, because that one was deleted. I just couldn't help myself. The Evil Spartan (talk) 03:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Lol... I wonder why? Here's my apology to the templated user: [8]. Thanks for the notice! L'Aqùatique[review] 03:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Aw, that was nice. God for you. We all have WP:MASTADON moments we regret within about 15 seconds (me especially). Good move. The Evil Spartan (talk) 03:16, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

G-d for me? Sweet. :P L'Aqùatique[review] 03:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

[unindent]Hey, can I ask you for advice? Not only has Merzbow rejected my apology, but he's been pretty uncivil to me. First he deleted the template, including my apology, with the edit summary "removed idiocy" then put a template on his userpage saying that "If you're here to template a regular, then you're not welcome here; your edit will be reverted without comment. If you're here to otherwise be a WP:DICK, then the same applies. If you don't like it, then you can try your luck at WP:ANI." which was obviously aimed at me. When I tried to post a response saying that I think he misunderstood my actions and once again I was sorry, he deleted it with the edit summary "You're not welcome here". Should I just let this be? It's actually really hurt my wiki-feelings- I'm not at all used to non-vandals not liking me, and for g-d's sake, it was a simple mistake. *Sigh*. L'Aqùatique[review] 05:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

The correct response to the uncivil act of throwing a template on the talk page of an established editor is to revert yourself, not follow up with an "apology" that mostly consists of further lecturing on how the editor you just wronged risks getting blocked for edit-warring. (And to make it even more incredible, it was a gross BLP violation that I was reverting). At this point I suggest that we both mutually decide to refrain from commenting on each other further in any Wikipedia venue. I will reword the disclaimer. - Merzbow (talk) 06:52, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I sort of wrote an essay on something similar a while back: WP:NPANPA. Also might remind all parties that invoking WP:DICK is, of course, often a dick move in and of itself. Try dispute resolution, avoiding each other's talk pages, and, best yet, waiting until 2 hours after reading a post by the other editor before responding. The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

AN/I report

What's the article, what's the issue? Sorry if I missed this, been away for a few days. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

If you read the post further, you will see that there is a link to the above, but it is Christianity by country. At the moment, you will see my not so subtle self expression has caused a few more people to watch the page. I encourage you, as an administrator, to participate in discussion on the page; I believe it would really help things. Thanks a million for the concern. The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:12, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Email

I'm sorry, I was certainly not purposely ignoring you. As you suspected, I've recently changed the email address associated with this account, so if you were responding to older emails they've likely gone astray - in any case, I haven't seen any email from you recently. I hope you don't mind re-sending your email to me using the "Email this user" link from my userpage? Sorry for the inconvenience. MastCell ^Talk 23:38, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Responded on your talk page and done. The Evil Spartan (talk) 23:44, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Authorship claims

Template:Authorship claims has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. MBisanz ^talk 01:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rec.music.phish

I think this AfD can be closed. There have been 5 delete recommendations and zero recommendations for anything else. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Email

Check yours :) MBisanz ^talk 07:35, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

WP:BLP

Per your assertion that an already-upheld block is unwarranted, I would like to point out that WP:BLP explicitly applies to all namespaces on Wikipedia. /Blaxthos ( t / c ) 02:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

BLP is not meant to say you can't even bring up controversial material on the talk page to ask if it should be included (I notice you yourself have participated in a similar thread on the talk page). The text was never meant to say that; this case exactly shows the problem of why poor wording in a policy can be used as a battering ram to block an editor in a content dispute. The user, an IP user with scant if any experience, was haphazardly "warned" ("threatened" seems more accurate) and blocked with little explanation other than ("read this 30 page policy"). I still maintain this was an awful block.The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

CSCWEM

User talk:The Evil Spartan/Can't sleep, clown will eat me. I noticed the talk page is still there, after the userpage was deleted. Enigma ^message 15:30, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Jesse Jackson

Thanks for the drive-by tag. I read your little userpage list and agree with certain points. I also kind of wish you'd stuck around to make a comment on the talk page about remedying such situations. Cheers, dfg (talk) 05:40, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, it was indeed a "driveby" tagging. I'm not terribly fond of the term, as I don't have always to fix pages I see a problem with (thus the creation of the tag). And it just so happens this page kicked into one of my pet peeves. Surely, I will participate in the discussion here as you've asked. The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

You should take a look at the current state of the article. 1 editor pretty much eliminated the contro section and incorporated all the material into the body. When was the last time you saw that ever happen? dfg (talk) 15:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Honestly, it takes a skill of writing I really don't have, because it's not easy to do. If he did it well, bravo! The Evil Spartan (talk) 17:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)