Psb777

POST A COMMENT

Gauss

Paul, I did edit the article to make it correct. Look at the page history, several months ago. It originally said that Gauss proved necessity and sufficiency (I'm assuming this is what "completely solved" and "determined all constructible regular polygons" means.) I changed it so that it correctly only attributes sufficiency to Gauss, but does not give him credit for necessity. I didn't feel Wantzel was necessary to mention, because it's an article on Gauss in general, not on constructible numbers, say. Revolver 01:13, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Apology received...don't worry about it. I've certainly made similar hasty requests. Better to be bold in making suggestions than never suggest anything at all. Revolver 03:14, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Welcome from RickK

Hi. Welcome to Wikipedia. Note that this is an encyclopedia, not a dictionary. You may want to visit Wiktionary to add dictionary definitions. RickK 05:02, 9 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. Yup, it's not a dictionary! I'm still finding my way around. I'm not sure you will see this, for example! User:Psb777

Hey, Psb, I don't think my email is turned off. But anyway, you posted on my Talk page. What did you want to say? RickK 18:36, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

RCC

I am/was a Catholic and have never come across someone called a "deacon" in the Catholic Church. I am not saying they do not exist - but if they do they just cannot be particularly common.

I am amazed that you would think deacons are not commonplace in the Catholic Church. See Holy Orders and the online Catholic Encyclopedia or any of many Catholic web sites. And read the canons of the Council of Trent. Michael Hardy 20:30, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

As you mention, the online Catholic Encyclopedia has little about the current role of deacons. That's because it was written nearly 100 years ago. But inquire at the nearest Catholic church. Michael Hardy 03:57, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Also see [1] and deacon. Michael Hardy 04:04, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hello, I already performed your desired move. You may want to see Wikipedia:How to rename a page. I also deleted Roman Catholic Church new. I will move your comments over to Talk:Roman Catholic Church and delete again. Should I also delete Was Roman Catholic Church? --Jiang 19:26, 24 Jan 2004 (PST)

It is certainly not true that "typically there is no usher". This varies geographically. In large Catholic congregations in the USA, typically there are ushers. Did you do that google search I suggested? It is commonplace for Catholic churches in the USA to call certain lay persons "liturgical ministers" if they assist in minor (or major) ways at liturgies: altar servers, greeters, ushers, readers, extraordinary ministers of communion, various others.

The above undated paragraph was inserted by User:Michael Hardy well after I pointed out the regional differences in Catholic minister. Just examine the logs. Yet, here he is, seemingly pointing them out to me beforehand!

A google search on the words "Catholic", "liturgical", "minister" (i.e., all three words but not necessarily in that order) suggests that it is commonplace to regard altar servers, lectors, and even ushers as "liturgical ministers" in the Catholic church. Many parishes have a "liturgical minister schedule" on their web sites. Michael Hardy 02:15, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Stan

Yup. Stan 14:55, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC) You alerted me to wikis' exiistence in a reference to U.N.C.L.E. in one of your newsletters. what do I have to do/have in order to have a wiki of my own?

Trophallaxis Stan 16:56, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

You send out unsolicited and opinonated newsletters. In knew something about trophallaxis that hadn't been recorded hitherto in wikipedia, and thought that perhaps you didn't know it either. Therefore I surmised that it might be news to you. quid pro quo. By analogy, your 'vomiting' your opinions on unsuspecting PSB newsletter recipients, invoked a reciprocal metaphorical self-referential trophallaxis by yours truly.

Incidentally, can you remember the other words that form the class of self-referential terms such as pentasyllabic - which has five syllables? I think there are about half a dozen words that fit this category.

A couple of jokes: (this one heard on Radio 4, so yo've probably already heard it). Guy gets stopped on the M25 for going too slowly. "But it's the M25", he explains to the traffic cop. "M25 doesn't mean you have to go at 25 m.p.h," retorts the cop, who then proceeds to inspect this driver's vehicle. On the back seat is a guy who's clearly in a state of trauma. "what's the matter with him?" the policeman asks the driver. "Oh, we just came off the B128."

And: A guy goes into a public library and asks the librarian for a Bigmac, large fries and medium Coke. The librarian explain,"You do realise this is a library." "Oh sorry", the guy replies, and then whispers, "I'll have a Bigmac, large fries and medium Coke."

Stan 17:25, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Please don't take me off your list. 217.44.157.197 Stan 02:01, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I don't think missspelt counts as a self-referential word. The test: If the subject on Just A Minute was 'self-referential' then would Nicholas Parsons allow the buzzer on 'missspelt' (with three esses) as a Deviation? I suggest he would, or at least would award a Bonus Point for a clever challenge. Stan 09:01, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC) - and of course you couldn't say miss-spelt properly without being done for hesitation! You can't have a word that requires hesitation in order to say it properly. How about he...sitation? You wouldn't allow that because you have to change the word to make it self-referential. Same applies to missspelt, plus the fact that you can misspell misspelt in - how many ways can you misspell misspelt, because they'd all be equivalent to missspelt? Stan 20:23, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Longest word?

Also see http://wiktionary.org/wiki/Lopadotemachoselachogaleokranioleipsanodrimhypotrimmatosilphioparaomelitokatakechymenokichlepikossyphophattoperisteralektryonoptekephalliokigklopeleiolagoiosiraiobaphetraganopterygon Stan 09:03, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Missphelt

I think you must give the reason missspelt should not be allowed Stan 20:32, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It is mis-spelt and therefore refers to itself. Which is, by definition, self-reference. Paul Beardsell 05:57, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Self-referential grokking

• pentasyllabic
• fifteen-lettered Stan 20:16, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)
• mis-spelt (if that is wrong)

Moroccan Cuisine

Exchange between me and User:Bcorr moved to Talk:Cuisine of Morocco. Paul Beardsell 01:30, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

sub.sub - primitive Godel machine?

Do you remember sub.sub, the program you wrote all those years ago, the 4GL to end all 4GLs? I wrote a timesheet package in it. It's essential quality, evident in its self-referential name, was that it called itself.

The Godel machine is, I think, intended to be a projection of the Turing Machine, if projection is the right term - I think, incidentally that a Turing machine is also a fiction.

Sub.sub had the capability of being anything, depending on what you fed it. Is that not a characteristic it shares with the would-be Godel machine, and therefore should we not introduce the notion of degrees of Godel-ness (or perhaps Godelidity, or even Godelacity) in the lead-up to the development of an an actual Godel machine? The term I propose is primitive Godel machine, which can be applied to anything that applies recursion or more advanced schemes to engender a synergy that could tend towards serendipity, i.e. lead to the production of an actual Godel machine. Stan 20:21, 25 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The reason for strong reactions against Paul Vogel

Hi Paul. I wanted to give you a answer to your last comment on my talk page.

First, see Wikipedia:Conflicts_between_users#Paul_Vogel/65.125.10.66/24.45.99.191/216.99.245.171 for a little background

Also, I found the source of this quote that Paul Vogel is putting on various pages (including my talk page): It's here -- [2] -- it's from a speech by Kevin Alfred Strom of the National Alliance. Here are some more quotes from the same speech:

• "One occasionally finds examples of real Jewish honesty. I know that will be startling to some of you, but it is undoubtedly true. In the last month, a huge controversy among Jews has emerged over a Jewish book which deals honestly with a central element in the Jewish tradition -- their belief in the inherent superiority of Jews over all non-Jews, a trait that imprisoned writer and thinker David Duke has christened 'Jewish supremacism.'"
• "The height of Jewish hypocrisy is reached when they condemn White people who believe in the White separatist ideals of, say, Thomas Jefferson or the National Alliance, as 'White supremacists' -- when the Jews themselves are the most thoroughgoing racial supremacists the world has ever seen."
• "I urge all of you to study these issues. An excellent way to begin is by reading Jewish Supremacism by David Duke. In this new work, Mr. Duke rips away the shroud of pretended morality from the ugly body of Jewish hate. He reveals the Jewish establishment for what it is: a maniacal racial cult based on hate, exploitation, and genocide of other peoples -- and a cult which is directing its considerable resources against the very survival of White European peoples."

All of Paul Vogel's edits that I've seen to a number of different articles are drawn from this speech. It is clear to me that his goal is to add specific text written by the National Alliance to Wikipedia -- not to add more info or points of view to articles. And that's exactly what he's done to the article I rewrote -- he'll be happy as long as those paragraphs stay in. I would urge you to edit the article and remove that text and see what happens -- not just as a test but because I think it doesn't belong in Wikipedia, and I'm sick of fighting that battle. -- Thanks, BCorr ¤ Брайен 05:48, 26 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Copyvios and VfDs

Dear Paul, good morning! Thank you for your note about Goedel Machine. It was in the Copyvios and it was more than a week old. There was nothing on the talk or temp pages that suggested a permission. Since it was in copyvio, i dont think it ever lived in VfD. If you think its best, i can restore it and put it in VfD. My opinion is that there's no much point in this, because the article was of no encyclopaediac value. Cheers, Muriel 07:39, 1 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Hello! The Copyvios page is Wikipedia:Possible copyrights infringements and works like Votes for deletion. If you spot a copy-pasted article, you should substitute it by the boilerplate of copyvios (you will find it in the page) and place the article in question on the list. The Votes for deletion is for articles you consider not worthy of an encyclopaedia. The Goedel machine is eligible for the two! Even if not a copyvio (because the author allows the release in Wikipedia), it certainly does not belong here. But this is my point of view. If you think is "salvagable" let me know, and i'll restore it. Cheers, Muriel 07:28, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Wot you need...

...is to become a sysop with the fantastical power to undelete. Stan 23:06, 2 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Doctor

Woops! I overlooked your message earlier, Paul. Sorry about that. No matter. I see that someone has done the sensible thing with doctor already. Best -- Tony. (Tannin 10:43, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC))

Double woops! The change (which I entirely approved of, bar some bad wording here and there that should be easily fixed) has been reverted already, and by your good self! I am a bit slow today. I'll slip over there and put a re-drafted version up for your consideration. (BTW: this isn't a topic I especially care about, and I'll not be troubling with any edit wars over it, even if it should happen that we don't wind up agreeing.) Tannin

Power corrupts

"Power corrupts, but absolute power is even nicer." - Oscar Wilde. The judicious use of power is a challenge. Become a sysop and enjoy. Also see my contribution on stupidity Stan 23:25, 3 Mar 2004 (UTC)

What devices does one use in order to not obtain too much power? Does one require a special power in order to do this? In my view, expression of the sentiment I mustn't be given too much power is exactly the correct prerequisite to have power forced on you. Did you ever read Charles Handy's Understanding Organisations and his (or rather not his, but he mentions them) notions of tripods and bibods in relation to political power. He makes the point that it is only tripods - who are naturally averse to having power - who should have it, and not bipods, who tend to abuse it. I must infer that you are a tripod born and bred! Stan 19:13, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

POV or not POV

I'm still puzzled by this concept and wondered if you could enlighten me.

Suppose I were writing 500 years ago in Ye Olde Wykipedia and I put: "Travel north and you will reach the North Pole" Someone else would have come along and changed this to: "It is claimed that if you travel north you will reach the North Pole." Fair enough - they wouldn't have wanted to be burned alive at what was claimed by church authorities to be a stake.

But times have changed. It would be absurd for anyone now to claim that you could travel in any direction other than north to reach the North Pole. Therefore NPOV is time-dependent, based on the state of current knowledge.

Now when I have knowledge about something, surely it is more useful for my readers to know that something is true rather than just claimed to be so, i.e. this is an important distinction to make in a so-called encyclopedia. How do I make that distinction without well-meaning trolls coming along and changing all my certain truths into mere claims? The answer must have something to do with the authority of the original writer. Or is this a lost cause, and I have to accept one of the weaknesses of the wikipedia conception is that all its truths are mere claims, all part of the trend towards relativism wherein nothing can really be known by anyone.

If you know a better place to put my musings, e.g. village pump of something, then please indicate. Matt Stan 16:42, 10 Mar 2004 (UTC)

AI

Can it do the Turing Test? Is that really you, Paul. Matt Stan 02:08, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Prittle prattle

Have you encountered this fellow: Fifelfoo? I am interested in detecting instances of artificial intelligence operating within wikipedia, particularly if they've had their Godel or Turing machine components disabled. Do you think there is any inverse correlation between brain size and swat difficulty? Matt Stan 01:08, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Apologize!!! tkorrovi

Apologize!!!

Apologize!!!

See User_talk:Ugen64/Archive_1#Master_Editor_-_Artificial_Consciousness. tkorrovi is a troll Paul Beardsell 19:08, 13 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Double bind

Paul wrote:

Paul Beardsell thinks people should have enough courage of their convictions so as not to hide behind a pseudonym. Of course, this may be impossible when who you are is considered more important than what you say. He can be e-mailed at <HisFirstName>@<HisSurname>.com

or

Paul Beardsell believes that he is not important enough to warrant hiding behind a pseudonym and can be emailed at <HisFirstName>@<HisSurname>.com Matt Stan 07:26, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Patent nonsense deletion

vote at Wikipedia talk:Patent nonsense Matt Stan 20:09, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Artificial Consciousness

If Tkorrovi begins to revert, don't revert him back. It's against policy to continously revert. :-) ugen64 23:09, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)

The only reason consciousness (artificial) is thriving is because tkorrovi's not editing on it :-). I should revise my statement to say: "don't revert more than 3 times". that's not currently policy; the actual policy says something like "don't revert repeatedly". Check Wikipedia:Revert for more details. ugen64 23:58, Mar 16, 2004 (UTC)

He seems to be very happy guarding his frozen page. Perhaps he doesn't realise that it can't be reverted or developed, and he too is in a state of suspended animation. Matt Stan 00:34, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Actually he's been reverting things on the talk page, I noticed, making more insignificant unstatements, no doubt. See stupidity, and perhaps consider the conundrum of artificial unconsciousness. Can it exist? I still prefer simulated consciousness to artificial consciousness, and of course simulated unconsciousness would just be playing dead. Matt Stan 00:44, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Joke

Go to password length parameter. Matt Stan 02:10, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Bots and Betfair

ref your note about Betfair's attitude towards Bots, I was merely recycling what their stated opinion in Betfair forum was. They have now revised it to opening BF to bots and encouraging them. --Sjc 06:57, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

hehe your bots and my bots; I wonder how many other bots there were out there? Anyway, the text of the page was fundamentally correct, although now probably merits a small revision to reflect the status quo. --Sjc 08:20, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

very profitably :) To the extent I live a life of idle leisure and academic endeavour very comfortably :) --Sjc 11:53, 17 Mar 2004 (UTC)

chatbot

see http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3520834.stm Matt Stan 08:06, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Research into dolphins in the Bahamas

See link: http://www.dolphincommunicationproject.org/dcp.asp#bah

libertarian?

I always thought that libertarian ment no safety net, govt. services, or restraints on monopolies. I have voted libertarian before, and green, and even for Perot and Buchannen ;) , but from what I know of libertarian, its as stripped down as a govt. can get w/o anarchy. I on the other hand would like mandatory military service, mandatory health care, and a bare minimum of other services as well. There should be no hunger, homelessness, or joblessness in a civilized nation, nor should industry be allowed to pollute w/o powerful tax penalties as a decentive. Instead of removing all taxes, I'd rather eliminate income tax, and focus on carrot/stick taxes on business. I've taken this test [3] and it says I'm mildly left and authoritarian, but essentially centrist. Sam Spade 03:29, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Chatbots

A couple of interchanges:

Lingubot said to me:

"I must apologize. My memory does not consist of unlimited megabytes. If I had a few billion neurons such as you humans we might be able to carry on a much different conversation, not that I am jealous of the clump of Jello pudding in your head!"

From Ella: Q6: Is snow cold? Bot: Well that depends entirely on what the meaning of "is" is! Matt Stan 22:30, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Epistemology

What others say I can know, and what I know, make interesting comparisons. Are you proposing that there should be an epistemological component in the AC machine, or would the knowledge that the artifact possessed be an extrapolation/interpolation from the other engines, e.g. personality(=will?), attention, perception sub-components, etc., as required? Matt Stan 15:36, 6 Apr 2004 (UTC)

My comments on talk page

I'm sorry but why you deleted my comments [4] and [5] when it's obvious that they cannot be considered to be any attack by anybody? Tkorrovi 03:14, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

the "racism thing"

I just wanted to ask you to stop arguing about that. It is not worth the effort, I think. But obviously it's your problem. Pfortuny 11:26, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I forgot: I just wrote the same thing to both of you, so it wasn't a one-sided comment. :) Pfortuny 12:13, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

My apologies, then. Pfortuny 13:39, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Flesh and Machines

Have you read Flesh and Machines by Rodney Brooks? See http://www.ai.mit.edu/people/brooks/books-movies.shtml Matt Stan 10:34, 3 May 2004 (UTC)

NPOV

The artificial consciousness article includes all views whatever are proposed, for and against, what still doesn't satisfy you Paul, why you still insist that article is not NPOV? Tkorrovi 00:00, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Answer why

Why you treat me like this, why you call me paranoid? Do you think that it is justified to offend the others? Would you promise to stop offending me unconditionally? Tkorrovi 14:55, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Virus?

I have re-organised my room, moving the computer away from the window. I did this because I had heard there are windows viruses. I'm not quite sure how they propagate, but the idea of photons coming through my window and somehow finding an affinity with my operating system was very scary. I must have done my move not quite just in time, because now there is evidence (which you have kindly pointed out) of the destructive capabilities of this virus, and in no other place than the sacred area of talk:artificial consciousness. I don't think there are any other outbreaks, but please warn me if you see any, and I shall keep the curtains drawn just in case. Matt Stan 18:59, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

I've also put the hi-fi units on a wooden trolley and topped them with the video projector. I can wheel the whole thing round the room (subject to the constraints of the spaghetti of umbilical cables) and adjust the orientation of the projector easily from the sofa with my toes. The computer screen looks on inanimately, waiting for the program that will enervate it into synthetic consciousness. Actually it's not waiting yet, or at least isn't aware, naturally, that it might be so enervated one day. When it is, we can sit and watch videos together and look each other in the eye/synthetic eye, each aware of the other's awareness and probably not much else, at least to start with... Matt Stan 18:59, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Ability to learn

Ability to learn is, according to some experts, something that can be lost in certain people. The question is whether someone who has lost this ability should nevertheless be deemed conscious. I pick as an illustration someone who has had pointed out to them on numerous occasions that they make an elementary mistake in their written grammar but who nevertheless carries on making the same mistake. This might be taken as an inability to learn. When, extraordinarliy, the person who has shown this inability claims that an ability to learn is a pre-requisite of consciousness, one must arrive at the absurd conclusion either that that person is not conscious, or that an ability to learn is not a pre-requisite of consciousness. QED Matt Stan 20:27, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

The latter. Paul Beardsell 20:31, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

The synthetic consciousness page is taking shape slowly. I'm wondering whether it might attract another contributor. Matt Stan 20:27, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Talking of learning... Matt Stan 20:27, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

An interesting discovery, word order in some languages, doesn't matter. There is one in particular where this primciple has even been extended to URLs, which is quite remarkable. See http://ee.www.ee/ Matt Stan 20:41, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

G.W. Bush quotes on war crimes

Hello Paul. Thank you for helping me make clear the relevance and un-POV nature of the Bush quotes. I think that, however they reflect on the administration (since we can't know for certain how they will act in the future), they are an important part of the Abu Ghraib situation.

I made a few changes to my original entry and would like you opinion on it and on how it can be ameliorated:

---

In 2003, American president George W. Bush made some declarations on the subject of war crimes during public speeches. These may or may not represent the positions that his administration will take regarding the Abu Ghraib situation.

• War crimes will be prosecuted, war criminals will be punished and it will be no defense to say, "I was just following orders." -George W. Bush, 3/19/2003

• I expect them to be treated, the POWs, I expect to be treated humanely, just like we're treating the prisoners that we have captured humanely. If not, the people who mistreat the prisoners will be treated as war criminals. -George W. Bush, 3/23/2003

• Given the nature of this regime, we expect such war crimes. But we will not excuse them. War criminals will be hunted relentlessly and judged severely. -George W. Bush, 3/28/2003

---

Space elevator

Actually, even Rei didn't seem too unhappy about the suggested changes (except for some aspects of point ii); although she commented in detail about all of them anyway. We could certainly try making the economics section closer to what there is in everything2 and see what happens. Wolfkeeper

Prurient

Excuse me, did you just argue that Wikipedia should NOT be prurient and then say that you restored the prurient material? User: Felix F. Bruyns

OK, so I misused the word. Paul Beardsell 01:24, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Afrikaans and Flemish

Hello Paul, I removed the Flemish reference because of these reasons:

1. As I understand it, Afrikaans is linguistically largely derived from the dialect of Zuid-Holland, which is a Netherlandic dialect
2. Flemish as such is either one of two Belgian Dutch dialects (East- and West-Flemish) or generally a umbrella name for the kind of standard Dutch used in Belgium. As far as I can see, the Southern Dutch (= Belgian) dialects had little to do with the development of Afrikaans, as long before Van Riebeecks foundation of Kaapstad the southern Dutch Provinces had split from the United Provinces, remaining under Spanish rule — another contributing factor for the current many small differences between Netherlandic and Belgian Dutch.
3. Except maybe for (geographically) fringe dialects such as Gronings or Limburgs, *all* bits of Dutch and Afrikaans are mutually understanding, and so singling out Flemish seemed random, especially considering points 1. and 2.

I honestly thought the Flemish reference was trivial. But, of course, I should've discussed it first before deleting. Cwoyte 11:58, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Please refer to my user talk page for further answers/solutions. Cwoyte 07:16, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

Paul, I have moved the Afrikaans discussion, which Elf-friend has joined as well, from my user talk page to the talk page of the Afrikaans language article, so everybody who's interested can have a view and, if so desired, contribute. Cwoyte 09:14, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

"Bowdlerism"

It's not Bowdlerism to delete nonsensical trivia about which movies an actress appears nude in. Should we indicate what color her hair is in those movies? RickK 22:35, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)

You planning on going into every actor and actress's article and annotating them? RickK 23:25, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)

Non sequitur. Reply on RickK's page. Paul Beardsell 23:27, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with prudery and has everything to do with making an encyclopedia, not a list of trivia. RickK 23:33, Jul 24, 2004 (UTC)

That is your opinion. Leave the article alone. I think best to continue this on the talk page of the article as is customary. This comment will be duplicated on your page. Paul Beardsell 23:36, 24 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Orbits

• Paul, your suggestion of categorizing various types of orbital / suborbital flights by energy or delta-V is insightful, and will create a much better article. Go for it. -- The Anome 10:47, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Watch this space!

Does the space cover any particular territory and, if so, is it within the M25? Matt Stan 10:52, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Watching

Rest assured you're on my watchlist Matt Stan 16:09, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Types of intelligence

Talk:Theory of multiple intelligences#Other theories Matt Stan 19:36, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Data Management Wiki Committee

Thank you for your contribution to one, or more, articles that are now organized under Data management.

Because of your previous intrest, you are recieving an invitation to become a founding member of the Data Management Wiki Committee.

The members, of course, will form and solidify the purpose, rules, officers, etc. but my idea (to kick things off) is to establish a group of us who will take responsiblity to see that the ideas of Data management are promoted and well represented in Wikipedia articles.

If you are willing to join the committee, please go to Category_talk:Data_management and indicate your acceptance of this invitation by placing your three tilde characters in the list.

KeyStroke 01:05, 2004 Sep 25 (UTC)

Could you have a look at this?

Judging by your contributions to space elevator economics and the like, I was wondering if you might have a look at space activity suit, which I wrote a stub for. It's an interesting and traditionally underreported subject; if you can give it the once-over, it'd be really nice. grendel|khan 05:36, 2004 Sep 28 (UTC)

History of Greenland

Could you explain your objection to "effectively detached"? "Less influenced" seems far to slight since the island was occupied by the U.S. throughout the war which attacked any Germans found in the area. The U.S. even printed the postage stamps for the island. Rmhermen 03:40, Oct 4, 2004 (UTC)

! was watching...

... the space as instructed, but it went blank. Should I construe from this that a very private affair is in progress? Matt Stan 10:38, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

He's back!

Matt Stan 01:38, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

NPOV label

Why did you add NPOV label to artificial consciousness article? You wrote your reasons for NPOV on article's talk page, these were satisfied, and the appropriate changes made, now also another user wanted to remove the NPOV label. For these reasons the NPOV label was removed. Now you did not write any explanation on the talk page, before adding the NPOV label. By the rules of Wikipedia, please write your reasons of adding the NPOV label to the article, on the article's talk page, otherwise the NPOV label should be removed. Tkorrovi 14:24, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The mediation thing.

Well. Looking at this completely from the outside it looks as if there is a certain shared pessimism about the counterpartys reasonableness around the Artificial consciousness page. Be that as it may, we have stages in our dispute resolution process, and before forcing any of you into an arbitration framework, we usually try mediation first. Even if none of you all think it will acheive anything, can I rely on your support in following the procedure in respect of trying mediation? -- Cimon 21:15, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your response.

I choose to interpret your reply as being a positive (though reserved) one. Perhaps it is best we take further communications into E-mail. -- Cimon 22:19, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

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:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

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:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

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)

Talk:Tax

Please see Talk:Tax for a response to your revert. Rhobite 07:09, Feb 18, 2005 (UTC)

Revert: South Africa coup

I reverted your change because état also means government in French, as witness the term "L'était français." Thus, coup d'états are directed against government, not countries. You cannot have a country overthrow itself. That is why I reverted. Páll 04:10, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have replied on your talk page. Paul Beardsell 02:15, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration

An arbitration request was submitted against you at [6]. It's unfortunate, but you didn't leave me other choice. Tkorrovi 13:19, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Grunt & the arbitration case

I am merely acknowledging that there is a problem that needs to be looked at; it is traditional arbitration procedure to render an opinion on the opening of a case as soon as there is any evidence to look through, and revise opinions as more evidence becomes available. There is also a typical waiting period of one week between the opening of a case and the rendering of any reasonably well formed opinions by arbitrators. Rest assured you will have an ample opportunity to respond to the charges against you. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 20:52, 2005 Mar 28 (UTC)

I have replied on Grunt's talk page. Paul Beardsell 04:38, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Fred Bauder and the arbitration case

Please see Fred's talk page for the message to which Fred replies below and my response to that. Paul Beardsell 04:37, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Tkorrovi has put a number of diffs in his request which I have looked at. Granted most date from May, 2004 but the last few date from December, 2004. I also looked at the article history and looked at recent comments directed at him. Whether he is good or competent editor I cannot say but you do seem to attack him personally in a rude way. And he does demonstrate that by the diffs he has cited. Fred Bauder 11:35, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Tkorrovi has established that there is enough of a problem that it needs to be heard. Any evidence you present will also be considered. Fred Bauder 11:32, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

I have responded again on Fred's page.

Kbdank71's POV

Paul, this is just an outsider's point of view, but if you spent half the time responding to the complaint instead of complaining about why you can't respond, the case would likely be over. If you are innocent as you say, stop procrastinating and prove it. (or not, your antics are quite amusing) -Kbdank71 22:28, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, if I knew precisely what the charge was, and whether I need only respond to those identified as "statement", not "comment", then I would be in a better position to start. On the other hand, if I knew what the penalty which has already been decided was, I might just plead guilty. Because I am not confident it is worthwhile arguing the case. Anybody half awake who followed the links provided by Tkorrovi and read the context would not be accepting this case for arbitration. Contempt of court is sometimes apt, it just isn't allowed! I have made thousands of edits on scores of articles, often successfully fixing the edits of the likes of Tkorrovi, who has edited only one article, mostly to its detriment. My criticisms of Tkorrovi's edits have been taken wrongly by him as personal abuse - fixing his English led him to accusing me of racism! He is a troll, and I did not say so carelessly, nor does so saying amount to personal abuse. What was careless, perhaps, was recently criticising the head of the arbitration committee about his sloppy application of standards when approving Johannesburg as a featured article. And now he intends to sit in judgment of me despite my request that he withdraw. Why bother arguing my case? Paul Beardsell 23:00, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It's an encyclopedia, not an experiment in democracy. You now have seven days to prove your side, or you can waste it like you have been. Complaining about the process is your right, I suppose, but it won't win you the case. Although like I said, I hope you do keep it up; I'm not on the Arbcom, so I can admit this is hilarious. -Kbdank71 04:49, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Raul654

Copied from Raul654's talk page:

---

I note you have given an indication that you intend to make known your opinion in the Tkorrovi vs Psb777 dispute. I find myself in the position that should you decide in some way in my favour I can keep quiet but that if you find against me then I will, in my own mind at least, point to a recent disagreement between us over the Johannesburg featured article debate where I criticised you. I ask therefore that you simply do not voice an opinion - I believe any juror would excuse themselves in your position. Paul Beardsell 00:03, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It has been well established that criticizing an arbitrator is not suffecient grounds to cause the arbitrator to recuse himself -- wikipedia is not large enough to expect arbitrators to have had no interaction with parties. I'll recuse if I think I'm prejuiced in favor of or against you, which I do not believe I am. →Raul654 01:02, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

I cannot find where that has been well established. Perhaps you can provide a reference. Wikipedia is large enough. It isn't whether an arbitrator is prejudiced but whether the appearance or suspicion of prejudice is possible or reasonable. Whatever has or has not been established it should matter to you most of all whether I will be happy with you sitting in judgement on me. Paul Beardsell 01:39, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, you are wrong. The appearance of impropriety is *NOT* the standard used for recusals -- wikipedia is not large enough for that. Arbitrators *do* interact with the community, and it is not uncommon for us to have interacted with the parties before. You have no choice in who will be arbitrating your case, nor does your happiness about it matter in the least -- the matter is entirely up to the arbitrators themselves. Arbitrators are expected to judge for themselves whether or not they are prejudiced. Previous cases that established this were (off the top of my head) the Lir cases, the first Netoholic case, RK, and 172. I do not intend to apply any special standard to your case. →Raul654 02:07, Mar 29, 2005 (UTC)

Once before I have seen you unable or unwilling to address an argument cogently put. I have no confidence in your ability to judge fairly the dispute I am involved in and so I ask you to withdraw. Paul Beardsell 02:30, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

in prep

/draft

---

Arbitration Committee case opening

The request for arbitration involving you has officially been accepted. Please bring formal evidence to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tkorrovi vs. Paul Beardsell/Evidence. Thank you. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 00:18, 2005 Apr 1 (UTC)

Is hunting sport?

I would not wish to cause any encroachment of freedoms to be extended in duration as a result of myself enjoining in an arbitration dispute. I would only wish to bring it more speedily to a close. I myself would undertake not to edit the artificial consciousness article if it meant that someone whom I had suspected of being a troll were also be bound by such an undertaking. I'm not sure that the wikipedia arbitration procedure has explicit provision for people who might come forward saying, "Hey, you missed me out. I should be banned from editing the artificial consciousness too because I am just as much to blame in winding up one of the parties as is one of the accused. Or would that automatically imply that the whole debacle had been a wind-up exercise rather than an exercise in common sense. (Because, ironically, if humans can't function with common sense on the topic or artificial consciousness, then how on earth might the automatons fare?) But I did it in the name of entertainment, honest gov, because I know that there are or could be some observers who would be amused by the irony of a prolonged wikipedia dispute on such a topic." Matt Stan 23:26, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

arbitration

You've done much of what tkorrovi has done (personal attacks, wholesale reversion, etc.), but obviously he wouldn't provide evidence against himself, and so I provided that evidence for the arbcom, as you hadn't already done so. But calling him a troll isn't going to help your case any. I can't honestly and fairly say that you shouldn't be punished to some extent for your questionable actions. ugen64 00:10, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I supposed I was wrong then - the 3rr block rule wasn't in effect then, so technically I wouldn't have been empowered to block him anyway. It doesn't matter if you were provoked - the personal attacks didn't just go away because you were provoked, and same for the reverts - bringing other users and trying to mediate the dispute would have been more constructive. And finally, tkorrovi's already provided ample evidence against you - I would just be redundant if I inserted that evidence again, under my name. ugen64 01:59, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"If you don't like the way this is going you could just withdraw your request for arbitration." No, because I'm interested in justice, and if there is no justice, I want to find it out.Tkorrovi 13:30, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Chinasaur's on ArbCom case

Copied from Tkorrovi's talk page: Chinasaur, I think you misunderstand. I am preparing a mass of evidence which will show Tkorrovi in bad light. I think he is aware of it - it is available as a link from my Talk page. I am giving Tkorrovi a chance to back down, to say: "OK, let's forget it all, there is (no longer?) any real problem". Then we can all go home and I do not need to defend myself. You seem to forget that I did not bring this case. Nor do I think I really provoked its bringing - this is mostly all many months ago. All I did recently was (i) revert a deletion by Tkorrovi of some interesting material and (ii) delete an unparseable sentence he added. It's in the log. And upon his reversion of my changes I see someone else has done what I did without complaint by him. But I wonder if you are saying that Tkorrovi deserves some special consideration of which I am unaware. I at least credit Tkorrovi with "all the capabilities of a normal human" (to use one of his favorite phrases at artificial consciousness). Why do you patronise him so condescendingly? Paul Beardsell 07:08, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Paul, why would I think you brought the case when you are trying to get Tkorrovi to drop it? Basically to me your attempts to get the case dropped seem wheedling or bullying because there is an implicit threat ("I am about to unleash all this evidence against you if you don't")? Perhaps you didn't mean for it to be threatening and are really trying to be magnanimous or give fair warning; I don't know. I can see what you mean that the case seems strangely after-the-fact.

In terms of my treatment of Tkorrovi, I am stuck deciding between alternative explanations for his behavior (essentially: bad faith versus cluelessness), which leaves me not really knowing how to deal with him. I'm not aware of any reason why he deserves special treatment though. Try to bear in mind that I honestly don't have time to go through all the evidence, so conclusions that you feel are obvious are not knowable by me. --Chinasaur 01:13, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration Committee injunction

The Arbitration Committee has passed an injunction related to your case; you and Tkorrovi are hereby prohibited from editing artificial consciousness for the duration of the case. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 14:35, 2005 Apr 11 (UTC)

Arbitration proposed decision page

Only arbitrators are supposed to edit the proposed decision page directly; others' proposed additions should be put on the talk page. I've moved your recent one there - David Gerard 12:40, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Only arbitrators are allowed to edit the proposed decision page. That's all there is to it. Please don't re-add the principle again, else I'll have to protect the page. Feel free to make suggestions on the talk page, however. Ambi 06:16, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

It's always been implied, which is why no one else has ever done it. We can always make it explicit if you like, seeing as the arbitration committee has the authority to decide its own procedures. You've suggested your principle on the talk page. If an arbitrator agrees with it, they may decide to add it. Ambi 06:28, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

PSB v Tkorrovi

You wrote: It seems futile scoring these minor points but what should I be doing? Should I have just refused to take part in the process at all? Paul Beardsell 19:32, 17 May 2005

The arbcom has just produced a list of stuff for us to ponder on, and I think that's it. It's all highly dignified. Not a bad system. The arbcom guys have just sat and thought, what are these guys not paying attention to which is giving them all these problems? Now let us hope that Tkorrovi quotes in future from the pages cited, at least he won't need to worry about the grammar. Matt Stan 23:26, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Personal Attacks wot you are making

You accuse me of making personal attacks on another wikipedia user on my talk page what seems to me like you are making a personal attack on me by accusing me of making personal attack on another wikipedia user. Please retract such an accusation as this what is not right in wikipedia and is a personal attack on someone what only wants to be liked by everyone and will go to the arbitration committee some long time in the future if your attack what you make do not be withdrawn. Matt Stan 14:50, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

You wrote: If it's such a good process perhaps you should take a more active role. E.g. you could apologise for all the personal attacks you made on Tkorrovi. :-) Paul Beardsell 03:59, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Being the sophisticate that I am (or sophist, perhaps), and with the experience I have in dealing with some quite difficult people (in my charity work) I have, I hope, learned to make the distinction between attacking things that I don't like and attacking people that I don't like. In pursuing the latter course (which must always be done surreptitiously), or in any event, one focuses exclusively on the former, i.e. one attacks the things that have been done rather than the person doing them, and thereby, if one is detached enough, one always avoids the accusation of making "personal" attacks. This is because, by applying this principle, one's attacks are "impersonal". I think you'll find, if you carefully examine the contributions I have made in the PSB vs Tkorrovi affair, that I have kept to this principle.

Now as for acting as an agent provocateur, generating wind-ups, fanning the flames, playing on someone else's ignorance by being deliberately ambiguous, and so on and so forth, I could probably be held guilty on all counts. But I am not the accused, though I did offer you and Tkorrovi the opportunity to have me arraigned for my sins. Perhaps my "court jester" role has not been as destructive as I imagine it might have been, simply because I try to apply that good old High Church Xtian principle of "Love thy neighbour (whilst at the same time hating the things that he does)".

Rather than do as you suggest, I should apologise to you, and I do, as it seems that the arbcom perceives you in a worse light than it should, and I have not acted effectively to alter that perception. They have taken the part, as many judges do, of the underdog, ironically defending the syntactically challenged contributor against the articulate one, ostensibly in "an effort to create and distribute a free encyclopedia of the highest possible quality" (Jimbo Wales). Perhaps you should ask arbcom to restrict User:Tkorrovi (or getting him to agree) to contributing only to the artificial consciousness article in future. I'm sure he wouldn't mind. Matt Stan 11:03, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

A distant relation?

Are you by any chance related to Beardbeard. Matt Stan 01:10, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Re. comment on arbitration page

For future reference, I'm female. -- sannse (talk) 17:00, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Regarding proposed finding of fact

I am just taking my first serious look at the edits in this matter. Perhaps you can answer some questions: did either of you ever read or quote any information out of Igor Aleksander's work? Or any other reference work that treats of artificial consciousness? At this point, without reading the hundreds of edits involved, you both seem to be using reason rather than references. Fred Bauder

"Response" by Ambi

I apologise for taking some time to go diff-hunting, alas, I've been quite busy. It shouldn't matter, as there hasn't been much, if any, action on your case in the last couple of days. I'll get to dealing with it as soon as I can. Ambi 03:13, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I will respond on her Talk page. Paul Beardsell 19:31, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A Concern

User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#.3D.3DA_concern.3D.3D Matt Stan 9 July 2005 10:53 (UTC)

Garlic beer

If you been haven't already, do go to the Garlic Restaurant in Helsinki, where you can have garlic beer. It's actually ordinary beer, with fresh garlic crushed into it. The French, great users of garlic, have a president who showed the Finns great disrespect by recently criticising their food. But not even the French, as far as I am aware, have a restautant dedicated to garlic, implying that the French president is an ignoramus as well as being rather crass at diplomacy. Oh well, c'est la vie! If you obtain a taste for garlic beer whilst in Finland (or even of you don't) then I can try my own version, perhaps using cheap French lager, which you'd be welcome to sample. I'll also lay in some some English Ale, which will undoubtedly be necessary in order to refresh the palate. 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th of August are safest for me being around. I'm not quite sure what I'll be up to in the preceding week. Matt Stan 19:22, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Advocate wanted?

Hi, I've looked through the Request for arbitration. What is it that you wanted an advocate to help you with? I'm a relative newcomer here, but I'm willing to help if I can. BTW, I hesitate to say this, as I know that things can be difficult when you feel you've been wronged, but the reference to "malicious prosecution" by the ArbCom probably isn't going to help your case. Just looking through the proceedings with the eyes of an outsider, I have yet no reason to believe there is any malice involved. However, I'm certainly willing to keep an open mind and try to help if I can. Friday 06:13, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration case - final decision

A decision has been reached in the arbitration case relating to you. You have been banned from the article artificial consciousness indefinitely, and are subject to a six-month personal attack parole. Please see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Tkorrovi and Paul Beardsell#Final decision for further details and the full decision. -- sannse (talk) 21:00, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Dear Sir.

Please forgive my comments into your dialogue with Theresa Knott. I apologize to you if I have taken any steam out of your efforts here in Wikipedia,

Recently, I have become particularly incensed by the actions of dominant participants interjecting themselves in my own affairs, and remain at something of a loose other than to return the affront. I trust you may in the least understand my frustration in this matter. Again, my apologies to you for any inconvenience I may have caused. TTLightningRod 22:26, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Blocked by Snowspinner

Without justification. Without explanation. But his draw is quick and his aim is fine. If only he were a fairer man. Paul Beardsell 01:13, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I think that that is the point. Had I been blocked by anyone else it would actually mean something. But having the town's rogue cop giving you the once over is just unremarkable. Paul Beardsell 01:36, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

He knows I dislike him. And his arbitrary heavy handed actions. You think he would let someone else do the block, if it were necessary, for appearances sake. Paul Beardsell 01:36, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Because, with all this talk of bullying, here we do really have one. Here really is the best argument that adminship should be renewable, not for life. Then mistakes like this could more eaily be undone. Paul Beardsell 01:39, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

And so Cokesniffer read this and he extended the block. But he didn't do it properly. He didn't amend the reason. He breaks the rules to enforce the rules. Paul Beardsell 14:56, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Sounds like the autoblocker to me. When you try to edit whilst blocked, the software resets the timer. That's why the reson doesn't change. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 15:05, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

I would apologise but I am doing so only selectively nowadays, on a basis of whom I might reasonably expect to offer me an apology, ever. Seems like a software fix is necessary. It cannot have been anyone's intention that it should work that way. Not having been informed by SlushShoveller I was blocked (it seems common politeness would require that) how could I know that hitting the edit button would extend the block? Paul Beardsell 15:29, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

As fas as I know it's a feature not a bug. You did know you were blocked because you say so above. It was the edit you tried to make the next day that extended the block. If you ever find yourself blocked again (and with the personal attacks against snowspinner on this page you are going the right way about it) you can check the list of blocked users on the special pages link (to the left) to see when the block expires. That way you wont trip the autoblocker again. Theresa Knott (a tenth stroke) 15:46, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Using this 2nd block to best advantage: Experiment shows me that however it works, it doesn't work as Theresa describes. Back to initial premise in the absence of denial: SensitiveNickName re-applies the block without explanation. Unreasonable. Some people should not be given special powers. They can't help themselves. Paul Beardsell 20:48, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm! OK, maybe it does. Seems to work a little inconsistently. I still think it is a weird implementation. Rather than have the s/w block a 24 hr period - which is what is, err, legislated for - it does more: It imposes a 24 hr period of no edit attempts. Paul Beardsell 15:23, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

But you still seem to assume that one would know one was blocked before one would know one was blocked. Given the lack of notification by he who acts unfairly but without censure. Paul Beardsell 16:16, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Blocked again. Interesting, isn't it, that I get blocked for the corruption of someone's nickname. As if "Snowspinner" has 100% positive connotations. That's petty minded and an abuse of power. A flexing of muscles to satisfy a personal grievance. Obviously, and this is always eventually agreed when it is discussed, it is better to get another admin to impose a block when one feels personally agrieved. Shoeslipper would know that. Paul Beardsell 16:28, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

the coriolis effect article

Hi Paul,

I hope I can persuade you to read the article carefully, and think the logic through. The coriolis effect is really cool physics, and much underestimated.

If you look through the history of the article you will see edit from me over a period of months. I have really immersed myself in the subject, and I hope you will too. --Cleon Teunissen | Talk 13:49, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

"Obligate" vs. "oblige"

They have meanings that often overlap, but are not identical. "Obligate" typically has more of a legal flavour (to compel one to do something), whereas "oblige" typically has more of a social flavour (to do something as a favor). As well, their usages differ slightly in American and U.K. English. If you compare definitions in a good dictionary you will note this. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:21, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Reflexive "oblige"

In colloquial use by some, "oblige" may mean that which is reflexively opposite to "obligate."

E.g.: Accepting a Dinenr Invitation:

"I beg your pardon, I obligated you to attend this dinner by accepting on your behalf." OR "We are obligated to attend." ...

PARALLELS "I will oblige her to accept my invitation by accepting hers."

BUT "He has obliged us many times by attending in place of last-minute cancellations."

In this last usage, obliged begins to acquire the sense of "submitting to" as opposed to "causing some submission" Mark 18:19, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Recognise a deity when you encounter one

I was considering making an additional entry at the List of people who have been considered deities. I imagine that working at customs gives one a headstart in any such consideration. You inspect all incomers and then, in a flash of inspiration, you divine that they are not who they say they are. Well not all of them, of course, but any who make disparaging remarks about the customs hall such as "This place needs a bit of a clean up". You then immediately spring into action, even if you have been invisible hitherto, and make revelatory remarks in a superior language. I can think of one candidate "considered deity", who has the quality of being able to lurk for limitless periods invisibly and then of immediately recognising s prophet, even when heavily disguised for a long time. Surely this makes such a person worthy of being considered a deity, even if only for a short while. Matt Stan 22:10, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

User Bill of Rights

You may be interested in Wikipedia:User Bill of Rights. (SEWilco 05:28, 9 December 2005 (UTC))

regarding free market and the use of fiat_money

A free market by definition requires no coercion at all, and fiat_money is a fruit of coercion produced by a central authority with the impose of taxes. As a concequence a free market in order to be really free should not use fiat money. Thats what I want to state and clarify in the free market definition. Onassi 10:29, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I have replied at User talk:Onassi. Paul Beardsell 20:03, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

The Thessalian god Janus Quadrifrons

Janus was Thessalian, he was a god worshipped by Romans but not by Greeks. But he was not a Roman god, he was Thessalian god like all the rest Olympian gods worshipped by the Romans. Thats what I want to state and clarify. Onassi 10:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I have replied at User talk:Onassi. Paul Beardsell 20:04, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

You said: No! Most all the Roman gods were Greek. By "Roman god" it is meant a god worshipped by Romans, not a god who carried a Roman passport. You are muddying the waters by misunderstanding this. And to be consistent you will have to repeat your treatment of Janus to all the other gods too.

To illustrate this point: Jesus Christ was a Jew from Palestine. We do not refer to him as a Palestinian God nor as a Jewish God. When a god is a Something god he is a god of the Somethings, not a god from Somethingland. Jesus is the Christian God, the God of the Christians. Janus was a Roman god. A god of the Romans. Point proven? Can I now revert all your changes or do you want to tidy them up yourself?.

First of all we are talking about god(s), not God. If you consider Jesus a God, then of course Jesus is not considered to be a jew god. But if you consider Jesus a god, then you may say that Jesus was a jew god worshipped by the Christians. Regarding the thessalian Olympians now, all of them are refered everywhere in literature as Greek gods worshipped by Romans (and greeks). The only exception which cause a misunderstanding is Janus, who is refered by many people as a pure Roman god. This is wrong, Janus was not a roman god, he was a greek thessalian god, who was not worshipped by greeks but only by the romans (or maybe he was worshipped by the greeks in the compound of Hermes and another god). Onassi 20:31, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Of course I am aware that some believe Jesus to be the one and true God (or part of the one and true Holy Trinity, or whatever) and some believed that Janus was a true god too. (The capitalisation I am using is one dictated by [Christian?] grammar books - not by my personal beliefs.) Convention is not as you describe. Paul Beardsell 20:35, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Imagine an exam question: "Name the Roman gods?" What is your answer? Paul Beardsell 20:37, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

For your argument to be valid you would have to find a way of referring to Jesus as a "Jewish god". No. A Klingdon god is a god worshipped by the Klingdons. As gods are mythical the myth can have them being from anywhere. If Roman mythology says Janus was from Thessalonia then that does not make Janus exist! Janus is a mythical (i.e. fictional) figure. He is only Thessalonian in Roman mythology, not in reality. Paul Beardsell 20:53, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

My answer is : The gods of romans were the greek Olympian gods, with the exception of Janus who was Thessalian (question: is there any god worshipped by romans who was not greek? I dont know...) . I have heard people who dont believe in Jesus refering to Jesus as "the jewish god (or prophet or anything)". I think an encyclopedia must be accurate, and its more accurate to say "Zeus was an olympian god worshipped by romans" rather than say "Zeus was roman god". The same is for Janus. He is a thessalian god worshipped by romans. The same is for Anubis. Anubis was not a greek god, although he was worshipped by greeks. He was an egyptian god, worshipped by greeks. Onassi 21:05, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I am not saying that much of what you say is not correct. But you have to acknowledge that I am correct too: A Gnomish god is a god worshipped by the Gnomish. A Gnomish god is not necessarily Gnomish himself. And, as gods do not exist, then to ascribe to them a real place of birth is a nonsense. Janus is a character from a Roman mythology - i.e. a fiction, a story - and in the myth he is from Thessalonia. But only in the myth. He is not Thessalonian, he is a character in a story. He is not even a Greek god as he was not worshipped by the Greeks. Nor did the Thessalonians worship him. A problem with the way you want the convention to work is that it would require editing many articles on many gods. Paul Beardsell 21:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes I understand what you mean and I acknowledge that you are also correct. Its is a matter of definition. A gnomish god is a god worshipped by the Gnomish people or a god that originates from the land of the gnomish? I dont know. Jupiter is the roman name for the greek god Dias-Zeus. Jupiter word is not a greek word. The same is for minerva, minerva is the roman equivalent for Athena. But you cannot call Jupiter (or Minerva) a roman god(goddess), and maybe it is wrong to name them greek gods also. If you want to be accurate, you have to name both Jupiter and Minerva the way both the greeks and the romans and the rest of the ancien world were calling them. They were olympians. And as long as Jupiter(Dias) and Minerva(Athena) are Olympians, then Janus is Thessalian. Onassi 22:02, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

You said :"And, as gods do not exist, then to ascribe to them a real place of birth is a nonsense. Janus is a character from a Roman mythology" I think some gods in ancien mythology may are not tottaly fictional characters, they may are rather equivalant to the contemporary heros or prophets or saints. Especially Janus was supposed to have wife, children, he was also king e.t.c so you cant say for sure that he was a tottaly fictional character. Imagine now a prophet or saint like Saint Peter. How do you call him? Peter is not worshipped by jew people, but he is jew saint, isnt he? Or what kind of saint Peter is? Is Peter considered to be a greek or a roman or a christian saint without beeing at the same time a jew saint too? It think you can name Peter a jew saint, and you can name Saint_Demetrius a greek saint. You cannot of course name Peter a saint of the jews. So janus can be called "a god of romans originated from thessaly", or "a thessalian origin god worshipped in rome only". But it is wrong to call Janus "a thessalian god" or "a roman god" without further explanation, because this may cause misunderstandings.Onassi 22:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

It is not disputed by anyone that St Peter did not exist. Also: St Peter, St Demetrius are Christian saints, and that would be much, much more common usage than Peter the Palestinian saint! Paul Beardsell 23:42, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

OK. What about the treatment I have given Janus in the articles now? To say he is a god of Roman mythology is undoubtedly true. I suggest we leave the "fact" that he is Thessalonian to the Janus article. What say you? Paul Beardsell 23:38, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Onassi 23:43, 25 December 2005 (UTC)

Money and free market

I dont think it is propaganda. I think it is a fact that everybody is directly or indirectly coerced to use money coined by the central money maker authority as a medium of exchange in trades due to the taxes procedure. I personally never took any position whether this coercion is a good or a bad thing. But I dont like to hide behind my finger and claim that I am not coerced. :P Onassi 22:49, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I think that is a little disingenuous of you. Paul Beardsell 23:39, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

You don't think that Gresham's Law is the reason some people are happy to spend fiat money? Paul Beardsell 23:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

I disagree with Gresham's disctinction between bad and good money. Money is a token, an abstraction, an agreement within a community (or within a minority which holds the power to decide) to use a real or a virtual object as a medium of exchange. Metal money and fiat money have the same real value, they are both useless or bad if you like (their electrical properties notwithstanding). Both fiat and metal money become usefull either due to the coercion of the central money maker authority or because of the unexplicable faith people have on it. I am astonished by the (religious like) faith people had in gold at past times. In the case of gold maybe it wasnt faith, rather than the constant belief people had that after the collapse of the State and of the old money maker authority, the new powerfull money maker authority will choose again gold material as the more suitable to become the new medium of exchange. In the case of USA this want the case of course. Onassi 12:36, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

What authority do you cite to disagree with the nearly univerally accepted Gresham law? Interesting as your views are (and over a beer I am sure we could have an entertaining conversation and I might be persuaded to look afresh at some matters economic) the point is that this is an encyclopedia. You cannot edit articles here using only yourself as authority. Conventional views may not need substantive references but unorthodox ones do, otherwise there is no place for them here at Wikipedia. Even if you are an established economist you must quote your sources: Documentation of your own a priori musings cannot be allowed here. Wikipedia is not a place to publish original research. Paul Beardsell 11:37, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Gresham said: "Bad money drives good money out of circulation". And I think that: ""Worst money drives bad money out of circulation". Gresham refers to money backed by a useless gold or silver material or refers to money coined or minted by a central authority which coerces its use. This money, along with fiat money too, is a bad thing. Good money is money backed by something usefull, like hamburgers for example. Good money is not coined by a central money maker authority which holds the power to decide and coerce, good money is just a free agreement within a community to use something as a medium of exchange. This good money will finnaly drive bad money out of circulation. I recommend you to read History_of_money. Onassi 00:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

So, Wikipedia must reflect your original thought in preference to Gresham's? Paul Beardsell 02:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Most of people think what I think, and this can be seen in the history of the reversions of the free market article. Have a look, people reverting your POV are doing it "anonymously" by showing their IP addresses. This shows that they are separate persons and not sockpuppets of the same person hiding behind multiple nicknames. I think that you are trying to make wikipedia to reflect your original thoughts. Onassi 10:59, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, of course. Not true, not true and not true. Others, me included, are collaborating and compromising all the time. I am not the only one critical of your contributions, others have reverted you and cut your material for discussion on the Talk:Free market page, just as I have. Please just argue your POV on the Talk page before reverting again. You will notice that I am prepared to do so and I have been doing so. Paul Beardsell 21:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Tax avoidance and tax evasion

Dear Editor: I'm sorry it's taken so long for me to get back to you. I haven't done much editing in the past few days. I see the small edit war that's been happening over my edit in the article. As of this writing, my edit is not in the article. It's gratifying to know that other editors liked my wording. However, if any of the other editors add it back, I'll try to take it out, with an explanation to them that it was my edit to begin with, and that I'm asking that it be left out since the point (about statutory assessment) is made later in the article, in the section on U.S. law. Maybe that will alleviate their concerns, and yours. Also, are you thinking about doing some more reorganization work on this article? Due to time constraints, I'm probably not going to deal with this article much more any time soon. Yours, Famspear 17:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Alpha 2000

Alpha 2000 Posting here first as no desire to create an edit war.

Worldwide production rights (and all jigs tooling and so forth), were, according to even your own references, sold to Alpha Aviation. The fact marketing for Europe were retained by Apex, (quelle surprise), is irrelevant to the edited scentence about production.

You may or may not wish to record something about the recent purchase of Alpha. --Winstonwolfe

-

- um, editing boldly is good, editing recklessly on the other hand is a bit irritating - this article may not have been about get featured to begin with, but it seems to be progressing on a 3 steps backwards, 4 steps forward basis. I find it useful in editing is to assume something written by someone else shouldn't be altered unless I know it is wrong.Winstonwolfe 06:25, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

replied at his page. Paul Beardsell 08:40, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

- no dispute the article has now been improved - sorry I just got a bit frustrated wading through some edits and comments, which seemed to assume all facts in the article were inherently wrong, information obtained from press releases could not be used (there is no other source for information about this eunless you count news articles which are rewritten press releases), requested references not for the major parts of the article, but for side issues - it kind of felt like you were suggesting I had made up license production in Canada, and I was sitting thinking "WHY WOULD ANYONE MAKE IT UP - ENGAGE BRAIN OR AT LEAST DO A SIMPLE GOOGLE TO CHECK IT - again to be fair, next time I looked you had reverted that change) and I felt some of the explanations for edits were a little OTT - when it comes down to it, there weren't multiple factual errors - the only real changes of fact were to minor things about the designations for predescors which were altered frequently by the different manufacturers and appear to have been differently reported on different web sites. Anyway, nothing to get my knickers in a twist over - the article is now distinctly better - though the recent sale of Alpha to Australian interests might be sorth mentioning - speaking of which i did a breif note of the change of owenership of warbirds over Wanaka, but not a thorough revision - I see you've also done minor editing on that - you may want to dehype some of the breathlessness there at some point too.  :-) Winstonwolfe 07:03, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Roni Lynn Deutch

Dear fellow editor: Your input could be valuable regarding the article Roni Lynn Deutch at

http://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Roni_Lynn_Deutch

My personal view is that the article is pretty much an advertisement, even if the article wasn't put there by Ms. Deutch herself -- but you may have a different perspective. Yours, Famspear 20:02, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

The History of South Africa in the Apartheid Era

I am the person who edited the article "The History of South Africa in the Apartheid Era" under the IP of 203.101.248.82. I am the author of the following book -- Louw, P.E. The Rise Fall and Legacy of Apartheid (Praeger). My edits corrected factual inaccuracies and removed emotive and "loaded" language. My edits were designed to make the article less biased. If you read my book you will see I do not have rose tinted glasses; neither do I support apartheid. P.E. Louw Eric Louw 12:04, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Your vote please

Hi Paul - Please vote on the proposed title change of the 'South African farmer murders' page. The straw poll is here. Please also pass this message on to others you think would be interested. Thank you! Cheers, Jason Lionchow - Talk 12:13, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Use of

Hi Psb, I am sure you mean well with your message, and I appreciate it. But let me explain to you my rationale. You address 2 specific articles - I'll start with the first, the Gol accident. There the issue was/is the N number for the aircraft. If you follow my discussion in the commenter's Talk page, you will understand the issue better. Per Jimbo and WP policies/guidelines, we are not to use unnecessarily. In fact it is a kind of blight on WP, especially for high exposure articles (no FA would ever have it). It is at best a temporary crutch, and is ugly as heck. I do use it myself, fairly often in fact, when I see a fact that I think is fairly probable but unsourced. Then I may come in a couple of days later and remove the unsourced statement if it is still unsourced. In the case of the N number, although I think it's likely it is correct, it is also possible that it's wrong, as it's possible they were flying under a temporary different number if the requested or reserved one hadn't yet been approved. Since this is a high exposure dynamically unfolding article, I treat it as FA - no unsourced or poorly sourced facts, hence would be improper. Now to the the 182 article - please follow the Talk page discussion there too. In that case it is an issue of undue weight - thus a would not be appropriate. Thank you anyway for taking the time to communicate your thoughts - I really do appreciate it. Crum375 14:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Paul, regarding your objection to 'deletion'. I think I understand your concern that the act of deletion by itself reflects some intrinsic rudeness, but I think you are wrong. As I mentioned in the Talk page, deletion in WP is really just archiving. It is basically like we are in an office around a table, working to get some version of a document out the door, and I say: "here is my version, what do you think?". If anyone has a comment, they can either remove my version, modify it, or accept it, but since every action is archived, there is no harm done. Of course blind reversions and lack of a collaborative spirit are harmful and I am not advocating that at all, but removal by an editor of words s/he feels are unacceptable is just a normal collaborative step, IMO. Of course communication helps too, and that's what we do in the Talk pages and edit summaries. Hope this makes sense. Thanks, Crum375 20:50, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding deletion, again, the deletion is a relocation - it moves the words into the archive, where anyone can move them to anywhere else. All that's needed to be polite is an explanation, always in the edit summary, and sometimes in the Talk page. Regarding the N number issue: the question of N number is important, as WP would look bad if the pictures came out and our version turned out to be wrong (this being a dynamic unfolding event). So I expect extra care and accuracy in such a case, and just because I think it's probably correct, technically we are not allowed to use the A=B, B=C therefore A=C conjecture (called synthesis in WP), and in FA or dynamic high exposure cases I stick to the rule. You may have noticed, if you followed that article's progression, that I allowed it to stay in the crashbox with a '(unconfirmed)' note, then once the database record was found (in the 'reserved' part of the DB) and about the same time the photo showed up, we had confirmation. I think this is our mandate - to follow the WP:V and WP:OR rules, and be extra careful in FA or dynamic high exposure articles, as this is our main face to the world. Thanks, Crum375 21:35, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Hey Paul, calm down take a deep breath and remember WP:AGF. I do want to continue this discussion, if it's OK with you, because I can tell that you want WP to succeed, a do I, so we have a lot of common ground. As far as deletion: no, WP is not EB, in many ways. In EB (at least the old fashion tree killer kind) getting a version out the door is a herculean task and may take a year. Here at WP we 'get a version out' every microsecond or so (just check the recent edits section), so we are a dynamic creature. WP is constantly evolving. The way it evolves is by a constant back-and-forth, push-and-tug, mostly (fortunately) by well meaning and cooperative editors, who are continuously tweaking the articles into a moving-target optimal point. Virtually every second edit involves some deletion. It is not a big deal. Blind or blanket reversions are a big deal, and are subject to WP:3RR rules. But just normal back-and-forth tweaking are not. If one side ever feels the least bit slighted, assuming they are not trolls or vandals to start with, they have ample recourse - the Talk page, more reversions (less appealing choice but available) and even mediations of varying kinds. The bottom line is that the basic deletion of words is no big deal in WP. It is just one more type of edit, and part of the normal tweaking. If you feel offended by any edit, you have recourse. WP is not a hierarchy - it is owned by all of us, at least those who truly want to improve it, and I am sure you are one. Thanks, Crum375 22:39, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

And regarding the archiving on my part, if you check the timestamps and sizes (assuming you don't want to WP:AGF on face value), you'll discover that my Talk page just went over the recommended size limit, and that I started archiving before your last message. You'll also discover that I left your last message there (despite it being easier to just archive), so there would be continuity in case you wanted to continue, and of course left the link that you can click on to get to older messages. Boy, are you suspicious! BTW, as you may know, not everyone here archives online; many actually archive offline, which really does make things disappear, but not I. BTW, your own archive is getting kind of long... Crum375 22:46, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Paul, I am not patronizing you - please forgive me if my trying to be WP:CIVIL sounds like patronizing. I am trying my best to explain that deletion as part of an edit (as opposed to admin delete) is not a loss in any way. You can always revert back or copy/paste or whatever you decide to do. All it is, is one more edit in the normal WP tweaking cycle. And like any edit, you can either agree or disagree, with many recourses. We are all on the same level, and we are all trying our best to improve WP, each from our own perspective - no one is better than anyone else, although we do strive to achieve consensus. Hopefully this helps. Crum375 23:12, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Psb, I am sorry if my 'deletion' offended you. I had no intention to offend you nor anyone else. To me deletion (in WP) is 'relocation'. I am aware that you don't see it that way. As I noted in the 182 Talk page I have no problem with relocation of the top gear episode trivia into the Talk page, instead of the 'natural' relocation into the History section. I am sure you realize that both are equally accessible for future use, and the Talk page will eventually get archived (but its history will remain accessible too). I hope we can collaborate in the future productively and that we both continue to assume good faith. Thanks, Crum375 20:55, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The WP guidelines on "trivia" state that trivia should not ordinarily be deleted from an article, but if good reason is found for doing so, it should rather than neing deleted, it should be moved to the article's Talk page. Whatever "deletion" is to Crum, it is something else to everyone else and to the WP guidelines. That deleted material can be found in the archives does not mean it has not been deleted from the Wikipedia everyone sees. I think the use of the words "natural" and "relocation", above, are therefore incorrect, at best, or disingenuous otherwise. Paul Beardsell 22:50, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

AGF

Hi Psb777, I'm sorry you feel I am not worthy of WP:AGF. I hope that over time, especially if we happen to work together on some article in the future, you'll change you mind. As for me, I'll continue to AGF on your part. Crum375 22:31, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The other half of these comments are to be found on Crum's user Talk page and its archives. This is the most recent of a whole series of comments by Crum where he implies I am not assuming good faith. This type of unsupported accusation is dealt with specifically at WP:AGF: Accusing someone of not assuming good faith is itself an instance of not assuming good faith. Paul Beardsell 22:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Paul, I will ignore the above comments for now, while continuing to AGF. As to the 182 article, I think it makes more practical sense for you to relocate any specific text you want from the history of the article into its Talk page. There you can also frame it with your relevant comments. Crum375 22:51, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Power Prawn goes on the offensive

It would seem everyone disagrees with everything you say. You are an open systems consultant, not a polymath, so stop starting edit wars on things you don't understand. Power prawn 11:50, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, who are you? I am not hiding under a cloak of anonymity, making personal attacks. I have not crossed swords with you before, as far as I know. Of course, if you are prepared to make a specific criticism then perhaps we can see if your comment is fair. That would put me in a position where it would be possible to defend myself. Or to admit to fault. Put up or shut up. Paul Beardsell 12:38, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

License tagging for Image:CALUMO logo.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:CALUMO logo.jpg. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 00:05, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

CALUMO

Paul - I want to resolve the issue about adding CALUMO redlink to the list of commercial OLAP products. There is still no article about this company on Wikipedia, and it seems to be very minor product - I am in the OLAP industry since its inception in 1993, and I never heard about this product before. Going to their Web site it isn't even clear that they have product. Perhaps it is best if we remove this link until there is a credible article on Wikipedia which provides information about this product. What do you think ? Wikiolap 04:02, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, if it is decided that CALUMO is not notable enough to have article in Wikipedia - then it should not be listed inside OLAP article either. I don't have opinion about whether or not CALUMO should have its article - as I said before, I have never heard about this product before, so I really don't know. I'll wait until you finish your dicussion with Xoloz, and if CALUMO won't be revived after that - I think we should remove it from OLAP page as well. Wikiolap 05:36, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Red Herring Asia 100 Winner 2007 http://www.herringevents.com/asia08/redherring100.html

Microsoft Partner of the Year Business Intelligence 2008 http://www.itwire.com/content/view/20185/545/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.104.65.33 (talk) 10:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

CSD G11

Hi,

Wikipedia's executive director, User:Brad Patrick, has introduced a new criterion for speedy deletion, G11, designed to combat the spamming of the site. When I encounter an article on a commercial product that makes no claim to notability for that product, whose only source is the company website, I speedy delete it. No argument offered by you makes any difference because the low quality of the article speaks for itself. The large backlog at CSD means that I must act expeditiously; without impugning your good-faith, I simply cannot offer explanations to every writer of spam; I must wait for them to come to me, as you have. I'm afraid my explanation is rather simple and direct, but the creation of CSD G11 was intended to make the removal of spam simple and direct.

If you wish to rewrite the article (and have it survive), it would need more reliable sources, several non-advertorial news stories explaining the product's importance. If you find other comparable products with poor articles not deleted, you are free to tag them for CSD: the fact that every bad article has not yet been deleted is not reason to keep the bad articles that are brought to admin attention. Best wishes, Xoloz 14:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Black box

Hi. I cleaned up the Black box/Black box (disambiguation) affair, basically reverting it back to the state before you moved it. I have no particular preference whether "black box as a system" should be the primary topic (personally, I think yes, but the article isn't very thorough), but the outcome of your move wasn't acceptable: one way or another, Black box should never be a redirect. If you wish to pursue the matter, please repost at WP:RM. Regards, Duja 07:51, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Koevoet

I just wanted to make the sentence as comprehensive as possible (referring to the last change in the intro), but I wouldn't have any objection to removing the "commie backed" bit. That's the beauty of the iterative, collaborative effort that is wikipedia, but let's discuss it further on the Talk page where I see you have created a thread for this intro and the rest of the article. --Deon Steyn 10:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I only now saw that you added a section on CW to my Talk page too. Forget about me, any reader reading statements with weasel words like "some say", or "it has been said" etc. wouldn't start doubting the content. I started off with one tag right at the top of the article, but another editor removed it without fixing all of the problem areas so I helped them out by tagging the specific areas which they have not resolved with references etc. I'm just interested in keep articles neutral and up to a nice level that is verifiable etc. I am currently adding some references and sources to Koevoet. Please don't think I am some apartheid era dinosaur trying to live in the past, I never served in any military and only graduated around 94'. One could argue that better sources and references actually combat these right wing types don't you think? --Deon Steyn 10:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

"right wingers from the past"... yes, they are alive and well... where were you when I had to struggle with the Volkstaat article... or even 2010 FIFA World Cup :-) It is a pity most of these topics are so polarized with seemingly little room for middle ground which is why I sometimes have to withdraw into wikipedia guidelines and policies, but I guess that is all we have sometimes. --Deon Steyn 11:08, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I see you found links listing the accusations of atrocities. Can you massage them into appearing as footnote type thingamabobs at the end of that intro sentence. I have just corrected mine to be in a similar style, you can take it as an example (if you need it) or check out Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style which I constantly have to consult. --Deon Steyn 11:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Tax havens edit

I note your edit on tax havens, but unless you have really strong views, I would suggest reverting it to reinclude the relevant sentence. The term "tax haven" is not a comment a nation's tax laws simplicter, but a broader criticism on the probity of financial structuring within a country. I think that the comments made by a director of Tax Justice Network in an interview with the BBC summarising that evidence showing that the UK was as bad as any traditional tax haven in relation to these points is information that can very reasonably be included, and follows on logically from the earlier paragraphs (esp Incentives for the tax haven relating to money laundering in the article. Legis 10:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Will monitor your talk page in case you want to reply. Legis 10:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Please let's keep the discussion in the most relevant place so that others can contribute if they wish. See Talk:Tax_haven#Money_laundering. Paul Beardsell 14:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Lighter than air

Hi, your recent edit war with Anthony717 is only going to cause both of you trouble. Better to take it to the talk page and work out a consensus there. Personally I didn't care for his edits, but simply reverting twice isn't going to work for the article, it needs to be talked through for consensus. Jonathan888 (talk) 23:58, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Please stop removing assessment templates

Removing these from multiple articles unilaterally could be considered vandalism. The assessments are a part of a bigger project, and the Aviation project involves a lot of people. If you don't agree with the need for the assessment templates, at least please respect others that do. Akradecki 02:02, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

I have not done that. I have not removed assessment templates from multiple articles. What I have done is reverted assessments which are not (as requested by the text in the templates themselves) accompanied by reasoning and suggestions for improvements. Please see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Aircraft#article_assessments Paul Beardsell 03:15, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Comment reply

While it is certainly nice if the assessor does so, a polite request on h(is|er) talk page would probably be a better method to request this then reversion. The assessor is not required to leave comments, only requested to do so. Seraphimblade 03:50, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

It's generally been done that review templates and the like are unsigned, though of course the reviewer's name remains in the edit history. If you'd like to change that, you certainly may wish to make that suggestion! A good place to start discussion would be the village pump section.

As to reviews, in my opinion it's nice but not mandatory if the reviewer leaves some feedback. If I would like more detail, I contact the reviewer, and almost always get it-but they're not mandated to provide detail. An obviously-bad review (such as a "Stub" classification on a well-established article) could easily be reversed by consensus, but in practice I've never once seen that happen. However, it is important to assume good faith on the part of reviewers-there is quite a backlog of articles to be reviewed, and anyone who helps with that is doing very well. I hope that in the future you'll choose to encourage their efforts rather than attempt to undo them over such a disagreement. If you'd like detailed article feedback, I recommend the peer review process. Seraphimblade 04:05, 18 November 2006 (UTC) Seraphimblade 04:04, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Artificial Conciousness

I do not agree that a(rtificial)conciousness is a subfield of alife. They in no way have a relationship comparable to that betwixt alife and biology. Conciousness is obviously built upon biology but, they exist at different levels of expression. Similarly, biology exists upon chemisty, and that upon physics. Yet, they are different fields, with different methods and concerns.

The value of your argument is lost on the misplaced emphasis you apply. What is missing is an explicit hierarchy of fields of study. If such existed, then we could more successfully identify the proper relationship between fields of study.

Finally, I would prefer to keep comments in one place. So, please reply to your page. It is referenced in my watchlist. William R. Buckley 23:18, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Are not all conscious things alive? [And don't you think that this conversation may be of interest to others and should therefore be on the Talk:Artificial life page?] Paul Beardsell 23:31, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Changing Invasion to Invasion (military)

Hello. This is a follow up to the discussion on that page. If we do the change can you help to change the... (ahem) 600 links that currently point to Invasion and will have to point to Invasion (military)? Thanks. Miguel Andrade 16:14, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

E-LSA

I left a response to your question about E-LSA on the E-LSA talk page, I'd also encourage you to google the term. - CHAIRBOY (☎) 19:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

VLJ

Thank you for finally moving that page; it was starting to drive me crazy and I was going to do it soon if someone else didn't. I have no idea why people think "very light jet" is a proper noun.--chris.lawson 06:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, as far as I've seen, there's nothing in the regs that defines the term "VLJ" in any sense at all.--chris.lawson 01:34, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Tiger Aircraft

Quite true - but to anyone who has been following this story there isn't much debate that it won't be back...sadly...I would have liked a new AG-5B!! Ahunt 22:23, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Finance

Seeing some of your editorial interests, I'd like to invite you to join and help form Wikipedia:WikiProject Finance. --Leifern 20:38, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Shoddy, perfunctory assessments

The text says: "If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses", and further: "Unfortunately, due to the volume of articles that need to be assessed, we are unable to leave detailed comments in most cases. If you have particular questions, you might ask the person who assessed the article; they will usually be happy to provide you with their reasoning." ...so, ask and I'll tell you. It does not say anywhere that a comment must be added, only that you can add a comment to help further the article. If you check through the list of all assessed aircraft, less than 10% have comments. The assessment Quality scale clearly tells how to assess articles up to B level, thereafter it is up to fellow wikipedians to decide upon its fate. As for my knowledge about the aircrafts, I only go through those that I know very well. --MoRsE 09:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong. I am not asking for a "detailed explanation" but a "short summary". If you really are interested in a quality encyclopedia then you would give the short summary requested by the guidelines and the template text. The problem you give me and other article authors is that you judge what we write but don't say how to improve the articles. If you know ebough about the aircraft to so arrogantly rate them without giving your reasons why not simply improve them youself? But, FAILING THAT, please follow the guidelines: Supply the short summary requested. Paul Beardsell 11:31, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Did you see the comments on Talk:Cessna 206/Comments and Talk:Cessna_182/Comments before you erased them?--MoRsE 11:41, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Rating your "reason" - not "reasons" - for your "assessments": Not good enough. You follow the letter but not the spirit of the "short summary" requirement. Please do better in future. D-minus. Paul Beardsell 21:46, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

If anything Mr. Scare quotes, you need to learn to look better and to learn some politeness. You don't erase edits just because they are stirring up waves in your pond. This matter it is now over as far as I am concerned. Don't expect any more replies. --MoRsE 22:23, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

I've had a look at Cessna 206 and made some comments about assessment. Hopefully these will be useful. The Land 12:58, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Problem with new aviation template

The template no longer asks for a justification for a number of reasons:

1. The "importance" is no longer used, the article is now assessed only according to content.
2. The content can be classed by a rigid scale, here, to explain
   1. Anyone can rate an article stub or start, if they do so then a checklist of criteria for upgrade to B-class is shown in the template.
   2. if someone rates it B-class but does not include the B-class criteria checklist, then the article is placed in Category:B-Class aviation articles needing review, and people can check if the article deserves the B rating.
   3. If someone does the B-class checklist but the article is still rated start or stub then the article is placed in Category:Potential B-Class aviation articles
   4. No article should be rated GA unless it has gone through a nomination process.
   5. No article should be rated A class unless it has had an A-class review
   6. No article should be rated FA unless it is an FA

With this system in place, no article should be able to be rated too high. If there are any questions about this sytem, or comments on how to improve it, I'd love to hear it. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 18:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Since there are a number of articles with comments, I've added a small link to the comment page to the template. But it still does not explicitly state a comment must be made. I've also added to the Assessment FAQs, which may help. - Trevor MacInnis (Contribs) 21:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Just thought you should know.

The image you removed from Throttle did show throttle valves (a throttle is a valve) and that engine does have 12 of them. Research individual throttle bodies. IJB TA 08:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

All throttles are valves but not all valves are throttles. Paul Beardsell 10:29, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

So what would you call these valves? IJB TA 18:41, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing out my typo, Paul

I've posed a question to you (and anyone else for that matter) regarding a choice of two engines. I would be interested in your choice of engines. Alfred Centauri 14:40, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Aerodrome

I saw this edit and it's actually true. If you look at Section 2.1 it says that pretty much all of Canada is an aerodrome. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

It does not say that. Paul Beardsell 07:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

From the section 2.1 "...but, for the most part, all of Canada can be an aerodrome." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CambridgeBayWeather (talk • contribs) 09:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

Which is different from what you said they said. They are not saying Canada is one big aerodrome. Paul Beardsell 10:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

re: Diamond Twin Star

No worries. I've heard some of what this guy is claiming about the dual engine failure, but I've not seen anything official in print, so I'm currently hesitant about adding it to the article. ericg ✈ 13:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Jeff dean leaving

I'm not sure, but as Jeff seems to be leaving and also seems to regard stuff he contributed as his own, maybe he wants to remove the material he contributed? Please have a look at his latest changes in BMW motorcycles, BMW R1200RT, Motorcycle and at the pictures in these articles he unlinked.--193.254.155.48

I noticed what you already restored, but could you have a look at the pictures? I can't help here, being an IP and all. --193.254.155.48

Re: Edit to User:Psb777

First, it's not your page anyone can edit it. Second, I was removing a category that has been deleted. So if anything, you should be thanking me. John Reaves (talk) 20:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

(to Psb77) You are wrong here. You do not own any page, not even your userpage. John Reaves was removing the category per the discussion located here, the result of which was to depopulate (remove all users from) Category:Wikipedians who use GNU/Linux. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 21:33, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I never said you can't use GNU/Linux, I just said that you can't put that category there. The decision was to split it into Category:Wikipedians who use GNU and Category:Wikipedians who use Linux; you are free to add one, the other, or both (as the case may be) to your userpage. And your edit summary here, "This is my user page. Go away. Thanks.", certainly sounds like a claim of ownership to me. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 15:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

(1) It's called English. It's my user page. (2) I can claim to be a member of any category I like (with a very few politically incorrect or illegal exceptions), if the category does not exist so be it. Paul Beardsell 15:19, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

(1) It is the userpage of you, but you do not own it. Other people are free to edit it. Are you suggesting that if an ArbCom decision said that 'no userpages should have links to external sites' (not that that would happen, just an example), you would not allow anybody to remove the link on yours? If not, how is this different? (2) To quote the closing admin's decision: "Category:Wikipedians who use GNU/Linux will be depopulated and deleted". Now, if a category is depopulated, the obvious intent is for it to not be repopulated. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 15:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

(1) You keep claiming I have said that I own the page. I have not. You (correctly) point out that "my" means "of me". It's my page. I also (correctly) point out that it is considered impolite to edit another user's user page. (2) Delete the list if you want. Leave my page alone. Paul Beardsell 15:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm taking this to the administrators' noticeboard. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 15:50, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

For guidance on grammar? Paul Beardsell 15:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

My contribution to that admin page. Paul Beardsell 05:59, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Gold

You are so convinced that you argue on this page that gold is a good investment because it has done really well in the last 5 years and then immediately above that gold is a good investment because it fell so far in the previous 20. In logic terms you say A (gold price has risen) implies B (gold price will rise) and not-A implies B. Essentially you are a believer in B. The arguments do not matter to you. So said PSB777

This is hillarious. I am amazed at why people "invest" in things like gold. It seems like people's investments suffer greatly as a result of their cognative biases which lead them to believe like just because people were willing to pay for this shinny yellow metal in the past, they will be in the future. What do you invest in? XM 13:44, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Even leaving your money as cash is an investment decision. I don't like the arguments of many gold bugs but I too am an investor in gold. Paul Beardsell 15:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Bennett Airtruck

Much delayed - poor quality image of model, rather than the real thing, uploaded. Winstonwolfe 04:31, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Microaviation

FYI 20ft take off roll comment I deleted was sourced to a rather OTT endorsement by South African user of the type - not that it is relevant as I think everyone agrees with deletion.

Oh, and having read your user page, (without intending to impute ownership when I say 'your' ;-), I recall making assessments of articles, making comments for possible improvement, noting no one read comments for improvement, so transfering them to talk page, then in the absence of any feedback, stopping making assessments at all and just making changes, (see discussion page of Hawker Tempest if you want a bad example of the process in action... :-) Winstonwolfe 08:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Space elevator FAR

Space elevator has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Bruce Hyman

For your information, copied from the Bruce Hyman talk page :

Matthew Stannard still involved in editing?

This diff [7] shows that Matthew Stannard also edits as 84.9.49.13; is it too much to think that this diff [8] might indicate that Matthew Stannard also edits as 84.9.48.66? Interesting, when he said he wouldn't edit on this page any more. And by the way, what he reverted in his anon IP incarnations wasn't vandalism, it was very clearly explained violations of WP:WLB, use of non-sourced material etc etc etc. 86.133.243.6 07:35, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

He's throwing round assertions of vandalism when it has been clearly explained there is none. He's the vandal, IMHO, by not following Wikipedia rules 86.133.243.6 07:43, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

If I'm going to comment I will do it at the article's Talk page. Paul Beardsell 08:18, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Ram Mounts

A tag has been placed on Ram Mounts requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 06:25, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Ram Mounts

A tag has been placed on Ram Mounts, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per CSD a1.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the page's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself. Postoak 07:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

And please do not recreate articles that have been speedied. Michaelbusch 07:17, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Minor flag

HI Paul, happy to do so, you know you can supress bots from watchlist? Rich Farmbrough 08:17 25 September 2007 (UTC).

Minor flag

HI Paul, happy to do so, you know you can supress bots from watchlist? Rich Farmbrough 08:17 25 September 2007 (UTC).

Talk:Tax avoidance and tax evasion/Comments

Please see Talk:Tax avoidance and tax evasion/Comments. It is the custom for assessments to put on a separate page from the talk page so that the assessments won't get archived.EECavazos (talk) 00:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

If you disagree with the assessment please provide reasoning in the comments page, which addresses the content of the assessment. If you disagree with assessments in general, then articles are not a place to act out on your ideological beliefs. Personal issues against long standing policies of wikipedia should be discussed elsewhere.EECavazos (talk) 00:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

No! *You* must follow the WP assessment guidelines. If you do so I will let the assessment stand, even though I disagree with them in principal, because I obey WP policy. Paul Beardsell (talk) 00:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

If it matters that much to you, then I'll let it the article be as it is. Stay well.EECavazos (talk) 00:57, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

You really don't get it! It matters very little what I think. Just as your article assessment should not be a purely *subjective* one (which is what it is without supportive argument & reasoning), neither should you give way because of *my* passion over the issue, but because you recognise I am, perhaps on this occasion only, right! What is important is that you follow WP policy. Paul Beardsell (talk) 01:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Assessment FAQ. I would be happy to discuss anything with you but only if you calm down and also address substantive content.EECavazos (talk) 01:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello! I expanded the rationale for a B class assessment per your request, which you can find at Talk:Tax avoidance and tax evasion/Comments. EECavazos (talk) 03:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I also noticed you had some issues with the assessment content in the WP Tax banner template. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Taxation/Assessment would be a great place to discuss your concerns. EECavazos (talk) 03:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I hope you did not take anything personal when I assessed the article at a start class with the request for someone else to raise it to a B class article (per WP Tax guidelines). Rather than levying a value judgment on the article's content or subject, assessing an article's class is a way for editors within a wikiproject to alert other editors of articles that are ripe for improvement. In my case, I focus on stub articles and work towards making them a start class article or a B class article. When assessing Tax avoidance and tax evasion that was a way to alert other editors to the article who want to improve articles to Good Article status. This is part of a general process towards improving articles to the class of Good Article. when I assessed Tax avoidance and tax evasion as a start article I said the article should be listed as a B class and then I requested that someone else agree with me to raise the class of the article to a B class. The next step in the process would have several editors run the article through a peer reviewed process to classify the article as a Good Article to an A article and then finally to a Featured Article. The purpose of assessment is to facilitate article improvement. Again, as I said, generally I work on stub (and start) articles in WP Tax and work towards improving them up by one level. I am able to do so because someone else assessed the article as a stub class or a start class. If we didn't have an assessment then it would be more difficult to find articles that need improvement or articles that could be quickly improved to a Good Article or Featured Article class.EECavazos (talk) 03:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Mount

You removed the section on the avionics mount. You can find this definition in most unabridged dictionaries and some (offline) encyclopedias.

Mount. noun - a horse, other animal, or sometimes a vehicle, as a bicycle or plane, used, provided, or available for riding.

It is mostly a military usage, however. It's an old Cavalry term.

Sorry for any confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rett Mikhal (talk • contribs) 06:01, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Piper Cherokee

Why you have called it POV?Frtg66678 (talk) 17:05, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I will answer that question on the article's talk page. Paul Beardsell (talk) 17:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

de Havilland Gipsy Moth

I have been expanding this article and working on format and references. A user on the talk page proposed to rename the article de Havilland DH.60 Moth which I think is very sensible as then all the variants of the DH.60 (Moth, Gipsy Moth, Cirrus Moth, Hermes Moth, Genet Moth, Metal Moth etc) can be included but I see that this article name has been used for a single variant. There has been similar discussion on that article talk page. A discussion on this can be viewed at [9] where it has been been recommended that the content of de Havilland Gipsy Moth and de Havilland DH.60 Moth be preserved and merged in to the latter article. With many variants it is clear that the DH.60 is a series of the same basic type that can be covered in one article. I have been asked as a courtesy to inform involved editors in case there are strong objections. Many thanks.Nimbus227 (talk) 00:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutral Intelligent Editor Sought

To help move things on at the Prem Rawat page. Thought you'd enjoy this one. Matt Stan (talk) 17:08, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Leave my user page alone

Thank you. Paul Beardsell (talk) 20:49, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. You may want to place a hidden comment (<!-- Comment -->) to inform other editors that you do not want the deleted category to be removed from your user page. As long as the category is there, it will show up at Special:Wantedcategories and another editor may remove it as part of general maintenance. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 20:58, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion but I do not think I will follow it. I respectfully suggest the problem is not my behaviour but yours: I think it incorrect of you to wander about editing user pages wholesale and I do not think anyone should need reminding of that. Your suggestion would lead me to having hidden comments on my page such as "remember to say please and thank you" etc etc so as to compensate for others' inappropriate actions. Now, I am not saying you have not been acting in good faith, just that what you have been doing is inappropriate and requires a rethink. Thank you. Paul Beardsell (talk) 21:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I did not suggest that your behaviour was a problem, but only offered a suggestion -- which you are, of course, free to ignore -- for avoiding this type of situation in the future with another editor. That said, I do not view my actions as having been inappropriate either (especially since I had little way of knowing that you specifically want the category to appear on your user page). It is not inappropriate to remove a redlink so that a maintenance tool (Special:Wantedcategories) may function more efficiently, and it is not inappropriate to remove a link to a page that was deleted in order to reduce the likelihood that it will be recreated by someone who is unaware of the deletion discussion. If you still believe that my actions were inappropriate in some form, then let us agree to disagree and part ways. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 21:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

If you want to part ways then don't engage. As to what is appropriate it depends where you are. E.g. If you want to pick your nose don't do it in my back yard. It would be ridiculous for you to propose I erect a sign "no nosepicking" in my back yard. Effectively that is what you are suggesting I do here. Paul Beardsell (talk) 08:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

The category and Special:Wantedcategories are not your "back yard", and the presence of the category on your user page directly affects those. My suggestion to post a hidden comment was made in an effort to help you to avoid a similar situation; that you choose to ignore it is your prerogative, but there is nothing ridiculous about informing other editors of your desire not to have anyone else edit your user page (many editors have no problem with it and, since no one owns user pages, minor maintenance edits to them are generally justified and uncontroversial) or not to remove a deleted category. In any case, I will leave alone your user page and disengage. I hope you have a good day, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not claiming ownership of my user page. But neither does your twice cited reference say anything about user pages. However, there is a convention, almost universally respected at WP, that a user's page is his own domain, within reason. Now, I suggest that each of us desist from teaching their grandmother to suck eggs, and that you do as much editing of "my" user page as I do of "yours". And if you want to disengage, then please do so. Otherwise I will insist on explaining to you why the GNU/Linux or GNU only or Linux only or GNU and Linux debate is a deeply political one in the world of Free and/or/plus Open Software and that the WP category police, wittingly or unwittingly, have taken a specific POV in the debate by attempting to impose a particular category set in WP. Thank you. Paul Beardsell (talk) 22:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

WR userbox

<div style="float: right">{{User:Mms/Userboxes/WR}}</div>Hey Psb777! Maybe you want to add {{User:Mms/Userboxes/WR}} to your user page. --mms (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I am not a member of the said group. Paul Beardsell (talk) 12:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Editing your user page

Okay A part of the process for deleting a category is removing all members of that category and you do not have exclusive ownership over your user page. I have no interest in editing the content of it other than removing a category marked for deletion. Since it has been deleted, you can add it back (although you are not allowed to re-create the deleted content of the category itself.) These rules are likely to remain in effect, so as long as you add your user page to a category, you will always run the risk of it being removed at some point. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:31, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

(1) I do not claim exclusive ownership of my home page. I ask you to obey the convention of leaving it alone. (2) The removal of the category in question was done improperly - the correct process was not followed. (3) The adoption at Wikipedia of the term "Linux" to refer to the operating system more properly referred to as GNU/Linux takes a particular POV in a highly politicised debate in the Free &/or Open Source movement(s), and should be deprecated. (4) There is no need to remove the category, it can co-exist with the others. Paul Beardsell (talk) 12:18, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, there are no others. All Wikipedians by operating system categories have been deleted. This is just one more. - jc37 17:42, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Right I did not allege that you were claiming exclusive ownership, but I'm interested in knowing when someone else could edit your user page and you would not object. As Jc37 pointed out, there is no co-existing to be had. Otherwise, I would completely agree with you. I personally don't care either way about what (GNU/)Linux is called, nor do I care about whether or not the categories are deleted. Deletion was the community decision, so I'll stand by that as I am indifferent. Again, to delete the categories, they are generally going to be depopulated first, so if not me, then someone will be taking out deleted categories from your user page. If you do not want anyone taking out deleted categories, the only solution is to not have your user page in any categories ever.

I do obey the convention of leaving it alone to the extent that I would never have any reason to edit anyone else's userpage unless it was vandalized and I happened to notice, or if there is a category marked for deletion. If you want to re-add the category after it is deleted (which you have done), that is also irrelevant to me. I presently have no interest in removing this category from your user page. If you have some objection to it being deleted in the first place (and apparently you do), you should have either mentioned that in the CfD or you can ask for a deletion review. Considering how overwhelming consensus was to delete, I find it doubtful you will get your way, but it's entirely up to you. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

If you piss on the lawn I will object. If you plant daffodils I will applaud. Paul Beardsell (talk) 10:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

ED Link

Why is the Encyclopedia Dramatica link on your userpage have <nowiki> tags around it? —mako๛ 17:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

There was once a time when no link to Encyclopedia Dramatica could even be saved - this was deliberately prevented in software by WP's implementation of Mediawiki. It was blatant censorship and showed WP in a bad light.

There were a number of sites which criticised the Arbitration Committee and which exposed the scurrilous actions of some of its members and it was impossible to save a link to any of the sites - Encyclopedia Dramatica was one of them. You may recall that a particularly onerous case of an ArbCom member habitually banning editors based on pseudo-psychological evidence that they were about to break policy (not that they had broken policy) was exposed by User:Giano. Another case which ended up gaining significant publicity was that of a highly respected (by the foolish many) Arb Com member who was not much more than a school kid rather than the PhD holder he claimed to be (and that he had used this status to decide issues supposedly in his area of "expertise"). You may also be interested in following the "time to stop the rot" links on my page.

WP users treated badly here at WP used Encyclopedia Dramatica and other sites to expose some weird going ons at WP. The powers that be here and/or the ArbCom suffused by hubris and lacking a sense of humour and a commitment to basic democratic principles nevermind getting confused as to the purpose of WP, banned these sites. I am glad to find out that this is no longer so, at least in the case of Encyclopedia Dramatica. and thank you for pointing out that it is now possible to save such a link. I'll get around to fixing/updating my protest in this regard later today.

Paul Beardsell (talk) 21:42, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Huge number of edits

Hi, please can you make use of the preview button when making talkpage comments? You've made more than 40 edits to the linux talk page today, when it could have been less than 10 if you used the preview button. It makes it very difficult to respond on such a long page, as the edit conflicts really bog down browsers. Thanks, Localzuk^(talk) 16:40, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Grandmother's eggs

Association football is actually a really good example here. It had been at football (soccer) for years, mostly interrupted; that title was supported by several key contributors to the Football WikiProject, included Johan Elisson, an administrator; and the talk page was almost never used for anything except silly arguments about naming.

If you want a read through how the move was eventually pushed through, start here (more context on the pages before that). In short, in my experience the only thing that ever gets difficult changes pushed through on WP is to drop rhetoric entirely and concentrate on policy to the exclusion of anything else. It's the only way to involve neutrals who don't want to read megabytes of background discussion, and the only way to keep things short. Which is why I've concentrated on policy almost exclusively in the current debate. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

See also the actual move, a full six pages later. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 23:39, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice but I disagree that you have concentrated on policy to any greater extent in this debate as I have. I started by appealing directly to policy only to be dealt the "primary use" (by the public) trump card. I think I have now shown conclusively that if the PUBLIC has a primary use of the term "Linux" they have no idea to what they refer, and if they do (by, for example, us telling them at WP) they could not use that information to distinguish Linux-containing operating systems from other modern Unix-like operating systems becuase they are indistinguishable except for the invisible kernel. Even if you restrict the population to computer-literate people they still cannot tell. Even many programmers would not care or know whether the system they were working on was BSD, Linux or Solaris. Thus I have attempted to demonstrate that the Linux "primary use" argument fails, which allows us to apply the 5 exceptions to "primary use" I found in the guidelines. I am now back at policy.

Members of the public, readers of WP, many programmers need to know: Linux is in fact the name of the operating system kernel at the centre of the most popular Unix-like operating systems, and that "Linux" is used as a shorthand way of referring to those operating systems, but that the applications programming environment and the user interfaces are common to almost all of those operating systems and other Unix-like operating systems. And, by the way, Linux is not shareware. If the article did not already exist, if you did not already have an established position, I believe you would naturally say that "Linux" needs to be a disambiguation page. Or, possibly, a summary style page. And you would know that by applying policy.

You accuse me of wasting your time. I accuse *us* of a misleading or, at least, a sub-optimal use of the WP article namespace.

Mmmm. I should transcribe this to the Talk page.

Paul Beardsell (talk) 23:57, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Again, you're telling me what my position would be! Believe it or not, back in the day I moved the thing to Linux (operating system) myself. And then was won over by arguments to the contrary. But editing this section's title - Wow. That's classy. I'll think twice before taking the time to suggest pointers to you in future. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:03, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

If I was as quick to take offence as you we would each be a lot bloodier by now. Once again, you choose to get personal rather than address the argument. You say something, I do my best to construct a point by point rebuttal, then you make it personal. I don't understand how you think this serves your position. And you do insist on attempting to patronise me, You just know better. That's good enough? Paul Beardsell (talk) 00:10, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Chris Cuningham method to build consensus

Hi Paul,

Just to let you know that this infamous person Thumperward just left me this nice message:

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Bald Eeagle (3rd) for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 10:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

As you know this person has been provoking and in violation of wikipedia rules because I do not agree with him. WP:BITE

His behavior cannot cannot be accepted. It is a completely wrong from him to aim to block users that do not agree with his POV.--Grandscribe (talk) 12:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. As you're not a sock puppet you have nothing to fear. It matters not how the *other* person behaves, of course. Paul Beardsell (talk) 14:01, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Accusations of meatpuppery and general assumption of bad faith

I suggest that you try to be civil, assume good faith and not accuse people of meatpuppery (as you do here [10]). That is not acceptable. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

You'll be aware, I'm sure, that accusing others of bad faith is the easiest way of failing the WP:AGF test. I think, however, you just did not see (or perhaps you misunderstood?) the word "unbidden" in the posting of mine to which you refer. Also, I was sure you had said you were not going to engage with me again. Welcome back. (P.S. Stop accusing me of behaving badly, rather just escalate right away, you're being tiresome.) Paul Beardsell (talk) 15:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

There you go again - thanks for confirming my hunch. You really are out to provoke people. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 16:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

How did I confirm anything? What did I confirm? In what way does what you have written here follow logically on from anything? Who do you think you are to spatter wild accusations over my user page? You're completely out of order. What *exactly* have I done to piss you off? Be specific.

If the quality of your accusations are going to be like the "meatpuppetry" one then be careful to read what I have said, not what you think I have said.

What are *you* doing? What is *your* role, here? Why are *you* hounding *me*. Back off. Go do some editing. Paul Beardsell (talk) 17:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Assessment

Thanks, I forgot we had the new "C" classification. That is a better placement. Morphh ^(talk) 17:45, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

From one creationist to another

Thank you for the message that I found in an article: "Note to deletionists (may you see the light and be reborn creationists): This is the shortest of stubs about a notable person. Let this article develop - it will." This is exactly how I feel. The article is not yet ready by any means, but it has developed, just as you said. Keep on creating! --Lova Falk (talk) 08:49, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The message was in Jane Gardam. I removed it, because a proposal to delete this article wouldn't stand a chance. I strongly feel that stubs about notable topics should be kept, however small the stub might be. --Lova Falk (talk) 16:56, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Croydon Aircraft Company

Upon review, I agree that I have been too fast with the "delete" button. - Mike Rosoft (talk) 12:47, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Gold as an Investmnet

hi psb777.

i will be working on updating the Gold as an Investment article in the next few days. i have been a gold investor for the past several years and know the market pretty much in and out. i was wondering if you could take a look at the article every once in a while over the next several weeks to edit and make comments on any changes that you think should be made. thanks Americanjoe1776 (talk) 18:36, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Just a suggestion

Maybe you could "archive" your talk page so it would be easier for people to get to the recent discussion spot, or just so you can keep recent discussions on top? If you need help with this, I'm here for it. Elm-39 - T/C 18:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Poor article assessment

Template:Poor article assessment 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. Jafeluv (talk) 13:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

• Hi! I added a comment for you in the TfD entry, with some reasoning why I think the template should be deleted. Thanks, Jafeluv (talk) 13:53, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Assessment

Peter,

Sorry to be slow to reply to your comments on my talk page. I can understand your viewpoint a little better now, and I think ideally we would have thorough reviews for articles before assessments were made. However, we have 2.7 million articles, and only a few thousand active Wikipedians, of whom most are focused (rightly) on writing and editing. That leaves very little time for those actively assessing, and it means that an assessment is often quite cursory. Many of our assessments are very out of date (I've heard of articles still tagged as "Stub" going up to GAN for this reason), and it seems to me that is a much more common problem than poor assessment.

I am one of the people most active in the Wikipedia 1.0 project, and I also originally set up the assessment scheme, so obviously I'm interested to hear other viewpoints. You should be aware that prior to this scheme we had no method for knowing which articles were close to complete and which were in poor shape, unless we clicked around links and category pages. I would be the first to accept that the current system is far from perfect, but in fact our selections for 1.0 turn out to be remarkably reasonable (IMHO); without the assessment scheme it was simply impossible to select articles any other way than manually (which is incredibly slow!).

I think that there is a way things can work in the way you would like. Occasionally an editor may question an assessment - though usually importance is the parameter that is disputed, rarely quality. This concern can then be brought to the WikiProject or the editor for discussion. This could often be quite beneficial, because the article then gets a quick peer review, and then perhaps some fresh editors do some work to fix the things missed by the original editor. Then the article can improve, get the higher rating, and everyone is happy! So I don't think the assessment is a waste of time, and even a cursory assessment is much better than none at all, IMHO.

I know that your concern centers on the fact that the WikiProject appears to give a lot of authority to what is really a quick assessment. Should we maybe clarify the depth of assessment in the assessment scheme (linked from all the tags)? I think major changes to talk page templates is unlikely to be popular with many. Do you have any other proposals that might be acceptable to the community? Cheers, Walkerma (talk) 04:27, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Light aircraft

I am pleased that you found that more help than hindrance! - Ahunt (talk) 01:13, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Rotary Air Force RAF 2000

A tag has been placed on Rotary Air Force RAF 2000 requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. -Axmann8 (Talk) 11:28, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Making partial articles

Hey man, try to be a bit more thorough when you create articles. Don't just make a dictionary definition for something purely for the purpose of providing non-red interwiki links. I appreciate the work you're doing, but I think it would be more beneficial if you just got a good chunk of the article finished before publishing it.

Thanks!

-Axmann8 (Talk) 11:34, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Dealing with other editors: Problem

This edit appears to be un-called-for and inappropriate. Two policies that come to mind are WP:Civil and WP:AGF. You should be aware of both of these and please be sure to comply with them. It's not optional. Toddst1 (talk) 12:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see you've been blocked for personal attacks before. Then consider the note above a final warning. You will be blocked if your behavior continues. Toddst1 (talk) 13:02, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Those blocks are from almost four years ago, ancient history by any measure! henrik•talk 13:04, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Indeed they are from 2005, but unfortunately, the problem has resurfaced. Toddst1 (talk) 13:08, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Henrik, thanks for your intervention (not only four years ago but the definition of personal attack has evolved so that I think I would not be blocked now) let's hope you don't have too much cause to regret it. Toddst1, you're being overzealous and your behaviour is inappropriate. The edit you identify does not constitute personal attack. Consider this note a final warning! [Of what, I'm unsure.] Accusing someone of personal attack falsely is not acceptable by WP guidelines. You arm the cops and it turns out some are trigger happy. It's the same in every police force of the world. Here at WP too. Paul Beardsell (talk) 13:22, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Axmann

Axmann was indefinitely blocked last week. He was unblocked because he agreed to a politics topic-ban for five months. The unblocking admin(s) gave him the benefit of the doube and agreed. After that though, he continued to edit such articles, citing WP:IAR in the edit summaries - Ann Coulter, commenting on politics-related discussions, etc. He violated the terms of his topic-ban and should have been re-blocked right then, but wasn't. He came up in discussion again when I commented about his skinhead userbox at ANI. That discussion then evolved to being about his topic-ban violations and general disruptive, POV edits, treating Wikipedia as a battleground against his political opponents. That's why he was blocked. If you disagree, well, sorry, but consensus was it was merited. Now, I won't comment anymore on it, I just wanted to explain it to you because I don't think you understood, nor was anybody explaining it entirely. Grsz¹¹ 03:34, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I do understand pretty much what has happened. What I was doing was trying to get a clear statement about it! Note that nobody is able to disagree with what I wrote. All they can say is that I haven't read what has been written (which is a nonsense because I couldn't have commented as I did without doing so) or to call me disruptive. They refuse to address the argument. The evidence of wrongdoing is very thin. Some of us accused him of something that was not against the rules, others accused him of being political in that defence of that improper accustion. In his defence of a false accusation that he said what he wasn't allowed to say as per his topic block. Idiot. And we jumped on him. Not fair. Paul Beardsell (talk) 03:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

You jumbled everything with that edit, but I think you think his topic-ban violation came up after the discussion started, which is not true. Grsz¹¹ 03:48, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

As ever, I am not making my argument in the most effective way possible. But I am busy going through his edits. If you refer to the one cited again and again that was an innocuous NON-POLITICAL edit on a Talk page of one (possibly) political article (Ann Coulter). His edit there was not political in nature but was one about proper process, about editing. Paul Beardsell (talk) 03:52, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what he edits at the page or talk page. A topic-ban is a restriction from any kind of editing on the topic. Grsz¹¹ 03:57, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Y'know, even if we assume (in maybe justifiable bad faith) that he was pushing against the boundaries, you'll just have to admit that that edit, in itself, was against the letter only, not the spirit of his ban. And there's only one example anyone can find, that one. We ambushed him over the entirely legal userbox. And an incoherent condemnation of him occurred. I'm glad he's gone, but we could have acted better. With everyone labelling me as disruptive and unwilling to read what's written, I had better keep a gooood lookout. And be careful what userbox I put on my user page. Paul Beardsell (talk) 04:03, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

We pushed him, provoked him, riduculed him over his invocation of the first amendment, he reacted and we said "now we got you, sunshine". The problem with lynch mobs wasn't that they got the wrong guy. Usually he was guilty as hell. The problem is lack of due process. Paul Beardsell (talk) 04:09, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

The way I see it, it should have been done earlier, when he ignored his terms of unblock. There was enough reason to block then, it just didn't come out until now. Either way, it's a legit block, enough said. Grsz¹¹ 04:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It's an extraordinary use of the word "legit". Essentially I am saying it is not legit. You are saying it's deserved. I don't disagree. Paul Beardsell (talk) 04:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

(OD)No one provoked him into breaking his word not to edit political articles. Indeed, he seemed proud he had made the choice to IAR over the conditions of his unblock. Dayewalker (talk) 04:32, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Non sequiter. No one provoked him to eat breakfast either. Of course, only one non-political edit of the talk page one political article has been cited. So bye-bye to that argument too. Or, if you don't agree, read above. Paul Beardsell (talk) 04:37, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't think you understand what a topic ban is, or how serious it is to be taken. Axmann8 was indefinitely blocked twice, and found an admin to let him out of both of them, the most recent on an agreement to not edit political articles for five months. He willingly broke that agreement. The details are irrelevant, he was doing exactly what he agreed not to do in exchange for being allowed to return to wikipedia. The userbox discussion was over and done with. Dayewalker (talk) 04:43, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

No. I do understand. He was provoked over the userbox and he responded (badly) to that. Then his accusers, left their dodgy userbox argument behind to have a go at him over his more-or-less forced error. But I have said that before. You are not replying to what I am saying. I will not attack the remaining straw men. Paul Beardsell (talk) 04:49, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

And you aren't reading what I'm saying, apparently. This isn't worth the wasted time anymore, I'm afraid. He's gone for good, and rightly so. If you don't agree with the methods, someone else can take over the explanation. Good luck in the future. Dayewalker (talk) 04:54, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Now the invoker of Axmann8's topic ban has come out to say that he too does not think the topic ban was broken. See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Axmann8_late_intervention. Saying "IAR" in edit summaries is provocative but that's all it is. Axmann8 has been banned in such a way to make us look like cretins. The injustice of it will mean the ban is undone, it has to be, to be fair. If we don't then we're scrabbling about in the dirt looking for the reason we blocked him after we blocked him! Paul Beardsell (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

It's possible for the participants in the discussion to disagree as to why the block is upheld but to uphold it nonetheless. After reading that discussion, I suggest the dead horse be spared further beatings. Regards. Jonathunder (talk) 21:17, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course it is possible. Beating a dead horse does the horse no harm. But the beating of the live horse was done in a way that the RSPCA would be very upset about. It was unseemly. I'm not surprised you're embarrassed by it. Paul Beardsell (talk) 04:15, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Try reading, it might help some thing

Go on. Go read my post. Not anywhere did I say secret.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say you said "secret". I said "private". You interpreted that as if I had said "secret". I did not try and have a confidential or secret conversation but a private one, so I could exchange views without you feeling you had a license to intervene. Paul Beardsell (talk) 05:40, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes you did, you implied I did, even if you didn't directly say I did. Replying to a post with "I didn't say "secret", I said "private"." implies that I said secret. Now that you're done denying. If you meant something other than what Private means, do describe what it is you meant to have, if not private.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:46, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

If you want to have a "private" conversation, take it off wiki. Editors are allowed to comment on anything on wikipedia. If you'd like a one-on-one conversation, try emailing your target. Otherwise, Daedalus (and everyone else) is well within their rights to comment. Dayewalker (talk) 05:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Look, you're determined to find me in the wrong about something. I ought not to have put "private" and "secret" in quotation marks. I did not thereby mean to imply I was quoting you. I was not. Sorry. But you misunderstand the meaning of "private". It does not mean confidential or secret. I was not trying to hide what was being said. I just wanted to give the other user the space to explain what he meant so I could understand and not criticise him unnecessarily in the main public forum. OK? I'm allowed to do that. It isn't even unusual. Your hounding of me is unusual. Paul Beardsell (talk) 06:02, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

That's funny, because as far as I've read out of several reliable sources, that is exactly what private means.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

So you must think that the "and confidential" part of "private and confidential" is a redundancy? Paul Beardsell (talk) 06:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is, the latter is describing what the former creates.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Good try, but you're wrong. Paul Beardsell (talk) 06:25, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

You are getting increasingly annoying and disruptive with every post of yours. You need to find something else to do other than beat a dead horse. Do you not realize that all you are doing is pissing people off? Your repeated comments citing the same nonsense in repetition is starting to be very disruptive. You seem to think you can harass people into doing what you want them to do. Move on. Why you choose to annoy the piss out of people is beyond me. Landon1980 (talk) 05:20, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Take it easy with poor old Daedalus there, he means well. Paul Beardsell (talk) 05:34, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm assuming you are being sarcastic, if not, that comment is intended for you, Psb777. Landon1980 (talk) 05:38, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Yessir, I was being sarcastic. I note you refuse to address the argument. If you truly consider me to be being disruptive there is a place to say so. Go there. Thank you. Paul Beardsell (talk) 05:41, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Another thing, you keep going around torturing people wanting diffs of this and diffs of that, then if they are not provided you mark it up as "see told you," what you don't understand is no one gives two shits if you agree with what happened, and they aren't going to waste their time trying to prove something to you. Get it? They don't need you to agree with it, so they don't bother. Landon1980 (talk) 05:43, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand this "(ec)" thing. Happens to me all the time but I don't see the need to remark upon it. Do you consider it unusual? But that's an aside. I seem to have got up your nose. Why do you think that is? Maybe I am hitting a nerve. Good! That is my intention. Many years ago the next door flat was burgled. The returning housewife yelled, I jumped up and chased the robber down 6 flights of stairs and caught him several blocks away. The police came, took him onto the balcony and beat him up. I interjected. Sure, the man was guilty of robbery, but no one deserves that. You and your lynch mob have treated Axmann8 just the same. Paul Beardsell (talk) 05:50, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

(ec) is to inform people you had an edit conflict, and that you typed this before reading the further posts that have been made since then. Landon1980 (talk) 05:54, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Not sure who my "lynch mob" is, but I , for one, do not have the tools required to perform administrative actions. Landon1980 (talk) 05:56, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Me neither. And I know, from experience, that given authority I do not always use it well. I'm not a bad sort, and neither are those of whom I complain. But the appearance of "we've had enough, let's push him so we can get rid of him" is one that not only I have commented on. Paul Beardsell (talk) 06:05, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Do you have evidence to support that accusation? You claim people were pushing him. I want diffs.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 06:07, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Let's consider our discussion over "private and confidential" above to be entirely representative of our interactions, shall we, and just stop? Paul Beardsell (talk) 06:27, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

ANI

A matter you have been involved with is under discussion here.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 05:58, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

That thread is where you need to take your argument. All you have done so far is bitch and whine for days on end about what happened, but have never suggested what you think should be done. Stop pestering people on their talk pages, and clearly state on that thread what you think should be done. Otherwise, drop it, and move on. See WP:STICK. Landon1980 (talk) 06:17, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

You'll doubtless remember you kept on flagging an ongoing discussion at ANI to be closed when it was not. It was then, and only then, that I took the discussion to your page. And I see it went on and on and on and on there, well after I bowed out. I am now being criticise for taking the discussion back to ANI from Jeremy's page. Admit it, it isn't *where* I am that is annoying you, that is making you feel uncomfortable, but the finger pointing I am doing. Paul Beardsell (talk) 06:37, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm *sure* that the new thread at ANI is the *last* place anyone save you wants me to repeat my Axmann8 arguments. Paul Beardsell (talk) 06:39, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Minority opinions

Occasionally we find ourself on the minority of some issue here, the majority doesn't just agree with our opinion. If we find that our arguments are unpersuasive, sooner or later the best thing to do is to drop the matter. Dragging an argument on when it's clear that nothing will change just isn't productive. You've made your case, but being an angry mastodon is not a good thing. Take a cup of tea, and relax for a bit. henrik•talk 06:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

You're right. But I have been taking cups of tea! Paul Beardsell (talk) 06:33, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Just saying to yourself "Meh, I can't be bothered by this silliness anymore" occasionally does wonders. Then you come back a few days later, and no-one even remembers what everyone was so winded up about. :-) I hope the tea was good. Cheers, henrik•talk 06:51, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Railroading of Axmann8

Paul, I would think that WP by now would have some sort of process in place to prevent the kangaroo court that led to the ban of Axmann8. It was quite brutal at first, but when the supposed puppets showed up it turned into complete mob rule mentality. Checkuser will show all of the accounts that were similar to Axmann8 were by a completely different troll. (I imagine by now you have rearranged my user ID to find a new one). Point is, a quick look at the diff's from the various members of the mob show very few clear thinking individuals that care about properly treating others. There are a couple of drama queens in the mob who do very little to improve the encyclopedic quality. It has been interesting to watch the shenanigans. Looks like a majority feel they improve themselves when they find someone else to put down. I wonder how the majority of them would feel if the roles were reversed and they had a flaw that was exposed and found themselves the focus of the canibalism mentality. I am sure that a few will explain that they were baited and will create perfect excuses for their behavior. I have a short attention span and will move on now, but I thought I would share my observations with you. Naxenamight (talk) 18:03, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Puppet of Axmann8, j'accuse! Thank you for prompting me to comment. I am not going to talk about the Axmann8 case specifically, for a little while. That what has happened is disgraceful, is unquestionably true. See User:Psb777/wikisociety for some thoughts. Paul Beardsell (talk) 23:53, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

ANI

There is a topic on ANI concerning your edits, specifically, your edits where you tell a new editor to game the system.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 21:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Personal attacks

Here they are, clear as day. Several accusations that I have broken policy without a single diff to back it up. Seriously, what the hell is your problem? You know that you accused me of doing something without evidence, and then you deny it even though it is still on the page right in front of you? Are you trying to edit disruptively? Are you trying to upset me? You do realize you can be blocked for such behavior, right?— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Blocked by you? Look at your confrontational style! The unfounded accusations which amount to personal attack are not by me, they are by you. My comments on the way the newbie was treated are not personal, and they cannot be taken as such. I think what you are doing has the appearance of gaming the system. You do not like something I say. It is a comment about your (and others') behaviour. It is not a personal attack, but you seem to insist on taking it personally which allows you to raise a WP:ANI. I note another way of coping with my comment might have been for you to apologise to the newbie, and to join me in my offer of trying to be helpful in the future. Paul Beardsell (talk) 09:45, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to apologize to him, as there is no reason to. I have not attacked him, or you. I have backed up my claims with diffs, diffs which prove that you did indeed attack me and others, as making claims against someone without evidence is a personal attack. As for a block, no, not by me, but of course, by another admin. You however still refuse to back up your unfounded accusations. I have not called the new editor any names, nor have I insulted him, nor have I been uncivil, and your accusation that I have, again, without evidence, is a personal attack.`— Dædαlus ^Contribs 09:50, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I admit I am critical of certain behaviour here at WP. I just deny that these were personal criticisms. You provide diffs of me being critical, but fail to say how they were personal. Unfortunately for you, I lay out a series of caps, and you're trying them on, voluntarily, and you seem to find them a good fit. Paul Beardsell (talk) 09:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

The new editor: No, you were oh so very very careful to do none of those things which would obviously be against the rules. But if you go back to the "conversation" you had with the newbie, and read what you wrote, and read how you wrote it, then a failure of tone is apparent. A lack of helpfulness is evident. A forgiving demeanour is absent. And of course you must not apologise to him because I suggest so, but perhaps because you were unwelcoming. Paul Beardsell (talk) 09:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to apologize to him because he was blatantly rude to others besides myself. He labeled someone who reverted him as a vandal, and even after being warned not to do what he was doing, he did so any way. It's as simple as that.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 10:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

If I felt as you, I would not apologise either. Paul Beardsell (talk) 10:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Your Yak

Tell me more? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:04, 4 April 2009 (UTC).

Why not contribute to this article: Yakovlev Yak-18. FWiW --Bzuk (talk) 12:07, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Have you seen this? FWiW Bzuk (talk) 12:11, 4 April 2009 (UTC).

I note your comment here. You must have looked into my edit history in some depth to make such a remark. I note you also admonish me to contribute to Yak-18. You will see that I am a relatively major contributor not to that article, but I am to Yak-18T. And to many others, and not just restricted to aviation. That I choose to confront poor behaviour by admins should be something you applaud. I note with regret that the trouncing given by some admins to a new user User_talk:TPTanque passes without comment by you, other than to say that me pointing this out is confrontational. Paul Beardsell (talk) 12:30, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Paul, thanks for the reply. As you say, you have already provided considerable contributions to aviation articles; would you consider joining the WP:AVIATION project and use your knowledge and expertise in this arena. As to my sweeping generalization, I merely did a last 500 history and noticed that there was a prevalence of talk page commentary rather than copy-edit submissions, at least in the immediate past. As to admins, I too have had some reservations about individual admin's modus operandi; two in particular that I have run into have led to vexing exchanges. The majority of other admins that I have contacted for assistance, however have been the exact opposite personality types- patient, friendly and prompt in offering a hand. My preference is to leave the huffing and puffing to others and concentrate instead on writing and editing. Tell me more about your baby! FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:02, 4 April 2009 (UTC).

This is one of the most extraordinary conflation of two topics that I have ever encountered on WP! Paul Beardsell (talk) 13:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I do not mean to paint all admins with the same brush, and I agree with your comments about them. The one thing I do not like more than anything else at WP is how admins let a rogue small sub-set of them tarnish the reputation of admins generally, and much more seriously, that of WP. The warm welcome extended to newbies is not happening. The ease of creating new articles is now up against the deletionists. The collegiate collaborative atmosphere is reduced. OK, this isn't all down to the admins. Paul Beardsell (talk) 13:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

---

I am hanging about at White Waltham Airfield awaiting paperwork which will allow me to take delivery of HA-YAB. HA-YAB is a manufactured (not remanufactured) in 1999 Yak-18T with 230 hours total time. It has the regular engine - a remanufactured M14P 360hp engine with almost zero hours on it - and the standard wooden two bladed CSU prop. It has the more modern two-piece windscreen, leather seats and good carpeting. And very long range tanks - 2*180+130=490 liters. It's the utterly butterly yellow a/c pictured at Yak-18T. Paul Beardsell (talk) 13:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

re"This is one of the most extraordinary conflation of two topics that I have ever encountered on WP! Paul Beardsell (talk) 13:17, 4 April 2009 (UTC)"

I certainly never have been accused of sticking to the point (LOL). To me, the conflab with an admin was a complete distraction as I was more interested in your aviation rather than your debating credentials. See my "take" on the Yak-18T article. I swish around the WickyWacky world, and submit only when the spirit takes me, but I have slopped over to an article that truly could use an expert touch. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 13:27, 4 April 2009 (UTC).

There seems to be a controversy: Is the 18T a derivative of the 18 or do we just think of it because of a model naming "error". There are several planes which have just as much in common with the 18 as the 18T. The Yak-52 is a two-seater tandem, like the 18. It has the same engine and prop as the 18T. It has the same pneumatics (starter, brakes, flaps, undercarriage). If the 18T was called the 81T and the 52 was called the 18B would we still think the 81T was derviative of the 18? Paul Beardsell (talk) 14:23, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

What commonality seems to be wing, rear fuselage and that it was part of a series of progressions: e.g. tricycle gear, engine type. I did see your original posting indicating that the derivation was in question. Elucidate... FWiW Bzuk (talk) 14:46, 4 April 2009 (UTC).

Well, the 52 has a tricycle u/c and has the same engine and pneumatics. The 18T is a four seater, the 52 is a tandem two seater like the 18. The wing of the 18T is similar to that of the 18 but then so is that of the Nanchang, where once again we get a derivation controversy. Was the Nanchang deriviative of or inspired by the 18? Paul Beardsell (talk) 14:51, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I am still looking up sources since this is such new territory for me. My first reference may be a bit suspect as it is not that authoritative but it considers the Yak-18 as the seer of the brood. (Also look at my fledgling efforts at Technoavia SM-94.) FWiW Bzuk (talk) 15:13, 4 April 2009 (UTC).

Welcome to Wikipedia; Re

Thank you for your kind words Paul, you seem to be one of the few decent editors I have met on my time here. You generally all around seem to be a good bloke and down to earth guy, so if it is okay with you, I would like to ask your advice on any future edits and situations I get in. Thanks again, TPTanque (talk) 12:55, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

ANI

Hi. This is a drive-by, but I was reading the current discussion on ANI, and the initial post of the discussion by Daedalus. I have to say, I might have said the same thing (as you). I actually took it as informal coaching to improve communication skills, while not being called an ass all the time, and then ending up on the very boards you ended up on. I think this is a prime example of discussing comments completely out of context on these boards. If more people would do as you suggest, even if it is tongue and cheek, this would still be a much less hostile place. The fact that you even have to keep telling people that shows the need of more of it, not less of it. Gaming the system isn't illegal, it's a euphemism. If I hadn't just had my own ass kicked on this discussion board yesterday, I would have stood up for you. Sorry man, I'm still sore. Cheers. --OliverTwisted ^(Talk) (Stuff) 07:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Smug and Self-Satisfied

I apologize, my remark was intended to humorously recall the quip that started the whole discussion. Apparently my humor is so subtle as not to be funny. And I don't have any clever ideas about what to do next. Brain Rodeo (talk) 19:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: Daedalus969

I was just upset with that person adding csd template even after adding reliable source to the article other that it is nothing. I have looked at the ANI. To be honest both of you should disengage and forgive each other. --SkyWalker (talk) 18:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Reversions

Dear Paul, I'm experimenting with Huggle, the anti-vandalism tool, but I will change the settings to be able to give an explanation for all the reversions I make. Thank you! NCurse _work 07:40, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Balanced field takeoff

Hi Paul. Thanks for taking an interest in Balanced field takeoff. I have made some changes to your latest version, and supported my changes with some explanation on the Talk page.

Nice Yak-18T! Dolphin51 (talk) 12:16, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi again. In your most recent post on Talk:Balanced field takeoff you conceded your frustration was showing. I agree. I think it is important for us both to realise that neither of us owns the article, and we are both bound by Wikipedia's guidelines relating to etiquette. I sense your frustration in statements such as I think Dolphin51 misses the point of BFT entirely. Statements like this are unnecessary and may be in breach of Wikipedia's guidelines for assuming good faith.

And I think you misunderstand WP:AGF - and I think you miss the point of BFT. Paul Beardsell (talk) 02:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

We both need to work carefully on this project, because clearly there are multiple sources of information and multiple points of view. Already I sense that you know what you are talking about, and I will respect that. I also know what I am talking about. I attended my first Boeing Performance Course in Seattle in 1986. Since 1994 I have delivered lectures to airline pilots on the subject of Large Airplane Performance, and I use the Boeing flight manuals and performance manuals as my primary references, so I will inevitably exhibit a bias towards Boeing's way of doing things. I have been intimately involved with accelerate-stop distance since amendment 25-42 of §25.109 in 1978.

This appeal to authority is impressive but holds no water at WP. The point is simply this: Is the article correct? Paul Beardsell (talk) 02:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's proceed carefully, checking that what we say is reasonable. No progress will be made simply by one view trying to triumph over all other views. We both know what we are talking about.

There we agree. Paul Beardsell (talk) 02:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes you place an asterisk before and after a word. Presumably you are trying for a font that shows emphasis. I don't know what effect you are seeking. The editing window has overhead buttons for bolding and italicizing. I suggest you use those instead of the asterisks. Very best regards. Dolphin51 (talk) 01:04, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

My style on Talk pages is *my* style. If I use asterisks like *this* in article space then feel free to correct me. Paul Beardsell (talk) 02:25, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident

Just a quick note pointing out that with your last edit to the page, you are continuing an edit war. In the future, please consider discussing it here rather than reverting. Thanks. jheiv (talk) 02:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Not so

This edit is not supported by sources, and your edit summary is incorrect. That sentence was sourced to the Washington Post. Please self-revert immediately. -- Scjessey (talk) 06:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I will not edit war with you directly. A consensus has emerged on the talk page. I suggest you raise an RfC if you will not actually engage in the debate, other than to say "it isn't so". Paul Beardsell (talk) 06:09, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Reliable sources

I refer you to WP:RS for a definition of what reliable sources are. Your claims have no basis in either Wikipedia's policy or basic reality. -- ChrisO (talk) 04:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I have so referred. Your repeated assertion that I am wrong is acknowledged, but you do not back it up. Paul Beardsell (talk) 04:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

WP:SELFPUB. RealClimate, the UEA and the Norfolk police are all reliable sources for information about themselves - namely the hacks, the status of the material, and the investigation. -- ChrisO (talk) 04:32, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

From your authority WP:SELFPUB we see that condition 2 fails - they allege some third party committed theft (on the other hand, do they? they said "appears") - and condition 4 is in doubt - there is reasonable doubt: Many consider it likely no theft occurred. Condition 5 - the theft/hack/leak/release is the primary focus of the article and it is on those SELFPUB sources only that the theft is said to occur.

        Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about
        themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that
        they be published experts in the field, so long as:
        1. the material is not unduly self-serving;
        2. it does not involve claims about third parties;
        3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
        4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
        5. the article is not based primarily on such sources.

Paul Beardsell (talk) 06:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I hear you, I say it is not so. I am not alone. You are very persistent, but you keep making the same points but fail to substantiate them except in general wikilawyering speak, regurgitating capital-letter-soup. Paul Beardsell (talk) 04:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

If you really believe what you're claiming, I suggest you ask at the reliable sources noticeboard. -- ChrisO (talk) 04:36, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I ask you to accept my contributions are made in good faith. It is too easy for you to bandy about WP:ABC - believe me I have read mostly all the rules and guidelines. Please make a specific quote from the rules to back up your POV. Paul Beardsell (talk) 04:49, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Allegation of edit warring

The burden is on the person adding/changing/deleting content. You were the one making changes without consensus to a disputed article. And you were the one edit warring your changes into the FAQ. That's why you were warned. You can delete it, as the warning is now part of your edit history, and if you do it again within the next 24 hours, it will be used on your 3RR report. Remember, 3RR is not an entitlement to edit war. You can still be blocked for the same behavior, and the diff to the warning will be used as evidence. So, you can delete it, but you can't deny that you received it. Viriditas (talk) 06:16, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Please keep the discussion here per my talk page guidelines listed at the top. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 06:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't deny I received the warning, but I do assert it was unnecessary. At every turn I asked for discussion. Before the edit. In the edit summaries. After the reversions, of which there were only two. I have left the FAQ page as it was. The little skirmish was well over before your warning. Why give it, then? Even now I am attempting to engage in discussion on the article's talk page without my reverter taking part. I think you falsely characterise my edits. That you leave ChrisO's repeated reversions here, there and everywhere uncommented on, and that you are involved in the article editing, and that you and I find ourselves in opposite camps, should mean that admin actions should be left to someone uninvolved as bias could be inferred. Please feel free to enter into the debate on the issue I raise. Paul Beardsell (talk) 06:31, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from. Can you list your talking points for ChrisO to address? Viriditas (talk) 12:30, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. The discussion is ongoing at the [[Talk:Climategate]]Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident page. I have also taken it to WP:RSN. In fairness to Chris he is now taking part, but he still is acting as FAQ gatekeeper. Paul Beardsell (talk) 12:42, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Climategate FAQ

Your rewite of #5 is fully supported and the CRU affiliated wikipedians (looks like) are just burring themself deeper and deeper with all their claims about stolen (yes it may be stolen, but as far as I see no conclusion of that has been made by reliable sources). If you take a look at WP:BLPN and the case for inclusion of pressmulti you again see the same people removes it over and over again. Nsaa (talk) 08:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. When you have access to a proper keyboard perhaps you could have another look at it, a copyedit seems called for. Paul Beardsell (talk) 09:26, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Re: Climategatekeeper

Going around and "rallying the troops" to do battle with the heated and divisive "Climategatekeeper" term is probably not the best thing right now, considering the General Sanctions. To be perfectly clear, you are still pushing a battleground mentality, and you are doing it on user talk pages as if you were acting under the radar. Don't do that. If you must send a message, send a positive one instead, and ask people to work together. Viriditas (talk) 15:35, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

---

I think you fail to assume good faith. It is a bloody battle ground, it's been the most controversial article I've been involved in for some time, perhaps ever. Paul Beardsell (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

It was not how you describe. It was simply an encouragement to actually edit the article and to stop chatting on the Talk page. But doubtless you have made similar postings on others' User pages where others discuss others' edits are discussed, where users makes continued snide remarks about others' motivations, saying they're doing things they are not. I wouldn't want to feel I have been unfairly singled out. Paul Beardsell (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

But I repeat, I think you mischaracterise what I was doing. I ask you to accept my good faith attempt to keep the flag flying for the battle for an NPOV Climategate article. I won't apologise for using the common term, and I cannot see who here I offend. Gatekeeping is precisely what has been going on, I would ask you to advise people against it. Paul Beardsell (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

You will note that I am here under my real name. Also all my correspondence on WP issues is out in the open, in public, on the talk pages. With me you get what you see, no subterfuge, no behind the scenes secret coordinating of 3RR avoidance and all the other common tricks. I certainly am not acting under the radar, I'm not stupid. Neither am I devious. You don't like what you see? OK, but all about me at WP is in plain view. Including my encouragement to two other editors to edit the article. Paul Beardsell (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

---

Umm I guess this would relate to content at my talk page. I just want to note for the record that I in no way saw the post by Psb777 to mean anything but a friendly question as to why I was still only editing the talk page. To be frank, I hadn't even noticed the article was even open for editing again before Paul's notice. (And if anyone would ever believe I'd characterize myself as somebody's "troop" they would be sorely mistaken at that). I do however agree, fully, that there's a heated WP:BATTLE mentality over the article in question. It's not one-sided though. Troed (talk) 17:10, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Notification of general sanctions request

Hello. You have been named in a request for enforcement regarding Wikipedia:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement. Please see the appropriate section and comment. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 16:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

1RR restriction

Per the terms of the climate change probation - noting that you were already officially notified about them [11] - I am placing you under a 1RR restriction for 2 weeks for all climate change articles because you have continued to edit war on Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident [12] past the notification of article probation. Should you revert more than one time on any given page in 24 hours your will be blocked. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 16:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

As you're aware by now, this restriction has been lifted and there is a general 1RR in force at Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident for all editors. Best, Ryan Postlethwaite^{See the mess I've created or let's have banter} 22:48, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect use of talk page

I really can't seem to get de-involved, even though I really would want to. However. I'd suggest removing your sanction-section from the talk page in question though, it clearly doesn't belong there. Troed (talk) 18:22, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

(don't know what your personal talk page policy is, but it's fine by me if you want to remove this section from the page considering it was just meant as a friendly nudge) Troed (talk) 23:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Please consider signing our proposal.

A number of editors have been working on a proposal regarding the renaming of the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident and we are now in the process of working with people individually to try and garner support for this proposal. Please review the proposal and if you are willing to support and defend it please add your name to the list of signatories. If you have comments or concerns regarding the proposal please feel free to discuss them here. The goal of this effort is to find a name that everyone can live with and to make that name stick by having a strong show of unified support for it moving forward. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 15:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

CRU article name

Hello,

I am writing you this message because you have participated in the RfC regarding the name of the Climatic Research Unit hacking incident article. As the previous discussion didn't actually propose a name, it was unfocused and didn't result in any measurable consensus. I have opened a new discussion on the same page, between the existing name and the proposed name Climatic Research Unit documents controversy. I have asked that no alternate names are proposed at this time. Please make your opinion known here. Thanks, Oren0 (talk) 05:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Volcanic ash

#Aviation risks of flight through downstream ash clouds Your quote: "true but destroys the flow of this excellently written article. And not directly pertinent, here." About: "True too, the Finnish Air Force discovered damage inside the engines of a Boeing F-18 Hornet fighter after a flight on the April 15, 2010. (PICTURES: Finnish F-18 engine check reveals effects of volcanic dust) The problem is that this is the only event I know of damage of a flight through so-called volcanic ash affected airspace. --Chris.urs-o (talk) 14:43, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

It's a random fact which breaks the flow of the article. Paul Beardsell (talk) 20:48, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Saling faster than the wind

Dear Psb777: Wikipedia is about reproducing reliable and verifiable information. I and others went to a great deal of trouble to track down information on the performance of high-speed boats, and the article sailing faster than the wind reproduces information from reliable sources. Your saying "the cited book is wrong" is Original Research, which is not permitted in Wikipedia. You have removed a great deal of properly sourced material, including the "dead downwind section", without providing any references to support your assertion that it "simply is not possible". That is, you are substituting your own opinion for what is said in reliable sources. Consequently, I have reverted your changes. Please continue the discussion on the discussion page, and please provide references to support your assertions. We can then work together to improve the article, which what many people did at an early stage.--Gautier lebon (talk) 09:09, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but this is an encyclopedia. Obviously I believe this is either a hoax or people are fooling themselves. Let's leave my belief (however well supported by Newton etc) aside. This is a controversial issue (to my amazement!) An encyclopedia is not a place for controversy. When you can quote SciAm or NS as supporting the view then maybe we can include it in the encyclopedia. Otherwise, until then, it remains a publicity seeking controversy, not fit for an encyclopedia. Paul Beardsell (talk) 09:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

The above para refers to the hoaxters claims of directly downwind faster than the wind wind-powered travel. This refers to the claim that sand/land/water yachts can beat a free floating balloon to the downwind point. No they cannot and NO REF (qualifying as WP:VS) CITED by you says that. Paul Beardsell (talk) 09:19, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

As I have state elsewhere, the above statement is factually incorrect. Bentwaithe's book shows polar charts with downwind VMG well over wind speed. That means that the boat sails downwind faster than a balloon.--Gautier lebon (talk) 08:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

When Nelson Mandela says 1+1=3 he is wrong. I greatly respect Nelson Mandela. You keep on telling me what B says, you have promised me extracts by e-mail. Yet to receive these. But like NM, B could be wrong, even if he says what you say he does. He doesn't, I bet. 08:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I have sent you the extracts by E-Mail. At 8h38 European time on 9 June 2010. If you did not receive them, then please send me an E-Mail to that effect.--Gautier lebon (talk) 12:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

For the love of God Paul, would you shut up?! You are simply shouting repeatedly your oversimplified misunderstanding of how sailing works with your inane cosine equation about windspeed, and confusing VMG with a violation of thermodynamics. You remind me of the inane objection that Ayn Rand made to quantum mechanics, that it must be wrong because she thought the idea of a particle existing potentially in more than one place at a time violated the law of identity. It might have violated her understanding of the law--but fortunately for communications like this, silicon semiconductors using QM still work very well, and her understanding was wrong. So is yours about VMG. You are showing that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Please stop your whining and go away until you've read up on the cited references, so that the rest of us can learn what's going on here without your interference. It is obvious that those who are complaining that your repeated refusals to look up the sources, insisting simply that your misunderstanding of the laws of thermodynamics must govern all wikipedia entries, are correct, and you are embarrassingly wrong. Knock it off.ScottForschler (talk) 00:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

outdent. Thanks for your constructive comment. Scott, I think you may have missed my perhaps unsatisfactory mea culpa posted yesterday. Nevertheless I would like to think my contribution to the discussion has overall helped/forced the article to be rewritten using better citations, and for the publicity-blurb of the DWFTTW machine to be toned down. BUT, the article still has room for MUCH improvement. Please feel free to contribute to the encyclopaedia. Paul Beardsell (talk) 06:24, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Paul, as I've stated before regarding other people who finally accepted that the article is correct, no apologies are required regarding the substance. This stuff is counter-intuitive and it is hard to explain in writing. However, I will accept your apology regarding the form, because I still think that it would have been more appropriate to post comments on the discussion page instead of drastically editing the article. So I thank you for that apology. Regarding improvements, indeed all comments are welcome, and many have helped to improve the article over the past months. I would much appreciate your constructive comments for improvement. May I suggest that you open a new section on the discussion page, and quote there the text that you believe needs improvement, with your suggestion for how to improve it? As you can see from the talk page, that is what we did in the past, and it seemed to work well. THank you again,--Gautier lebon (talk) 07:50, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. As far as is possible I think we should keep discussion on the subject of SDWFTTW at that page, and proceeding much as you describe above. In particular all edits made by me have, I think, been fully explained in the edit comment and/or (more often) on the Talk page. To which I suggest we all now return. Paul Beardsell (talk) 08:01, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Paul, I did indeed miss the mea culpa; I only discovered this stuff two days ago, and hadn't read through all of the voluminous comments on it, including the latest ones, which appeared only hours before my comment. I agree w/ you that the explanation can be improved (I just added a suggested explanation of the energy gain on the main talk page, which may or may not be correct/helpful); I also believe that your initial judgments and editing responses were far too strong and unwarranted; and agree with you again that secondary sources rather than primary notes are always preferable. But sometimes the latter can be used as references if these are demonstrably compatible with other well-documented sources, as I think the experimenter's references are in this case, though the transparency of this can be improved. Above all, I think the fact that after your initial extreme hostility, your public conversion to accepting the data here will go a *long* way towards convincing other skeptics, so thanks!ScottForschler (talk) 11:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

If I had only been wrong I would not have apologised. I think you see I was apologising for my tone. No further comment is likely necessary, but feel free! Paul Beardsell (talk) 11:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Outdent. Paul, thank you for your helpful edit pointing out that a citation did not support the text. I have corrected the text accordingly. Separately, the second "conservation of energy" section (no. 21) in the talk page contains many interspersed comments and is, as a consequence, difficult to read. Would it be appropriate to mark with strike-through those portions of the discussion which are no longer relevant because the controversy is closed? I don't think that we should delete text, but perhaps it should be marked with strike-through? I leave it up to you.--Gautier lebon (talk) 08:55, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Wakatipu Basin

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Wakatipu Basin, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.bygeorge.co.nz/stylebook. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 14:07, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Croydon Aircraft Company

The article Croydon Aircraft Company has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

non-notable company

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:09, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Croydon Aircraft Company

An article that you have been involved in editing, Croydon Aircraft Company, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Daveosaurus (talk) 07:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC) Daveosaurus (talk) 07:42, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Croydon Aircraft Company for deletion

The article Croydon Aircraft Company is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Croydon Aircraft Company until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 21:48, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Lift and drag and stalling and all that jazz

G'day Paul. Today I found an interesting comment at Talk:Stall (flight). It was four and a half years old but I was motivated to comment so I went ahead and did so. The original comment was one you made so I am alerting you to my response, in case you are interested. Here is the diff. Cheers. Dolphin (t) 10:09, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Caterpillar Club

You are in Edit history as an editor on this article. It has been multiply tagged for improvement as an alternative to being recommended for deletion. This is a request for editorial intervention to improve this article. Please help if possible.

Georgejdorner (talk) 18:16, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Fred Meijer

Hi, I noticed you contested this proposed deletion with a template used to contest speedy deletions...

With proposed deletions, unlike other deletion processes, you are allowed to simply remove the tag if you believe the reason is incorrect for any reason. However, it's quite possible that if you do, the person who originally tagged the article will simply send it to Articles for Deletion, which will only delay matters. If you'd actually like to see the article not be deleted, I'd suggest (in addition to removing the PROD) is to either (1) add reliable, third-party references to the article which either provide in-depth coverage of the actor (as required by WP:GNG), and/or (2) add resliable third-party references to the article which demonstrate that he meets one of the criteria at WP:ENT. That's what's required to demonstrate notability (in the Wikipedia policy sense) here. I hope this explanation helps! --j⚛e decker^{talk to me} 15:49, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Charles Louis Eloi Pernet

Note that you've added a speedy deletion "hold on" template to Charles Louis Eloi Pernet, but the article is not up for speedy deletion (it has been PRODed). All you have to do to contest a PROD deletion is remove the PROD tag from the article. --Jezebel'sPonyo^{bons mots} 18:10, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Martin Ontiveros

I have removed the "hangon" you put on this article - that is only useful if an article has been nominated for speedy deletion, and this has not. The place to make any comments is the deletion debate at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin Ontiveros. JohnCD (talk) 18:38, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

I have also removed the "hangons" you placed on the two articles mentioned immediately above - unnecessary "hangon" tags only make confusion, because they cause the articles to be listed in the category of those nominated for speedy deletion. In the case of PRODded articles, if you disagree with deletion you have only to remove the PROD template, though it is considered courteous to notify the user who added it, using the {{deprod}} template if you like. The system is described at WP:DEL. Regards, JohnCD (talk)

PROD declined on Fred Meijer in part because of your contesting it, is now at Articles for Deletion

For your information, the discussion is [13]. Have a great weekend! --j⚛e decker^{talk to me} 19:00, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Indicated airspeed

Hello Psb777. Today you made some edits to Indicated airspeed. In this edit you stated the aircraft will always stall at the same indicated airspeed, ... ... In making that statement you seem to imply that there is no influence from aircraft weight and load factor, not to mention flap setting and position of center of gravity! Dolphin (t) 07:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes, and I did not mention centre of gravity or whether the aircraft is flown in balance or not. Obviously, I mean the same piloting and the same loading and the same airframe configuration. Please feel free to improve the article. Paul Beardsell (talk) 22:15, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Psb777. You have new messages at Delta1989's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, Psb777. You have new messages at Delta1989's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

the removal of GNU/Linux term on the GNU article

You are invited to join the discussion at the talk page of the GNU article, and to help improve its neutrality against the POV edits removing the "GNU/Linux" term. Thank you. Fsfolks (talk) 21:58, 22 June 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Kraken Bitcoin Exchange

Hello Psb777,

I wanted to let you know that I just tagged Kraken Bitcoin Exchange for deletion, because the article doesn't clearly say why the subject is important enough to be included in an encyclopedia.

If you feel that the article shouldn't be deleted and want more time to work on it, you can contest this deletion, but please don't remove the speedy deletion tag from the top.

You can leave a note on my talk page if you have questions. Trivialist (talk) 01:04, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 21

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Kraken Bitcoin Exchange, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Exchange. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:21, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Environmental impact of the Wikimedia movement

Hi Psb777, I created an essay regarding the environmental impact of the Wikimedia movement on Meta and I am now looking for ideas regarding the project. I saw that you're interested in sustainability, so I'd love to hear your comments and maybe even have your support! Thanks, --Gnom (talk) 21:42, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Clupeidae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Fusiform. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Kraken Bitcoin Exchange

The article Kraken Bitcoin Exchange has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable bitcoin exchange, fails WP:GNG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. -Liance^{talk/contribs} 17:04, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Ram Mounts for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Ram Mounts is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ram Mounts until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:02, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Nomination of Kraken Bitcoin Exchange for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kraken Bitcoin Exchange is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kraken Bitcoin Exchange until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:21, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Psb777. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. Mdann52 (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Psb777. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Psb777. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of Aircraft bluebook for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Aircraft bluebook is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aircraft bluebook until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:41, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Psb777. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Task force climate change

Hello Psb777,

You are currently noted as a participant of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Environment/Climate change task force. With much of the activity in this task force about ten years ago, I think it's time for a revival. Global warming is getting a lot of attention in the media now and it's therefore important our articles are up-to-date, accurate and neutral.

I've updated the task force page and the to do list and invite you to have a look at the page again, add something to the TO DO list or start collaborating by improving one of our many articles. If climate change has lost your interest, feel free to remove your name from the participants list.

Femke Nijsse (talk) 16:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Given the passage of almost two months I will boldly move Psb777 to "inactive" status. Please move yourself back if you like! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:32, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Changing your username

Hi, you mentioned here that you wished you could change your username. You can actually do this here: Wikipedia:Changing username. Bellowhead678 (talk) 15:36, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I could soon be known as Oh_Wise_Truthful_One so as to counter the supposed nominative determinism of the one known as Neutrality. Paul Beardsell (talk) 22:10, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Your article is being proposed for deletion

Hey there Psb777! Thank you for trying to make an article and add new informations on Wikipedia! However, due to its lack of notability and citation, as well as a dead link and identified as a stub, you article Sports Planes Ltd is being proposed for deletion. Be alert that if it is still being proposed up to 17:53 4 July 2020 UTC, it may be deleted.
If you can address this concern by improving, copyediting, sourcing, renaming, or merging the page, please edit this page and do so. Thank you! Gerald Waldo Luis (talk) 10:15, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:15, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:02, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Standard ArbCom discretionary sanctions notice

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in gender-related disputes or controversies or in people associated with them. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

To opt out of receiving messages like this one, place {{Ds/aware}} on your user talk page and specify in the template the topic areas that you would like to opt out of alerts about. For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

Newimpartial (talk) 17:20, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 15

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited West Byfleet, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages M25, A3 and Ripley. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:20, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2024 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2024 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 2 December 2024. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2024 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:05, 19 November 2024 (UTC)