UPDATE 22 January 2006: Please feel free to complain about my conduct here in the attempt to have me banned if you have a REAL comment about articles and such then leave a comment below. If you wish to contact me in private about any issue, please do use the email link to the left.

Hi Boothy,

I wasn't the one who added the GET-UP comment (you can see my non-anon work on GET-UP, GESO, GSOC, etc. I agree with you that the poster went overboard ("our" votes were never counted) but I've been thinking for a long time that the Penn page needs a controversy section like Harvard has. There definately should be something about the following controversies:

• the Summit and Spice Rack sit-ins
• Rodin's compensation package
• Rodin's positions on multiple corporate boards while President
• The Trammell Crow affair
• The decade old and the more recent crime problems
• The "Water Buffalo" incident
• The death of Jesse Gelsinger
• Union busting in the case of:

• The Hospital workers
• Facilities (Trammell Crow again)
• GET-UP
• Allied Barton security workers

No doubt there is more. I've been a little unwilling to do it partly becuase of the time required and also because I wasn't sure if it should have its own page or if it should go on the main page. So while the anon post was obviously inapropriate I think it's about time that the controversy section was started. Your thoughts? Flying fish 01:18, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Boothy, thanks for your comments! I can definitely see your point about people overdoing it with criticisms, although I think there is definitely a place for it. I think that the Summit and Spice Rack issue would fit nicely in the "History" section, as it's not a current criticism and resulted in a prohibition of secret research which continues to this day. Rodin's issues probably really belong on her own page (mentioning that she sat on the board is NPOV, and I think mentioning that faculty and students questioned this is also ok). The "water buffalo" thing belongs on Hackney's page, as it really defined his presidency in the end. So that leaves the union issues, which I think definately need to be on Penn's page. I'm sure it can be covered without taking up much of the article - I'll try to do it at some point. I wonder if there should be a "criticisms of US academic institutions" page? As they say on the Harvard page, many of the "corporate university" criticisms are levelled at most other Universities too.

ps. Just wanted to make sure you saw the top of my other post (I wasn't sure what you meant by "my honesty in the matter"). I think it should be obvious from my other work that I would know better than to write a tirade at the top of an article! Flying fish 16:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I can help out but probably not for a bit (maybe next weekend). Someone (you?) suggested removing the list of majors, that'd be a good start (or spinning it off, that would be fine, although I really don't think it's necessary). Some Penn undergrads have a pretty serious complex about how "world class" Penn is - it is a very good school, and it does do very well in the rankings, but the recent anon poster who said that Penn is unknown outside of the US is also right. I think it would even be fair to say that it's mostly unknown outside of the NorthEast. This may be in the process of changing, but I don't think anyone who lives in Pennsylvania could be a fair judge of that. Do you know of any really good pages for a school to look at for ideas? Flying fish 17:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Congrads on the new template! just a slight observation, "spouce" is spelled "spouse" so I will leave it to you to implement as the wikicode looks to complicated when i am half asleep! Djegan 09:10, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You might want to approach user User:Talrias (Talk) about the de Valera article as he is the one who is protecting it and would prob remove restrictions temporarily or do it himself for you. Djegan 16:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a major go at rewriting Provisional Sinn Féin in NPOV terms. I'd welcome a review before I get kneecapped. --Red King 23:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I#ve since taken your and Palmiro's advice and removed all the waffle that repeats the main article. --Red King 20:44, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? You are always welcome to draw one up and apply it yourself. I'm still in the process of populating the templates.  Denelson83  06:02, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please start leaving notes on what needs to be cleaned up instead of just tagging it? Zzz345zzz 08:31, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Boothy, i have participated in the discussion.. you and denelson83 never reply to me or my mesasges. to say that i don't want to participate is a blatant lie, and not even a very good one.

Raccoon Fox 17:11, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The time that you made the change, for the second, was before you mad your comments at the workshop, and after i invited you to the worksop to discuss the changes, and the time stamps can back me up on that. Also you did not post anying on the workshop untill after your changes were reverted. So to call me a liar is just false, considering you were invited to make a comment before you tried to implement your changes also calls into question your willingness to participate, along with your now comments above, in the worksoop to gain a consesus. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 07:39, 6 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message, Boothy. She's having a hip replacement op. Went in this morning - complications - now she's in the ICU. Travelling up to Galway tomorrow. It's a long story indeed (hospitals, dodgy consultants, the usual Irish Healthcare story). Thanks for the message, tho'. Wasn't expecting that! :-) - Ali-oops^✍ 00:58, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You have received this message because you have edited a Salt Lake City media article in the past. We have recently had an edit war regarding the wording and inclusion of a paragraph on the KTVX article. In hopes of resolving this I have put together an informal survey. If you are interested, please stop by Talk:KTVX and add a vote. Thanks, A 09:10, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I have added another option to the survey which I believe is a better option than the others as it removes a large amount of bias and the "drop and paste" statements that occur in the other versions. I would encourage you to consider this option. MyNameIsNotBob 09:35, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi I just wanted to say thanks for your help in adding the Borough & Parish options to this template. I didn't think I had it right :P.... —akghetto (talk) 17:47, 7 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Comcast redirect. I should have looked more before trying to start a new one. --Looper5920 06:22, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

How would i implement a void for the Template:IrishUniInfoBox for example for the AINM variable. Thanks. Djegan 14:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Have to disagree with culling the extra categories. It seems with the category section you would want as many as possible. The point of them is to make the actual category page itself as robust as possible. Besides, if you are going to cull Irish American then you might as well pull the vaguest of all categories - 1962 births. --Looper5920 07:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All directed at the prat, I've no problems with you or any of what you've said on that issue, or pretty much anything else. --Kiand 08:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Your comments would be welcome at Prime Minister. One user, without even bothering to go through the proper procedures, wants to rename the article Prime minister and keeps moving it to push that version!!! While there is an article for all uppercasing or all lowercasing, half-casing (which is all WP allows, as all lowercasing is not possible in article titles) would produce a semi-literate mess that would make WP a laughing stock. A student who writes the title that way in an essay earns an instant fail because it is seen as such a monumental clanger. With all the attacks WP is under right now, the last thing WP needs is to make it look as though it does not know how to write the title of the office of premier correctly. What next? Lord mayor? United states? FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 23:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 01:23, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are many names, such as place names and common words (e.g. London) where primary topic dis-ambiguation is appropriate. However, I see no reason to use primary topic dis-ambiguation for callsigns such as WCAU. What reason is there for callsigns to use primary topic dis-ambiguation?? (The most likely reason for this according to my speculation is that the primary one is current and the other(s) ceased to have the callsign more than 10 years ago. Is this the correct reason??) Georgia guy 00:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

re: vandalism. please elaborate? p.s. how do I get my username to show up when responding to a message on a talk page? been around wikipedia for a while, just haven't used the talk page much.

Hi Boothy443,

The Football AID is restarting. The next project article is to be selected on January 1, 2006. Please look at the nominations and take part actively. Thanks. -Aabha (talk) 10:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I wish you and your family a prosperous and happy New Year 2006! We shall surely remain actively involved in the Project Wikipedia. Shall not we talk more ? --Bhadani 17:28, 30 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have recently discovered in other templates how to use a void most effectively, see Template:Infobox Irish University for my implementation; the option uses class="hiddenStructure{{{"variable"|}}}" which is quite effective and simple. With this option you get a very clean table even if a variable is not used - the variable prevents the row from appearing altogether as if the table was tailored for the article.

See, for example, how National University of Ireland and King's Inns differ with the same template. Could be useful for the mirad of Irish city, county and town infoboxes; as it has the potential of being effective for one master template.

All the best. Djegan 23:03, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you just voted oppose on everyone who is running for arb-com, could I ask why. Thanks --Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 06:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps he may not be knowing the reasons: I request that he should be left in perpetual peace. --Bhadani 06:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps i do know the reasons. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 07:04, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I notice you initially added your vote to my 'support' column. Don't know whether to be dismayed or mildly pleased. David | Talk 14:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. Dmcdevit·t 06:40, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Well i now see that warning and enforcment are now considlated into one action, as per the statement that the user gave on his block notice

  "WP:3RR violation and excessive edit warring, has been warned"

  , because i am scanning my talkpage up and down, and checking my history and i dont see a waring that was issued, ahd the user cant seriously be talking about a warning that he issued about 3 monthts ago [1], becaus that would just be ludicrist. But then again this user is an admin, so should i really be supprised. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 07:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boothy, you've been blocked for 3RR before, in fact at this very same dispute. You know about 3RR and have been warned about it before. And don't pretend otherwise. Please avail yourself of WP:DR rather than edit warring. Dmcdevit·t 07:36, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Well it was just a matter of time before the admin responce happened, and it just goes to show how lazy that this particular admin only looking at the surfface whiule solding me. Apparently he failed to examine the prior malisious attempt that the other user has engaged in regarding the subject, how that the other usere continues to disregared and ingnore the general consesus of editors on the subject, which are loged on the Phildealphia, Pennsylvania page, not to make the change or to merge. The user admin also disregards that user is attempting to divert subvert a CFD decision on the category, which was no change based on lack of majority [2], in which the user has ststed that he will disregard and which he has proven by his actions. What i find more disappointing then you actionis and apathy, is the apathy of other useres to stand up and activatly take on this malicious user whos edits at best are now better then bad faith and vandlism, as per my interpertation of the vandalism policy (considering that all ploicy is left open to user interpertation) would include blanking (removing articles form a category in order to seek it eventual deletion), Official policy vandalism (disregarding of a cfd decision that did not allow for the deletion of the category, as well as a disregard and active oppisition of editiors general consensus on the dispute), Talk page vandalism (while his actions have not constituted vandalism the user has remove comments that were not personal attcaks from other useres on the subject that do not conform with the users stance all of which can be found in the history of his talk page). And his edits to said pages involved are no less then distruptive. But as usuall this will fall on deaf ears. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 08:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My dear Boothy Sir, I would suggest that comments implying general shortcoming/s on any particular group of wikipedians may please be avoided: such sweeping comments serve no purpose, except generating avoidable stress, and is detrimental to the interest of the project. By the way, warnings once issued are sufficient, and issues like three revert rule are well codified and generally accepted policies. --Bhadani 07:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but i disagree, i belive that all useres should actively confront the misuse and abuse of powers of the admin structure, becausw it is the realiscitaly the useres that threw an "election" that give the admins the powers in which the have, theifor should it not be that that admins are answerable to use as usere on their conduct, bscuase i find a lot of their actions to be detrimental to the interest of the project. As for the merrits of the 3rr, i am not arguing with them, but with the enforcment of the mish-mash of policy, which is so rediciously open to interpertation, that we intrust thses other usere to perform. I am sorry but i do not see this project, in its current stucture, being suscessful 5 years let alone a year down the line, and i am just waithing for the announcment that a takeover bid. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 08:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are free to disagree. But, if you re-read my comments you will discover that I was not talking in the context of any particular group of users, I was talking with reference to all concerned, and was indicating the negative insinuation implied in your comments towards a particular group of users, in their specific capacity. All administrators are basically editors, and to be an administrator is not a big deal, to be a good editor, in the wiki-environment, is more important, and this environment implies the ability to work collaboratively and constructively, in an environment of trust, goodwill, and mutual respect. As regards the future of the project, I am unable to comment, as I do not have a crystal ball. I am not sure whether a non-profit organization like Wikemedia Foundation may be subject to a takeover bid, as the term is understood in the normal sense. I have remained an optimistic, and shall continue to be so. At least, I will never fly in this nasty fashion. --Bhadani 09:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But you are, while you do not come out an blaently say that they arew directed to particular usere or a particular set of users, just by making the comment in the context of this dicussion infers that a particular group of users is being "called-out". My thing would be that if you did not ant to infer, in either a blaent, subduded, or inadvert, you should have not stated what you did. As for my comments being negative, yes their are, and i have no problem with them being that way, based on the actions and comments that your peers engage in. While i understand admins are editors, they are not editors on the same level that i am, they are editors that have been granted addational powers, thatgiven them the ability to restrict users activites, acess to pages for editing puropes, delete pages, among other things based upon their individual interpertations of wikipedia policy and guidlines, with no realistic oversite of their actions. To say that is not a big-deal, is a joke, thats a sigificant amout of power that is granted, with basicaly nil chance of it being removed. More or less admins are the police of wikipedia, but they also seve as judje, jury and exctioncutior as well, thats a big deal. How would you like it if the police just ddecided to go around you town, and just start interpertation laws as they see fit, not saying that they dont, but at least their is some oversite to the sructure where as here their is pratically none. If it was so not a big deal, then ever user should be granted the same power as the admins, or their should be no admins at all, because if it is not big deal, we really dont need admins then. And if thats how you fell about it, then ovibious you dont take your position seriously, and i would recomend that you step down. As for your wiki-environment, while its great that you tout the company line, and the compay line looks and sound great, and dont get me wrong, i love to see it happen, the reality is, that it is far from the case here, and the actions of the admin structre on up, from their enforcment to the policy is not condusive, in my opinion, to leading this "project" towards this utopian goal either. As for Xiong, while i do not agree with actions all of the time, i understand where he is coming from.--Boothy443 | trácht ar 09:46, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting and very good, but I also have a recommendation: being negative and pessimistic is not a good sign. Are they? I understand the inability of egoistic people (I do not mean you) to function well in a dynamic digital environment, as also in the real life. I am sure that you shall agree with me at least on this point. --Bhadani 10:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No i dont think it is a recomendation to me, more like to your self. If its not a good sign then the must be a problem, and the idea of sweeping the problem under the carpet and not addressing it on the grounds it's negative and does not promote community, is not acceptable. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 08:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see you back. Wikipedia wasn't the same without you!  Grue  07:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To my dismay it is not nice to be back, and yes you are right Wikipedia is not the same, i would argue that it has changed not for the best. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 08:28, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Nice to see you back, at least I can expect a response to my New Year wishes to you. --Bhadani 07:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, good to see your ArbCom election votes aren't straying from your RFA pattern. :-) the wub "?!" ^{RFR - a good idea?} 01:04, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And you point being? --Boothy443 | trácht ar 08:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you made an offensive remark about me on someone else's talk page. I think that it is a personal attack on my character, just because I happen to be a Unionist. An apology would be in order. - (Aidan Work 00:55, 16 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

As per your remarks, which were as equaly in not more so offensive, no apology or retraction will be fourth comming. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 08:12, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Boothy443, why do you consider my remarks about Sinn Fein/I.R.A. to be offensive? Sinn Fein/I.R.A. are mass murderers, especially Gerry Adams & Martin McGuinness who should have been put to death years ago! The sooner that all 4 British nations are free of these subhuman barbarians,the better! Sinn Fein/I.R.A. have damaged relations between the peoples of the 2 countries on the isle of Ireland since 1916, & for that, they are Hell-bound! - (Aidan Work 01:28, 17 January 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Ian Paisley helped form Ulster Resistence whos imported arsenal was used to murder and maim innocent people for decades. Paisley has as much blood on his hands as Adams and McGuinness, Get Real!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.0.196.51 (talk • contribs) .

Howdy Boothy,

I noticed your comment to Borghunter, and it motivated me to say hello. I always respected your RfA oppose votes, because I believe in the example of William Plumer, and admire respectful dissent, even where that dissent is likely to have little influence, and is mostly symbolic. I'm surprised, though, that you were so strongly upset by a passing comment like BorgHunter's; surely, you understand that the price of repeated symbolic acts is that one becomes known as a symbol? Or, is it that you objected to comparisons with MassiveEgo, who has few useful edits apart from his votes, and is thus less respectable in some way? Just wondering, sympathetically, Xoloz 17:05, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of thank you for your comment, i am not to up on the ideas of Mr Plumer so i will have to examine that further. As for dissent, i have always belived that dissent, or at the least a devils advocate, is an important role in any community in which community opinion is requested to form matters of policy and direction, i cant say thay i am the best at it, and i find it disturbing that their is not more of it here, but have my own opinions in why that is the case. I would not say i was strongley upset, even if he had not made the comment i would have still opposed on the basis fo that i do not belive that 3.5 months is a long enough time for any user (regardless of the number of edits) to quailify as a admin. More so i was distressed at the comments, made by this user. Why, well first off this person is a admin, regardless of the age of the user, all admins need to be held to a higher standard of user conduct, which i belive also includes comments made about other useres in a open setting such as a talk page. Secondly this usere on both his user page and talk page quotes dont be a dick as being one of the creeds that he belives in, while he does not exactly say that the box infers that, yet makes a comment that is very much dickish. Basically i find his comment, which based upon the the WP:NPA that i have been blocked on, also could be considered a personal attack as well. As for MassiveEgo, i can not say one way or their other, prior to the incident i was not aware of any user called MassiveEgo nor am i aware of his conduct, but i will say that in the context that the user used in his comment, it sould be infered that the user is making me out to be a sockpuppett of MassiveEgo or visa versa, which i will state is not the case. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:23, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have blocked you for 24 hours for violation of WP:NPA here. Jtkiefer^{T | C | @} ---- 21:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have unblocked him, that comment deserves a warning and not a block, not to mention that I find it very irriting to site that silly little oxymoronic "dont be a dick" policy, which is offensive in and of itself.Voice of All^T|@|ESP 21:33, 21 January 2006 (UTC) I now have to srtike this comment from this user as it does not refelect his opinion, an more accuracate portrail of his opinion is shown at here [3]. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 20:55, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]