NOTE: IF YOU POST ANYTHING ON THIS PAGE WITHOUT A SIGNATURE, YOUR POST WILL BE DELETED WITHOUT CONSIDERATION.

---

Excuse me, why are you being rude and threatening me? I listened to your opinion and edited the page to what I thought would restore neautrality. If it has not reached your standard, please not me know, but I do not appreciate your threats. Thank you.

OmegaWikipedia 22:14, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)OmegaWikipedia

Howdy. Regarding your comment on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Greatest mathematicians, do you feel it is OK to put a CSD notice on a VfD article if the article is clearly a speedy candidate? I've done this several times in the last few days, but will stop if there is specific policy against it or if there's a good reason for not doing so that I'm not aware of. Cheers. android↔talk 00:27, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

• Oops, looks like I misunderstood your initial comment in the first place. I meant putting the CSD notice on articles nominated for VfD, not the discussions. Nevermind. android↔talk 10:44, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

Is user SPUI an admin? If so I would like wikipedia to explain how he can continue to write profanities and make unsubstantiated comments on other users in public. It is setting a poor example to people who can be bothered to read this encyclopaedia. JamesBurns 04:24, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

After I was reverted a couple of times on another article, I asked on the relevant MoS Talk page about my approach to dates. The last time I checked, the consensus seemed to be that my style was consistent with the MoS, but few (if any?) people agreed that it should be adopted as the recommended style — so it's permissible, but no more. I don't revert it any more (I seem to remember reverting on the article in question just because the links were included in both places, and because the birth date was wrong in the summary), though I use it for articles that I start, or on which I do a lot of work. I prefer it because, first, I think it makes the summary look less cluttered and messy, and secondly, it makes the summary summarise the greater detail of the article — but I've given up trying to convince others of that. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:19, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I moved the article twice, accidentally. The spelling is "E.S. Posthumus", not "ES Posthumus" nor "E S Posthumus".

Thank you for the message on my talk page. I appreciate you contacting me. However, you are incorrect, the majority of the people on the talk page are in favor of removing the image from this article. By repeatedly reinserting it, you are going against the majority view. Force10 21:22, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi RickK; Please check out the contributions of Bobber2, the originator of this article. I stumbled on him a few days ago via an article he had written listed on cleanup. This seems to be another "SamuraiClinton"ish situation. Not that I think he's a sockpuupet, but his contributions have been a combination of

1. good but very minor (The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (movie), and making sure any building seen in that "Team America" movie has a "Team America" listing in any "Movies this building has appeared in" section).
2. well-intentioned but horribly written or inappropriate (virtually anything he's done connected with Ed, Edd n Eddy, especially episode articles, some of which have been copyvio)
3. and sporadic vandalism Detroit, Michigan, Police.

Plus he appears completely unresponsive to suggestions to improve his edits or a reasonable understanding of policies or Wikiquette. Several messages have been left on his talk page, some of which have simply been deleted. He also claims to be an administrator on his user page. I'm pretty sure this is in response to an incident where he threw a "protected" tag on the Ed, Edd n Eddy article, and I removed it, pointing out in the edit summary that he was not an administrator and could not protect an article. And he's deleted comments from the Ed, Edd n Eddy talk page. I've been thinkin' about asking for advice from a more experienced editor, and since you discovered one of his "WTF???" articles I guess I'll ask you. :-) It might be a little early to bring in the " big guns" like RFC or blocking, but maybe we should just attempt to head this off at the pass now. He's been editing like a crazed bunny rabbit for the last few days now. Although I suspect the high edit count is due to not understanding or using the "preview" button. Not looking to pawn this off on you, just looking for some input from someone more experienced. Thanks very much. Soundguy99 02:13, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've also tried to talk to Bobber2. Seeing as he wasn't responding to comments on talk pages, I sent him an email. Unfortunately, he hasn't responded to that, either, and has continued mostly putting in poor edits on Wikipedia.—Quickbreak 23:02, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. My gut feeling is "clueless and young (like 12 or 13)" rather than "troll". It's just that some irresponsible/clueless Wikipedians won't respond to "peer pressure" (so to speak); they need attention from "authority" before altering their behavior. Soundguy99 13:11, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for blocking this user. Now I can get some sleep. —chris.lawson (talk) 08:26, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ha ha. You laugh, but I have to be in Ann Arbor in four hours, and it's a 90-minute drive. You do the math. ;)

On a more serious note, I'd be on the lookout for this guy's whole netblock. Something in his attitude just strikes me as being the kind of guy who would power-cycle the DSL modem and get back on with a different IP. (Of course, if he does that, you can unblock the original IP...) —chris.lawson (talk) 08:31, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Before, in theory. Magic 8-ball says there's a large amount of coffee in my future. —chris.lawson (talk) 08:33, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi, why did you revert my "delete" comment? PowerMacX 09:01, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC) Edit: (I added the other edit before realizing you reverted the first part, feel free to revert that too) One question though, only one delete discusion per page is allowed? What happens if series of edits render a page useless or in this case, the lack of edits make it outdated, especially considering that keeping it up to date would be non-practical?

I changed the paragraph concerning the etymology of "Stanislaus" in Stanislaus County, California based on my (very spotty) knowledge of Latin and Polish and some googling. Since you wrote the previous version, I figured I'd let you know in case you have a more direct source that confirms that this was indeed a corruption rather than a return to the "international" form (ie Latin, for a Catholic saint).

Raw evidence off google: [1] [2] [3] (I can translate the first and relevant bits of the third if need be).

Zyqqh 08:10, 1 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There's a debate (and vote) going on at several articles regarding the proper titles; in particular, certain editors want to remove the words "conspiracy theory" from any of them. If you're interested, you'll find the relevant talk (and votes) at Talk:9/11 conspiracy theories, Talk:9/11 domestic conspiracy theory, and Talk:AIDS conspiracy theories. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:11, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I need some advice Rick. Should I list this as a copyvio of this BusinessWeek article [4] even though Adamson has listed the source? There is no indication he actually received permission from McGraw-Hill. JamesBurns 05:52, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• It's definitely a copyvio. Just listing the source doesn't mean he has permission to use it. RickK 05:53, May 3, 2005 (UTC)
  • Thanks, I'll list it. Its a word for word copy of the article. JamesBurns 05:58, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is the standard spelling in both American and British English. Merriam-Webster, an American dictionary, has "archaeologist" but not "archeologist." The former is used by American universities, as a Google search will reveal; such a search will also reveal 336,000 hits for the latter versus 1.2 million for the former. Hence, I shall continue changing that misspelling unless you provide conclusive evidence that one is American and one is British. 141.161.70.7, 7:20, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

So you'll block me from editing, eh? Well, I've got access to lots of computers that have different IP numbers, so that will be a time-consuming process. But anyway, let me tackle your substantive claims.

As I pointed out earlier, there is nothing inherently British about "archaeologist." That is the title of the Wikipedia article, that spelling appears 237 times in the Wikipedia (as opposed to 55 times for "archeologist"), and that spelling is about four times more common on Google. Iowa (http://www.uiowa.edu/~osa/), Minnesota (http://www.admin.state.mn.us/osa/), Wyoming (http://wyoarchaeo.state.wy.us/), South Carolina (http://www.cas.sc.edu/sciaa/OSA.html), and South Dakota (http://www.state.sd.us/bop/Classification/ClassSpecs/30789.htm) all have state archaeologists. Are they British too?

Dictionary.com is not as thorough and credible a source as the well-respected Merriam-Webster, and nowhere is there evidence that "archaeologist" is an exclusively British spelling. In fact, http://www.onelook.com , which searches several dictionaries, does say that "archeologist" is sometimes used in America, but in all of them, "archaeologist" is the preferred, standard spelling.

I checked the policy, and nowhere did I see a clause saying that the spelling should be left as written if the spelling is mistaken or unusual. "Archeologist" is not wrong, but it's clearly in a minority position. Plus, I've undertaken several mass edits (by the way, do 40-odd changes really constitute a "mass edit?") in the past, and no one has complained. Your powerful reaction to a perfectly legitimate undertaking is unwarranted, to say the least. 141.161.70.7, 8:02, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, OK. But I'm still right, since you didn't answer my points, which were pretty convincing.

Anyway, in the article on November 28, why did you change Victor, 3rd duc de Broglie back to Achille-Charles, duc de Broglie ? They're the same person, only the former has an article on him and the latter doesn't. 141.161.70.7, 8:09, May 3, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I was puzzling about that. You're right, I wondered if I should remove the 14 day block first before upping it to indefinite. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 23:06, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]