User talk:Salix alba

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

/Archive1

Contents 1 Altman Photos 2 Rosencomet.com 3 WP:EL 4 NPA 5 How many Rosencomet.com links are too many? 6 Ratings 7 Starwood Festival 8 RefDeskBot 9 List of plants with edible leaves 10 You helped choose Environmentalism as this week's WP:AID winner 11 Thanks for congratulating me for not being a sockpuppet 12 mediation cabal doesn't relate to me. 13 curious 14 WP:RFBOT 15 Starwood Mediation 16 question 17 Thank you 18 RfC on Mattisse 19 look 20 RfC on Mattisse 21 Thanks at RD talk 22 Thanks! 23 Question 24 your question 25 Starwood Mediation again 26 Homotopy groups of spheres image

[edit] Altman Photos

It is my opinion that the Apostle12 (talk • contribs) account either belongs to Founders4 (talk • contribs) or is a meatpuppet. He gave Wikipedia permission to use the photographs, but when the content of the article was closely examined for original research and references, he gathered up his toys and ran running home, taking the photos with him. This is his way of "punishing" Wikipedia. It's extremely childish, and I wonder if we can abide by it. The photos were released in good faith, and now that Founders4's personal bias has been culled from the article, the photos have been removed in bad faith. It's sad that certain people would use Wikipedia to advance their own personal agendas, but there you have it. —Viriditas | Talk 01:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

It is true that I decided to change my name from "Founders4" to "Apostle12." I made this change in an attempt to insulate myself from repeated slanderous attacks by Viriditas (talk • contribs); no sockpuppetry was involved. The above accusation is fairly typical of the attacks I have endured, especially the subtle twisting of truth. For example, I possess neither the authority to release Robert Altman's photos "in good faith," nor to remove them "in bad faith".

The timing of the removal of Robert Altman's photos from the "Hippie" article was coincidental and had nothing to do with "gathering up...toys and...running home." Robert requested their removal, and I felt honor-bound to comply. Nor was there any motivation to "punish Wikipedia." My only disenchantment with Wikipedia concerns Viriditas himself and the unwillingness of Wikipedia administrators to control his behavior.

I made the original request asking Robert to allow the use of his work in the "Hippie" article; he granted his consent, and I accomplished the upload of the original four photos. During subsequent weeks, Robert uploaded approximately sixteen others himself. I had nothing to do with Robert's decision to remove his entire collection from Wikipedia, which was motivated by growing awareness of his exposure due to loss of copyright protection.

I hope Wikipedia finds some method of copyright protection that will allow Robert to include the four excellent photos that appeared in the "Hippie" article, as well as inclusion of the many other photos in his collection.

I also hope that Wikipedia will someday choose to curb offensive behavior so that the extant reality of "survival of the most obnoxious" does not force me (and other editors) to abandon the project altogether. Apostle12 23:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Robert Altman contacted me and asked me to remove them from the article, which I did as a favor to him. He would like them removed completely from Wikipedia, because he did not fully understand the extent to which he was compromising his copyright protection when he originally granted permission to use them. I don't know how to help with that. Do you? Apostle12 06:01, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Robert has replied by email

Dear Richard: Thank you for taking the time to check with me about this; one of the very good sides to the Wikipedia community.

Yes, I did specifically ask the user you've mentioned to kindly take the time and remove my photos on the "Hippy" page. He is a great supporter and contributor of Wikipedia and has become a staunch friend of mine.

As I wrote to another wiki 'sheriff" (who took first took it upon himself to have all my other contributions (see User talk:robertmark) ultimately removed.

I've posted a question on Wikipedia talk:Copyright problems. It might be possible to keep some image on Robert Altman (photographer) as Wikipedia:Fair use. --Salix alba (talk) 14:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I hope you find a method that will allow Robert's photos to remain on Wikipedia. He is supportive of Wikipedia and his only reason for asking that they be removed is that he depends on income derived from the commercial use of his work. I believe Wikipedia needs to create a specific category that will allow the inclusion of great photography while retaining copyright protection. Shouldn't be too difficult. Apostle12 23:25, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rosencomet.com

Hi, thanks for your comments. I agree that for some of the artists, appearance at starwood might be notable enough to deserve mention. I have looked at a number of these artists "official web sites", and there are quite a few that do not mention starwood, and so I would imagine that for these artists, appearance at starwood should not receive any more weight than appearance at other venues. However, the real question that is on my mind is what to do next. User:Calton, User:Timmy12, and I, have all deleted rosencomet.com links, and they have just been reinserted. Spam warnings have been left on the inserter's talk pages. Will an admin step in and make a statement to these users? Should we repeat the process of deleting the links? I would appreciate advice on this. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 02:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:EL

Then I strongly suggest you get consensus to change the wording on the main page of the guideline as it currently says:

Links normally to be avoided

7. Links to blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace), or discussion forums unless mandated by the article itself.

semper fi — Moe 00:50, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I can see where some debate might be and I can also see where removing them may be helpful until they are proven to be correctly indentifyed as the subjects MySpace. If they are proven, my apologizes for removing them. semper fi — Moe 00:54, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] NPA

Being called a "dick" by a spam-enabling revert warrior seemingly stalking my edits doesn't put me in the best of moods. --Calton | Talk 08:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How many Rosencomet.com links are too many?

Use this: linkspamming by Rosencomet (talk • contribs). There are 115 links from Wikipedia to Rosencomet as of now. Timmy12 18:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Hangs head in shame ;-). There 237 to Plants for a Future (of which I'm webmaster) [1], [2]. However, because of vanity articles I've added only about about 5 of these. The rest of these have been added by other wikipedians, because they think it is a good resource. In general this is the way things should happen with individual article editors adding links as they see fit rather than many links added by one editor.

So there no hard and fast rule as to the number of links. Perhaphs better is to ask the broader question as to when its appropriate to list the the places a particular has performed. This really comes down to is it a notable fact. Say playing at Woodstock Festival is probably notable, as might be headlining at Glastonbury Festival. However, for other performers, with a string of other gigs, then playing on one of the smaller stages at Glasonbury probably would not be notable. This really boils down to is the gig a high spot in the performers carear. There might also be a case for listing if the artist has very close ties with the event, with far more regular appearances at one festival than others, hopefully with some third party source to make the link. Policy-wise we can think of undue weight - is it undue weight to list just one gig out of many, and I'd probably say yes. The third reason for listing is if it helps explain the artist and their work. For example I've included that Kneehigh Theatre have performed at a outdoor castle as it gives a flavor to their work. --Salix alba (talk) 19:17, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ratings

Hi, I'm happy you like it, as of now (if you look at my contribs) I go at random in order to tag as many articles as possibles with whatever WProject tags there are. By doing that, I will thus make every articles be fathered by a wikiproject and all the “assessable articles” be assessed and taken into consideration by mathbot. I used to work on the bio wikiproject doing it with AWB but someone was pissed for reviewing 2-3 articles per minutes so I stopped being so focused. If you want me to help with the math tagging, I can lend a hand but Mathematics isn't my cup of tea and as I see these articles (sometimes only formulas without giving details of what they mean) I will tend to give poorer ratings. Lincher 12:22, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Starwood Festival

Please explain to me why the section you excised is "ad like". First, though, take a look at the Burning Man article. (not that I have anything against them)

An ad would say "a spectacular life-changing experience" or "great value at a great price" or "the finest in the world", or some other ad copy. The "Features of the event" section is just that: a list of some of the things you would find there if you, like the author of the encyclopedia article, had been there. It doesn't say why a sweat lodge is wonderful or what its benefits are, it doesn't say "you'll thrill to the pulsing rhythms" or "cool off in the placid waters of the pool" or " your mind will expand, your spirit will soar, and your soul will be nurtured". It just lists some of the structures, the existence of some resources, and adds to a complete "encyclopedic" description of the event.

Look at the Grand Canyon article, for instance. It doesn't just give the length and depth. It presents a history, offers pictures, discusses who comes to it and what they do there; hiking, climbing, endurance runners. Who has been there, why it's unique.

Look at the Woodstock article. The Glastonbury Festival. Renaissance Fair. Does this simple list really constitute making the article into an ad? Does it really not make the description more complete? Rosencomet 21:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Rosencomet, with one exception--listing of the times. If those are eliminated, this section becomes purely general information, and I think it should be included. Apostle12 04:06, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RefDeskBot

Yes, I see the problem there. It's something I can fix (by, as you suggested, making the whole ref desk a collection of archive days, transcluded) - this is something we'd need to discuss at the RefDesk talk page first though, to get a consensus before making such a big change, so I'd suggest you leave a message at WT:RD. Sorry I can't be of more help right now, but I'd like to get a consensus first, because this does radically chagne the wikitext of the main page. Thanks, :) Martinp23 13:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, thanks - it's fairly easy for me to do in practice, though I'll only be able to start next weekend, due to real life. Thanks, Martinp23 13:29, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of plants with edible leaves

Hi, Rich. I've been working on List of plants with edible leaves lately, and thought you might be interested. I think that I'd mentioned to you that I'd put together a decent sized XML-based DB of plant info, along with a set of tools (in Python) that transform it into and out of all sorts of other forms. I've written a formatter that produces WP markup, and am using it to generate (most of) the content of List of plants with edible leaves. Any comments would be very welcome! Waitak 15:07, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You helped choose Environmentalism as this week's WP:AID winner

AzaBot 18:37, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for congratulating me for not being a sockpuppet

Everyone else was disappointed, I guess. In any event it did me no good to be cleared and I am exhaused from the months of effort. I have offered User:999 ane User:Hanuman Das a deal. I will check edit histories and if their name (or User:Ekajati is there), I will leave the article alone. I am hoping they take me up on it. If not, and maybe even if they do, I will go away as Wikipedia has turned out not to be much fun anyway.

Have you ever read my user page? I'm curious because you don't really seem to know what has been happening to me from almost the day I started. I am depressed that it is allowed to a new person this way. And I have been clueless on how to get help -- and it turns out there isn't any anyway. In fact, I get depressed anyway everytime I log on now as there is always an ugly message for me. Timmy12 08:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] mediation cabal doesn't relate to me.

The problem stated is not one I can relate to. I have no interest in it. It does not pertain to me. It is a setup -- a den of lions waiting for me to step in to attack me again. (You forget, I've been through this before -- three months of sockpuppet accusations and, when that didn't work, endless An/I attacks.) But I credit you with innovation -- a Mediation Cabal -- even if you did go about it in a very unorthodox way compared to the others I have observed. (I'm going to send you a link to a normal Mediation Cabal so you can see what one looks like.)

I have no beef with Rosencomet anyway. He has been encouraged by 999, Hunamun Das, Ekajaki and you. It's not so much his fault. I think he is confused like me.

Besides, I don't care anymore what happens to Starwood or how much spam is on Wikipedia. My Wikipedia improvement drive is over. I noticed the spam links from Rosencomet are up to 125, now that the Starwood articles are being "improved" lately by you and the others. What a farce. I'm not wasting energy on this anymore. The direction is clear. It's not like it matters what the outcome of the Mediation Cabel is anyway. After all, the Admins on my side dropped out of the Starwood improvement editing quickly after their edits got reverted -- they decided not to bother anymore. If they don't care enough about Wikipedia to put energy into it, why should I? My idealism is over.

After the AN/I incidents on October 27, and the endless sockpuppet accusations, I know I don't stand a chance against User:Hanuman Das and his cohorts anyway. Why expose myself to more abuse? They disregard warnings from admins and break rules consistently and no one seems to notice. The Mediation Cabal wouldn't be necessary if they were held to the same rules as everyone else. The only person who defended me against the consistantly nasty personal attacks in edit summaries and talk pages was BostonMA. This mediation does not pertain to me. I was not breaking rules, harassing others, or making personal attacks in edit summaries or talk pages.

Anyway, you all would swamp me. I am alone. I am not sophisticated computer-wise plus I have a dialup connection that's always cuts off when I try to save what I've written and I have to redial at every step. Defending myself on AN/I has been exhausting, depressing and taken way too much of my time. I have no energy left after the last several months of concerted assaults to prolong this anymore. And all I would get is more grief -- even if nothing was conceded to me there would be more attacks in more innovative ways. It would not stop. So I concede and give you your articles. You've won. You own them.

So there is nothing to mediate as far as I am concerned. Since I was the target anyway, it seems to me that leaves the Mediation Cabal with nothing to do. Timmy12 10:58, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] curious

I'm curious about the Mediation Cabel you have set up and how you settled on the particluar issues, article and people in your decision to file for one. So much has gone on, it doesn't seem quite right that you should focus on Timmy12. Look at the history of the article you singled out, Silver Ravenwolf: [3]. It's rather mild compared to some of the really rough stuff that's been going on elsewhere in the Starwood articles' edit histories. And what about the whole suite of articles? (Some have been deleted now, but they will rise again.)

• Starwood Festival
• Brushwood Folklore Center
• WinterStar Symposium
• Winterstar Symposium
• SpiritDrum Festival
• Trance Mission
• Association for Consciousness Exploration

You worry about internal links in the Starwood Festival article [4], but why single out that one and not care about Winterstar Symposium [5] or Association for Consciousness Exploration [6]?

I don't understand what you are doing here, except making trouble for Timmy12. I thought you were legit and I expected more from you, I guess. I am disappointed -- not that it matters if I am. Shows that I still have a little smattering of emotion about Wikipedia that I can actually experience an emotion about the place -- even so mild a one as disappointment. Must have been that I had some lingering expectations that there was something right in the world. Mattisse(talk) 17:52, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes I agree that I have probably not started this in the best way, appologies for all. The first step in the process was to get a mediator willing to act in the case. Thats now been done and User:Geo.plrd has agreed to act as a mediator. Its the frist time I've participated in any dispute resolution so I'm learning the ropes at the moment.

The reason for focus on Timmy12 and Hanuman Das seems is basically because they seem to be the two having the biggest problems with each other, and hence most in need of some way of resolving the dispute. I guess that others can add themselves to the case if they wish.

I'm waiting for a response from the mediator before proceeding. --Salix alba (talk) 19:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, does anyone even know about it? I only found out accidently, and even now I can't find it most of the time -- it's so obscurely mentioned -- but now I have a link to it so I can keep up with poor Timmy12's mauling. I have a feeling he won't be around much longer. Everone else has been smart enough to be driven away. Poor him for thinking he can stick it out -- or maybe he is just not adaptively paranoid enough. Seems like he believes in being up front which is certainly not the way to go about things around here. I'd advise you to consult with BostonMA -- he is so smart (and kind) but he is overwhelmed with his own grievous problems right now on Wikipdeia and I wouldn't want to burden him more with this trivial junk. Well, we will see if this arbitrator is a wimp or not. I took a look at the links involved in the Silver Raven (or whatever the name is) and it is not hard to determine the relative value of the links being quibbled over. It's really not a mediation question if the policies and guidlelines mean anything -- but I learned long ago they do not. Mattisse(talk) 05:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think everyone has been driven away, look at the speed User:Hanuman Das was blocked for his personal attack on your page, look at the number of people who have reverted Rosencomet on Starwood [7], including some several administrators. More and more people are becoming the aware of this now. Mdiation Cable is the first step in dispute resolution if that does not work there are other avenue which have more bite. --Salix alba (talk) 10:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I received that attack just now. Rather scary. He's blocked? (Doesn't look like it - I just check his site.) Hope you are right. Mattisse(talk) 12:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I just checked Starwood via your link above. [8]. No one has touched since November 4, and that was you. Mattisse(talk) 12:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Before that (2nd/3rd) you see Ehheh, Bunchofgrapes (admin), Dmcdevit (arbitrator), FloNight (admin), and Bishonen all reverted Rosencomet/Ekajati. --Salix alba (talk) 12:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again.[9]This is why you are not going to get Timmy12 involved. It's all too aggressive. Mattisse(talk) 12:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:RFBOT

Your bot request has been approved for trials, please see the bot request page for details. Thanks, — xaosflux ^Talk 01:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Starwood Mediation

I will agree to participate in the mediation, although not very happily :-(. Has a page been created for discussion? Sincerely, --

Please read [10]. I'm asking you to let him off the hook on this one. He is engaging in another right now and is sad enough about that. ~~

[edit] question

Should I be preparing for something?[11] An RFC? How do I find out if he is filing one against me? Mattisse(talk) 21:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

For my experience an RfC doesn't acheive much. For the most part they seem to be ignored. Means of resolving disputes in level of severity are

1. Mediation Cabel - where we are now
2. WP:RFM the Mediation commitee - step two in resolving disputes, currently very busy
3. WP:RFAR requests for arbitration

you should generall go through them in order, only going up the scale if the dispute cannot be solved by lesser means. All these can cut both way, which is why its important to always keep your head.

The key question to mean seems to be is it notable to list the fact than an artist performed at starwood? For this it really requires a third party source, i.e. not the Starwood or ACE wesites. There may well be some artists for which this holds, but a mear listing of tour dates does not seem to be enought to establish notability. --Salix alba (talk) 00:11, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! That's the way it seems to me too -- but they are going to so much trouble I wasn't sure. Mattisse(talk) 01:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I do so much appreciate your message (again I say), as I did have a total unbelieving freak out before and you having a little bit of faith in me means so much. I'm trying to live up to it, as you did give me anothe chance in your words written long ago. Reciving some support does count. Thank you. Timmy12 05:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Do you think that I should remove my talk page? Is this what you mean when you say that I "removed posts from the other" or do you mean the I "removed posts fron the other" talk page, deleting them off that page? Please tell me what I am doing wrong as I not wanting to go off the handle like before. I did copy stuff and put it on my talk page because I was so freaked out that no one was understanding and I wanted people to see and help me. Now I see it's a mess. Timmy12 14:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I did get a message that I was defending myself too much and in too much frenzy when incidents were filed against me. (I am screaming inside my head). I don't want to repeat all that again so maybe silent is better. I just don't want you to think I am uncooperative. I guess my message refusing the cabal which you took the time to set up wasn't very nice. It took me a long time to write it but I did't appreciate your big, huge step to formally resolve all this in a neutral way. Everything else has been charges filed against me. I want to cooperate. I just don't know how to do it. Timmy12 15:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes it can be a tricky game understanding the ropes in wikipedia, extreme reactions of any sort don't seem to work and just cause trouble. Hopefully people can just view this as a content dispute about when it is appropriate to link to to places performers has performed, an put all the past disputes behind them.

Have a break and do something else on wikipedia, find a few nice pictures to put on your user page, or write some content. I had a good time on monday writing a small article on Walter Segal a green architect, it was quite refreshing to actually write some content rather than getting drawn into endless discussions. --Salix alba (talk) 16:54, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Where is the mediator? Isn't he supposed to say something? When I look there I see no mediator and no mediation. Timmy12 23:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I've not heard anything from him, I left a note on his user page a week ago. --Salix alba (talk) 23:58, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you

Thank you for answering my question put to the Math reference desk. --Peter Kirby 16:22, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC on Mattisse

I have never been informed of any mediation. Looking at 999's talk page, it doesn't appear that he was informed of any mediation either. Don't you think it a bit disingenuous of accusing us of not engaging in mediation about which we have never been informed? I suggest that that criticism be removed from your response. I was unaware of any mediation request until you added that to the RfC, which was then already in progress. —Hanuman Das 10:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

After I was blocked? How was I supposed to act on it? And you didn't inform 999: He was the one who started the RfC, and I think it is way past time for one to be opened and thus support it. —Hanuman Das 11:00, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] look

This is only one of many, this on Peggy Sue [12] . Along the same lines, I discovered that on one day alone, October 14, User:Hanuman Das did something to 39 articles I had wrtten. On the day before yesterday, when every article I wrote was immediately tagged with "merge" or something, I now discover it was 999 doing it. He entered into the talk pages of every comment I made. These are only a few examples. Should I bother with all this? I don't feel like it -- but if I look through their contribution histories, I see they (all three, including Ekajaki} have been constantly tagging my articles, entering into other people's talk pages to degrade ny comment, etc. (I didn't know it at the time, but BostonMA did some and questioned Hanamun Das but got no answer -- it's rediculous and I am tired.) User:JzG thinks User:999 is a sock puppet.[13] Tell me to stop and do something else! Mattisse(talk) 17:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

No, you look, Mattisse. That's precisely what this complaint is about, you stalking someone precisely like that. You don't like it either, do you? Why is it OK for you to stalk Rosencomet and point out every flaw you think you in your opinion see in his articles? Are you surprised that people complain? But if someone does the same to you, pointing out or changing legitmate problems with "your" articles, you squeal like a stuck pig. Come on now, if there is nothing wrong with your behavior, there is nothing wrong with mine if I choose to follow you around and point out flaws in your articles. RIght? Can't have it both ways, can we? —Hanuman Das 00:50, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Hunting sockpuppets is a horible buissness, its a failure of WP:AGF and destabilises the community. While having sockpuppets is fround upon its not against policy, only using socks to avoid blocks, vote more than once or similar activities. I'd say 999 and Hanamun are probably not socks, mainly for the reason than Hanamum spent the last two days ammassing links on his talk page, if 999 had been a sock then he could have easily used 999 to insert them into the RfC.

Stop and do something else! If you fancy something to do theres a lot of work needed in grading articles. /Project league table lists various wikiprojects and the number of unassessed articles in each project. You could pick a project and help grade some articles, it can be quite a nice task as you get to look over a wide range of articles with quite a critical eye. Wikipedia:Esperanza might also be worth a look, possibly the friendly place on wikipedia. --Salix alba (talk) 18:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I saw a TV program yesterday on Jacques-Louis David a painter at the time of the French Revolution. One of the people mentioned there was Jean-Paul Marat who saw conspiracy everywhere and sent many to their deaths. There seems to be a similarity to the mind set of sockpuppet hunters and with similar tragic consequences. Not a place you want to go. --Salix alba (talk) 18:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I'm working on several India projects, colaborating on the temples with Dineshkannambadi, plus doing rivers, dams, waterwalls, and hydroelectric projects on the side. I took time out over the last few days to write articles on songs that were on the most needed song list like Lawdy Miss Clawdy, Teardrops from My Eyes, The Things That I Used to Do, Mint Julep, Searchin', Work With Me, Annie, Autumn Leaves (song), and (ironically} Yakety Yak. Plus Rudy Toombs as songwriters never get credit, and Ralph Bass as A&R men never get credit. Plus some record labels Trumpet Records, Federal Records and Meteor Records Also, I worked with someone on an Amos Milburn article which we fixed up nicely. And did an article on KFFA where King Biscut Hour started. So it is fine with me not to waste my time on that stuff. I trust your judgment. Thanks! Mattisse(talk) 19:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I was in a play, Marat de Sade, where the actor playing the lead role of Jean-Paul Marat actually said all his lines from the bathtub, looking just like the David painting! Mattisse(talk) 19:49, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC on Mattisse

Hi. I've looked over the RfC and your response. While I think 999 & H.D.'s arguments identifying Timmy12 and additional sockpuppets are more or less convincing, I'd like to note that I did not participate in creating the RfC and I am not sure whether I am going to sign it or not. Thus I take exception to your point 7...

7. By perpetuating the sockpuppet allegations User:Hanuman Das, User:999, User:Ekajati and User:999 are failing to assume good faith. They are failing to attempt to seek comnsensus on the underlying content issue, instead relying on personal attacks.

I don't believe I've accused Timmy12 of being a sock since the RFCU, and I am not one of the authors of the RfC, so please remove my name from that list. Also, you've got 999 listed twice. That's 1998! :-) Ekajati (yakity-yak) 22:21, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[14] --BostonMA ^talk 22:31, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. (BostonMA, please read that as "since the RFCU returned a negative result", which is what I meant. The RFCU had not been processed at that point.) Ekajati (yakity-yak) 14:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks at RD talk

Thank you for helping out at the RD talk. Since I've taken a vow of silence (ignoring) on that subject, I appreciate all the help I can get.  ;-) --hydnjo talk 00:17, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Not bad, two votes of thanks for four words! I agree the conversation is going nowhere. --Salix alba (talk) 00:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

But the words do seem to go on, and on, and... --hydnjo talk 01:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

And since you're not a newcomer (almost a year) please feel free to chime in with your thoughts wherever. I'll look forward to "seeing" your points of view wherever you're comfortable expressing them. Oh, and very nice user page. Call 'em like you see 'em is refreshing around here. --hydnjo talk 01:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks!

Hey, thanks for reverting the vandalism to my user page! First time! —Hanuman Das 01:46, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Question

Admins can see how many people are watching a page? How? (I'm an admin.) Herostratus 00:21, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I think I was sort of mistaken Special:Unwatchedpages lets admins see pages with noone watching them. --Salix alba (talk) 00:39, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] your question

I saw that you asked how to proceed on the RFC. I just looked up an old one we had on the Fidel Castro article Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Teemu Ruskeepää. It was filed in early July, I believe. And nothing has happened. It's still open. So that is nearly 5 months that it has been open. Mattisse(talk) 19:26, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Starwood Mediation again

Hi, I do not believe that my discussions with Rosencomet in the Starwood mediation have very productive. I'm inclined to give up discussing with him/her at this point. Sincerely, --BostonMA ^talk 19:19, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I posted a question at the Starwood Mediation and Rosencomet answered back that I should wait a couple of weeks and/or Google to get neopagan information on Jeff McBride. He appears to be a magician but Starwood has taken over his article. Where is the mediator? I put some work into asking the question, but what is the point of doing so? Rosencomet is back at work again. Mattisse(talk) 01:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi again! Check out Musart. it is waiting in the wings to have bunches of names added. Mattisse(talk) 01:13, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Check this out [15] from Answers.com If, by chance, you think this is minor. Mattisse(talk) 03:23, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Homotopy groups of spheres image

Thanks for adding the S2 image, Image:P1S2all.jpg. I think it would be improved if you added a fifth sphere with the the circle shrunk to a single point. I don't think non-mathematicain readers will necessarily understand that the small circle in the last image can be collapsed. --agr 20:34, 19 November 2006 (UTC)