User talk:Cynical/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Cynical. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Hi there! I am not soliciting support for either side of the debate. However, you repeatedly post the message "university-related topics are notable" on AfD candidates. Why is that, as I do not find that to be logical? Sycthos^Talk 04:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The reason I did a copy-paste vote on the various articles up for deletion was the fact that the nominator had done much the same - mass nominated a list of articles related to one university on the basis that the university was non-notable Cynical 13:16, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Understood. Thanks! Sycthos^Talk 21:22, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to thank my few "yes voters" in person...well, not in person, but at least contact you directly. Thank you for your vote and thanks for thinking that I'm not pretentious. It is appreciated. I love you.

Rowlan 01:44, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

An interesting argument. I will have to see if it persuades me, but that's certainly more fun than the usual silliness on WP votes. Thanks. Septentrionalis 06:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Please stop reverting other people's work without discussion. I refer to your recent edits on University of Glasgow. If you do it again soon, you'll be in violation of 3RR. - Calgacus 19:24, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Er... at the time you left this message I had made two edits within a 24 hour period. I don't see how doing it again soon would place me in violation of 3RR, since it forbids making MORE than three reverts within a 24 hour period. Doing it again soon would give me three reverts within a 24 hour period, which is clearly not more than three reverts within a 24 hour period. If you're going to quote policy to silence disagreement, at least quote policy properly! Cynical 13:24, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the template change - it was an attempt to ease Project: Userboxes' huge burden of manually changing user's boxes to the "User" prefix. The new box is now on your page, as metric will be deleted once it is orphaned and changed to User metric. -Xol 22:12, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your supporting vote! With a 71/1/0 vote, I've been given sysop privileges! As per your comment, I've made myself available for working on undeletion, temporary undeletion, and related problems. Just like any admin, I'm open to suggestions about backlogs or areas to look at.

Now, to go about disrup—improving Wikipedia...

heheheheheh...

Ashibaka tock 00:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Although I view myself as a (non-fanatical) deletionist, I do not see why this view (nor any other political, religious, etc. view that I hold, for that matter) should interfere with my neutral application of WP policy as an admin. I.e. if the consensus is to delete, I will delete ... if it is to keep, I will keep it ... any other action would be pointless.

Regards, Elf-friend 12:30, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to vote on my RFA. You're right that I don't plan to change my Wikipedia routine tremendously, and I respect your judgment that an admin should be more active in process. My own perspective is, of course, different — I think that there's a place in Wikipedia for polite, constructive users with sysop status, whether they spend a lot of time on process pages like AFD or not. But I will admit that my reluctance to get involved in "admin-only" tasks was a factor in my earlier reluctance to stand for adminship, when Mindspillage and Sean Black separately offered to nominate me last year. One of the reasons I agreed to stand this time was that I came to realize that sysop tools can be viewed not just as a mop and bucket (something that needs to be used every week if the floors are to be kept clean) but also as a toilet plunger (something you don't necessarily need to use on a regular basis, but it's darn useful to have on hand in rare cases). That and a growing appreciation for the "no big deal" philosophy was the reason I agreed to be nominated this time.

I'm not necessarily asking you to change your vote, just letting you know where I'm coming from. Again, thanks for your time. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 16:10, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The Wikiproject No Ads, created as a backlash against the Answers.com deal, has served an important function in providing a space for users to express their disagreement with the Foundation proposal. While the current controversies about userboxes raise questions about political and social advocacy on Wikipedia, there should be greater flexibility regarding advocacy about Wikipedia in the Wikipedia namespace. Reported and linked by Slashdot and other press sources as a unique and spontaneous occurence in Wikipedia history, it has apparently had some impact as, despite being scheduled to begin in January, not a peep has been heard about the trial and proposed sponsored link since the deal's controversial announcement months ago. Currently, however, there is an attempt to delete the project or move it off Wikipedia altogether. Since the Foundation has provided no additional information and has not attempted to answer the specific questions that participants in the project raised, it is unclear if the Answers.com deal has been abandoned or simply delayed. Until the situation becomes more clear, I believe the group should still have a place in the Wikipedia namespace. Sincerely, Tfine80 00:15, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

My reversion is identical to your last version, actually. Which part of it is vandalism? It looks okay to me, but I could be missing something. diff -- Vary | Talk

Sorry, I misread the diff. I thought you had reverted to the version that includes vandalism, when in fact you had reverted to remove the vandalism. My mistake Cynical 22:31, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Ha, I see. No prob. -- Vary | Talk 22:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

File:Plunger 250x410.jpg

Even though you voted against me, I want to thank you for taking the time to vote in my RfA, which passed with a final vote of 54/2/1. I'll do my level best to use the mop and bucket — or, as I said to you earlier, plunger — responsibly. Of course, in the best tradition of politicans everywhere, I've already broken a campaign promise (I blocked a vandal last night despite having said "I don't anticipate using the blocking tool very often"). Nevertheless, I'll try not to let the unbridled power corrupt me. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Eequor said you might have some ideas for me in regards to my petition. I trust Eequor, so I figured i'd stop over. Thanks! Karmafist 20:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that you signed and support Karmafist's manifesto with the comment "anything that stops Jimbo/certain admins from being able to ignore agreed community policy and force out those who wish to uphold it, has to be a good thing". However, Wikipedia, as one of its Five Pillars and simple policy statements, has an important doctrine in Ignore all rules. This allows for us to continue in the wiki spirit and way. Just wanted to let you know. Cheers, Bratsche^talk 22:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

That's why I signed the manifesto - #2 'An understanding that once these policies and guidelines are agreed upon by the community, that they must be followed until changed by the community' Cynical 22:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your support during my recent Admin election, I appreciate the trust that you have put in me. Please contact me if you have any questions, comments or concerns regarding my work as an admin.

Kind Regards, Elf-friend 07:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I noticed on the debate about {{User death-stop}} you suggested banning DocGlasgow. Just to let you know that if you care to file an RfC I will gladly second it Cynical 21:37, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

D-Daytalk, already considers a RfC. See discussion for "Template:User All Drugs". But of course I will support it. Sincerely - helohe (talk) 21:48, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Jimbo needs to either start listening to the community or step down/be forcibly removed in favour of someone who will. I don't honestly care which it is at this point, but if Wikipedia is to survive it has to be one or the other. Cynical 17:08, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Can you tell me what I've done that makes you think I'm not listening to the community? A number of the other votes on that page seemed to suggest that I've done something awful, but the simple fact of the matter is that in this entire userbox conflict, I have actually done absolutely nothing. There have been no decrees from me, no mass deletions, nothing but a serious attempt to engage a wide variety of people in serious discussion. What other content does the phrase "listening to the community" have?

Will you reconsider?--Jimbo Wales 19:58, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

NB: the discussion continued on Jimbo's talk page - I have copied it here to make archiving easier later

I can't speak for anyone else who signed the manifestos, but I have two main issues:

1. Your insertion of CSD T1. Incidentally, I agree that userboxes should be deleted (the idea of having them as subpages of userspace and then subst'ing them seems sound, as it disassociates them from any notion of being part of Wikipedia itself) but I do not agree that, unless the existence of wikipedia itself is threatened (which I find hard to believe in this case), you should arbitrary introduce a major policy change, without any substantial discussion never mind consensus (and in fact from what can be seen on DRV, in direct opposition to most of the community [not quite consensus]).
2. Following the introduction of CSD T1 (which, as noted above, I am uncomfortable with), your subsequent failure to do anything to the numerous admins who are abusing it - I'm not talking about simple judgement calls like the cannibal userbox or the hypothetical 'abortionists are scum' userbox that's been mentioned on the mailing list (that is down to the admin's discretion, and it is entirely arguable that they are 'inflammatory' or 'polemical'), but circumstances where the admin is making no attempt to claim legitimacy for their actions (e.g. claiming that the userbox possesses certain qualities e.g. 'divisive' which are not actually prohibited by CSD T1, or ). You were (quite rightly) quick to desysop pro-userbox admins who abused their capabilities (undeletion and blocking mainly) with relation to the pedophile userbox, all I ask is that you show the same balance in dealing with anti-userbox admins who abuse their powers (deletion and blocking mainly)

In short, I did not sign the manifesto because I have any great ideological attachment to userboxes, but because of the worrying disregard for Wikipedia process. I would be willing to reconsider if the broad sentiment behind the manifesto (preventing arbitrary insertion of policy without discussion, and abuse of power by admins) could be achieved in the current structure Cynical 20:28, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

• I agree with Cynical. I never objected to any Wiki policy, or felt that I was being treated unfairly, until CSD T1 was handed down. There are many policies that I disagree with (such as allowing IP edits to take effect immediately), but I feel like my opinion would be heard if I wanted to engage in a debate about it. The march against userboxes is against the consensual spirit of Wikipedia -- it's admins enforcing their beliefs about which userboxes are "bad" and which are "good" on the rest of us.--M@rēino 20:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
• The essential difficulty here is that it's not always clear when you're making decrees or not, and that several editors are in this case acting as if they've received such, regardless of your intent. (e.g., Wikipedia_talk:Proposed_policy_on_userboxes#The_policy_is_now_in_action) Discussion on the pedobox case revealed signficant confusion on this, with some parties inferring that a) they can be subject to sanctions if they act against the "ultimate authority" (as per meta:Foundation_issues) of the project leader, and b) that it was prudent to assume you were always acting in that capacity, unless stated otherwise. I think it would be extremely helpful if you were to make clear when you were expressing a personal opinion or acting as an ordinary editor on the one hand, or acting in your capacity as CEO and representative of the MW board on the other. Perhaps most usefully of all, what the presumption ought to be when it's not explicit either way. Alai 02:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for your support in my request for adminship (did you know that "adminiship" is not an English word? Unbelievable!). It ended with a tally of (51/0/0). As an administrator, I hope to better help this project and its participants: if you have any question or request, please let me know. - Liberatore(T) 12:26, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I am close to neutral on the Userbox issue, but I agree that MarkSweep should, at a minimum, be dequired to reapply for adminship. I don't see why this isn't an Arb case; I've just been through one and don't want the trobule, or I'd statrt one. Let me know if I can help. Septentrionalis 21:02, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

It certainly looks like that will be necessary - under the constraints of WP:AGF I don't think taking either of the other two to ArbCom would be of any value (especially since DocGlasgow has made a genuine attempt to create a consensus-based policy that will solve the whole userboxes thing, and 'dispute resolution' is the point of this process after all), but I would welcome an RFAr on MarkSweep, especially since he's still doing it Cynical 21:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I suppose we should start keeping diffs. For the moment, however, he's gone back to editing text, which is sufficient. Septentrionalis 23:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Re:

Because this is being done by many people (it's a process know as subst'ing, if you don't know) in preparation for the removal of userboxes from Template: space Cynical 15:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Does this apply to categories, too? 'Cause MarkSweep deleted a category from my user page, too. Rklawton 15:41, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, POV-related user categories are frowned upon for the same reason as templates - they allow 'vote stuffing' in discussions (e.g. if a Freemasonry-related article comes up for deletion, a user could look up a list of all the users in and email them all asking them to vote in the deletion discussion (resulting in a flood of people simply voting 'Keep' without actually considering the merits of the article or offering any reasons for keeping it Cynical 15:47, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

That's interesting. Main Stream Media is currently debating whether or not to publish reporter's/editors affiliations (other than just stock ownership) in order to maintain transparency in reporting. In short, consumers should know who is providing the spin on an article. This is considered a good idea by all except the reporters themselves who want to maintain the illusion they are fair and balanced. It's curious that many of our editors wish to self-identify, but then there's vote stuffing. Rather than force people to hide and maintain secret lists (knowledge is preferable to ignorance), a simple policy change that requires self-identified POV editors to recuse themselves from votes in their area of interest would accomplish your worthy objectives. First, it would discourage user boxes, and second, it would reduce vote stuffing; 50 POV votes would count as 0. On a related note, I avoid the freemasonry related articles for these very reasons. I'd rather have a neutral person edit these articles to ensure fair and thorough treatment. Rklawton 16:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Displaying POVs via userboxes will still be allowed - for the valid 'identification of bias' reasons you indentified - they just won't be allowed as TEMPLATES (ie using the underlying formatting would be allowed, but calling a template [the 'what links here' can be used for the same vote-stuffing as a category) Cynical 17:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Won't user categories cause the same problem? Rklawton 17:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

That's why user categories will also go, or at least the POV-related ones will (stuff like Wikipedians by Location or Wikipedians by birth year will stay) Cynical 17:40, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

In that case, all one needs to do is link to a common article or image that represents their interest - for example: Square_compasses.png. or Republicanlogo.png, and you get the same result with one important exception - you've annoyed a lot of editors who thought the category feature worked just fine. Removing categories (etc) is censorship, and with censorship, there's always a work-around. Rklawton 17:45, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

True, but this is unlikely to succeed [or be as effective as the current mechanism] - at the moment people can simply find a userbox template or category that matches their POV, and there you have it, a ready-made vote-stuffing army. The chances of everyone with a particular POV choosing the same page/image, and being able to justify its inclusion (there are some rules about the use of images on userspace, such as that 'fair use' images are not allowed). It certainly won't make vote-stuffing impossible, but it will make it a lot more difficult to execute, which will reduce the amount of it going on. Cynical 17:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Remember that many user boxes already use these symbolic graphics. If fair use was an issue for any of them, then this discussion would be moot. Personally, I don't think it will be all that hard for users to adjust. It only takes a few users to lead the way, and then it becomes a copy/paste job for everyone else who think the graphics are cool. After that, all anyone need do is click on the image to see who else has linked to it. It's very straight forward. User boxes caught on quickly pretty much the same way. Time will tell, though. Rklawton 19:43, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The 'edit summary percentage' on e.g. Requests for Adminship is tolerable (even if editsummaryitis doesn't seem a particularly important quality for an admin). Posting automated harassing messages (judgmental tone is unacceptable, see WP:CIVIL#Examples) on users' talk pages is not. It would perhaps be appropriate to prevent your bot from doing this in future - and given that other users have complained about this it's probably only a matter of time before this ends up as a complaint on Wikipedia_talk:Bots, which would be a shame as Mathbot was anything but disruptive before this capability was added Cynical 17:54, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

So far I have 40 replies, and out of them one complaint. I do not agree my bot's message was judgemental, at least the examples you point out do not apply. If you would like to change the message, you can do so here. I will stop my bot for now, but that's a pity, as it is greatly helpful, while I think the disruption is minimal, if at all existant. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

(PS You can reply here if you have comments, thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 19:32, 3 March 2006 (UTC))

I agree that the 'edit summary usage' on e.g. Requests for Adminship is useful (to people interested in that sort of thing), but I hardly think people are likely to use edit summaries more often just because an automated message on a talk page asks them to. More likely it will just cause upset Cynical 22:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

I guess you read only the last message at User talk:Mathbot/Feedback on the summary bot, and not the 39 preceeding it. Give it a try. :) Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

But no, I won't run the bot anymore. Even if the bot is very useful, such complaints are bound to show up, and to be honest, you gave me an unhapy afternoon, and I could spend time doing things which are both useful and fun, rather than just useful. :) Cheers, Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I want to tell that I copied the contents of our discussion from Jimbos page into Wikipedia talk:Proposed policy on userboxes. At least you appear to be interrested in debating the issue (deleting the userboxes) before that even becomes a official policy (or not). I fear that some few administrators are becoming vigilantes/cops who seem to implement policies who are still being debated. Cheers Flamarande 17:30, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Here's a userbox for you. --Cyde Weys 04:47, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Your vandalism of my talk page only serves to prove me correct. Any further edits will be reverted unread. Cynical 09:36, 9 March 2006 (UTC) [message left on Cyde's talkpage]

What are you talking about?! See my talk page. --Cyde Weys 09:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:VAND for a definition on what vandalism is. It is bad form (and possibly a violation of WP:CIVIL) to accuse other editors of vandalism for acts which are clearly not vandalism. I don't see how a thank you note for voting in an RFA could possibly be considered vandalism. I don't know why you're taking this tone; it's almost like you want some sort of antagonism. I've already put the past behind me and I urge you to do the same. We're both editors on Wikipedia and we may have to work together in the future. That's not going to work if you stick by your current statement of refusing to listen to anything I say on that grounds that it is "vandalism". --Cyde Weys 09:46, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

WP:VAND quote: 'Attention-seeking vandalism [line break] Adding insults'. It may be a matter of interpretation (like so much of policy), but I consider questioning the motives of my vote to be an insult. However I accept that threatning to revert any messages you left me was unconstructive and excessive, and I apologise for that. Cynical 09:54, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

you subseted the welcome tempate in Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace, as this page should displate the current welcome template I revert it back. keep up the good work. Jon513 18:21, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out, I must have double-clicked in AWB Cynical 19:00, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your recent vote on my RFA. While the nomination failed, I was rather expecting it due to the big lapse between registration and recent edits. Anywho, if you have any suggestions as to how I could improve so as to hopefully succeed next time, please let me know! Thanks! —akghetto ^talk 07:46, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Cynical:

You have the honor of being the 7th person to respond to my survey!

Thank you for your participation. Your responses to the survey are much appreciated!

The final essay should be posted on my user page no later than March 27. Stay tuned!!!

Shuo Xiang 01:47, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

On Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Alphax 2 it appears as if you made an error. You held a neutral position and stated that you moved it to support. Your support message was removed and stated that you moved to oppose. Therefore, you left a contradicting message. If this is false you or I may correct it J.Steinbock 01:48, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out - I have clarified on the RfA itself. In a nutshell, I changed my vote twice (Neutral--> Support, Support--> Oppose). Cynical 09:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

50% is already enough, according to the rules, to overturn any decision and send it back to *FD for review. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't aware of that - thanks for letting me know. Cynical 09:05, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

	My RfA
	Thank you for supporting/opposing/commenting on my request of adminship, sadly the result was 54/20/7 an thus only 73% support votes, resulting in that the nomination failed. As many of you commenting that I have to few main-space edits, I'll try to better my self on that part. If you have any ideas on what kind of articles I could edit, pleas send me a line. :)	→AzaToth 09:33, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Dear Cynical

And it's here!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Announcing my CS 492 term-end paper: On Wikipedia — the Technology, the People, the Unfinished Work. File:Wikipedia.pdf

Thank you for all the kind help you have lent me during the paper-writing process!!!

Long live Wikipedia!!!

Shuo Xiang 22:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi.

I just noticed a rather unfortunate problem on Amelia Earhart; someone rolled back vandalism less than a minute before you did so, and you reverted back to the vandalised version [1]. I'm not sure exactly what caused that, but you might want to keep an eye out for it in future... Shimgray | talk | 13:16, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I think what happened was that the vandal had made a total of 4 edits to the article, but not all of them showed in a single 'recent changes' entry (as sometimes happens - it will say e.g. 2 edits by ipnumber and let you compare the most recent edit to the last version by someone ELSE) - so when I used popups to revert it simply reverted from the vandal's most recent edit to one of the three previous ones - had recent changes displayed (4 edits by...) as the diff option then the revert clash would not have been a problem (both I, and the other person who reverted, would have reverted to the same version) Cynical 13:57, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

On the DRV you made a note that "Consensus is that anything other than 'project boxes' (e.g. admin status, wikiproject membership etc.) should be deleted". can you drop me a line on my talk page to point me towards where this consensus was reached? Thanks! Mike McGregor (Can) 14:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The 'consensus' I refer to is the 61% support received by the userbox policy proposal in the recent straw poll. While 61% is obviously not enough to make a proposal into binding policy, IMHO it is sufficient to endorse the interpretation of T1 (which I accept is an ambiguous mess, blame Jimbo for that not me) in this way. Cynical 19:54, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

thanks for the clarifiction. I wasen't blaming you BTW... Have a good day!Mike McGregor (Can) 03:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Cynical. I don't know if you're monitoring additions to Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Sam Korn, but in case you're not I thought I'd let you know that I've added a clarification to your comment. Hope it clears up any confusion! Regards, CLW 10:30, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I see that, in the London Underground article, you've changed the a section heading from "Terrorist attacks in 2005" to "Bomb attacks in 2005", and "a series of terrorist bombs" to "a series of bombs".

I see that your description of the edit is "Removed 'terrorist' (ambiguous! lots of things are considered terrorist)".

I don't disagree with the changes you've made, but I want to point out what I see as a flaw in the reasoning.

1. I think it's fine to cut out "terrorist" and just leave it at "bomb(s)", because readers can already draw their own conclusions about whether to define leaving bombs on mass-transit trains as terrorism or not.

2. I will say something about "lots of things are considered terrorist". The fact that many things are considered to fit into a category does not mean that that category-based descriptor should be removed from statements about those things. There are many, many living things that are considered mammals; but it is actually useful, in describing a cat, to say that a cat is a mammal. Putting things into broad categories is better than putting things into no categories at all. For example, you're right to keep the words "bomb" and "bombs" in the articles, because this category is more specific than, for example, "explosives". If it were just "explosives", we might think this was part of a construction effort designed to demolish a structure and replace it with something new. If we went to something even broader—like saying that some cars of the Tube "were damaged by rapidly expanding gases"—, we'd be helping the reader even less.

Anyway, I just wanted to share my view that your edit was decent but was made for a poor reason (according to the remark you left, at least).

That's all. President Lethe 15:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I understand that my reasoning may not have been clear, but it is hard to write a convincing explanation of argument in a one-line edit summary. The point I was trying to make is that lots of different TYPES of events can be considered terrorist, and the categorisation generally varies depending on the writer's point of view. For example, supporters of the Palestinian cause will generally not refer to Hamas suicide bombings as 'terrorism', whereas opponents will almost always refer to them as such. The same label, and the same dispute, could apply to the French Resistance in World War 2, the American/British action in Iraq, and so on. So the problem is not that the category is broad, but that it is hard to find a completely neutral way of defining it. Cynical 16:34, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. The longer argument that you present here is what, I suspected, might actually have been going through your mind. It makes sense, and I basically agree with it. And you're right that the edit-summary space is sometimes too small to make reasoning clear. President Lethe 18:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi David,

I just thought you might want to take another look at my RfA; in my answers to JoshuaK's questions I've attempted to respond to John Reid's complaint that I am somehow an AfD deletionist. (I note that his own AfD record is 100 percent delete, although he has voted only three times.) I found his charges a little surprising because I have been one of the main voices in favour of keeping some articles recently (such as California-Nevada Interstate Maglev, List of countries by length of coastline, Hal Robinson, and Jason M. Dahl), and am not someone to urge deleting an article that might have something good about it. Of course I've voted to get rid of quite a few non-notable advertising and vanity pages, but that's Wikipedia policy.

Anyway, please do take another look; I'd be glad if you changed your mind. Regards, ProhibitOnions 22:47, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Done. Looks like it's a pileon support anyway, but always happy to correct any vote based on misunderstanding. Cynical 23:01, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that didn't take long. Thanks for the second look! Regards, ProhibitOnions 23:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, Cynical/Archive 3!
	...for voting in my RFA. It passed with a result of 58/2/0. If you have any comments, or need any new-admin help, please let me know here. ProhibitOnions 22:29, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for participating in my RfA. Since now I'm an admin, I'll do my best not to turn the community confidence down. If in any point in the future you get the feeling I'm doing something wrong, do not hesitate to drop me a line since I'm always open for constructive criticism. --Dijxtra 11:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

You voted keep for this article citing that it did not violate any policies. My nomination missed out the fact that the article is written by the author of the webcomic himself, thus violating vanity and promotional policies. Naturally, you may still be inclined to keep due to your views on notability and such, but I'd just thought I'd let you know. - Hahnchen 18:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that the article was written by the author, but that 'vanity' prohibition has been violated by Jimbo (and others, but most notably by Jimbo) so many times that it is more or less deprecated. Cynical 20:01, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Note: this discussion started on my talkpage, I replied on SqueakBox's, and it then ping-ponged between the two. I have copy-pasted all the messages and arranged them into chronological order for ease of reading. You should also consult the noticeboard discussion and the Arbcom evidence which resulted from this discussion.

I dont even know you. Desist your troling. Putting illegitimate ifd's on images being used in the main space and with a perfectly legitimate licence is troplling andf I advise you to stop as a campaign of harrassment will end up being taken to arbcom, etc, SqueakBox 14:00, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

According to their 'what links here' entries, these images are NOT in use in the main namespace. Accusing me of trolling is a violation of WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Threatening arbcom is amusing, but similarly useless. Removing ifd tags from images is not allowed. I've reverted them. Cynical 14:02, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Stop vandalising my user page. You do not have pernmission to touch it under any circumstances, SqueakBox 14:05, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

The reason that I edited the image captions on your userpage is that I am obliged to do so by WP:IFD. As for your statement that 'I do not have permission to edit it under any circumstances', please see WP:OWN. Oh, and making false accusations of vandalism is a WP:CIVIL violation. Cynical 14:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

These images are sourced and legitimate as you well know. I repeat, stop triolling, harrassment is not allowed under WP and you vandalised my user page. Leaver it alone, 14:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)SqueakBox

I am NOT claiming that they are not legitimately licensed (if I was doing that, I would have nominated them as speedy deletion candidates). I am arguing that they are not encyclopedic, since there is no prospect of any of them being included in any Wikipedia articles. Cynical 14:11, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Untrue, one of them that you have targeted is on the main space twice in dog and mixed breed dog [2]. It is also lice3nced properly which is why your activituy looks like vandalism and trolling to me. You have no right to touch my user page. See incidents comments [3]and leave me alone, SqueakBox 14:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

It turns out that my nominations were in fact in error, because the 'unencyclopedic' criterion does not apply to images in userspace. However if you had stated that in the first place, rather than violating WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA (et al) by resorting to unfounded name-calling, then we could have resolved this far quicker. Cynical 14:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

You state in your noticeboard comments that I 'removed images from your userpage'. I did nothing of the kind. I simply added the 'this image is under discussion at IFD' template to the CAPTION as I am REQUIRED to do by WP:IFD. I did NOT remove any images from your userpage - all the images remained in place. Please stop misrepresenting my actions. Cynical 14:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Ifm you had told me why yiou were doing what you were doing in the first place we could have prevented this.l I didn't know and as wikipedia is full of badly motivated users and you hadn't explained yourself I assumed you were badly motivated, though I now accept you were mistaken. I have made a great effort to be legitimate in my use of images (not using fair use images on my user page, licencing my images etc), SqueakBox 14:37, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Well it turns out you were wrong, you should have checked more closely before ifding a licenced main space image instead of reverting me 3 times and all my own images can indeed be used in my persoanal space. Whatever you did to my user page was unwanted and therefore illegitimaste. You dont like an image on my user page so you interfere with it - absolutely not. Your messages took the focus of my user page away from me and towards focussing on your actions, as if you had the right to intercept any traffic coming to my user page. This, IMO, is worse than removing the images would have been and to claim you are obliged into such behaviour by wikipedia policy is very cheeky. Please dont harrass any one else in this way, SqueakBox 22:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:IFD. That wikipedia policy clearly states that where you are nominating an in-use image for IFD you must add the 'this image is up for deletion' to the image's caption where it is being used. Cynical 08:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I was wrong. you were trolling. Stop harrassing me and desist the vandalism, SqueakBox 13:59, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Apologies for accidentally putting this on your user page. It was a mjistake for which I apoliogise as unlike you I dont beklieve there are legitimate treasons to edit another user's page in a way that one knows is actively working against that user, so apologies for that (now if you had done the same yesterday this would have calmed down earlier, now your actions yesterday will also be judged by the arbcom, and given that yuour actions were wrong I hope this means no repeat harrassmnets of other unwitting users, SqueakBox 14:13, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

You may not be aware of this (it is in bold at the top of the page, but you may not have read that part), but you are not allowed to edit other people's arbcom evidence. If you wish to rebut any of the statements in my evidence, then you must do so in your own evidence. Direct quote from arbitration page:

'If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please cite the evidence in your own section and provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Do not edit within the evidence section of any other user.'

Thanks. Cynical 22:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Whoops my mistake again. As you rightly surmise I am not really up on arbcom procedure, I am here to try to right a decent encyclopedia, but apologies for encroaching on your space on that page, SqueakBox 23:46, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I noticed how you commented User:EmirA's vote on my RfA. I assure that I do not know why he got that impression - check out the only place I have ever crossed paths with him - Talk:Tvrtko and User_talk:EmirA - this is very, very strange. --HolyRomanEmperor 15:51, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

User:Metamagician3000 now has email accessible.--Jusjih 14:24, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you please, as per AWB's rules of use (see WP:AWB for more details), do not make minor edits such as this which only affect whitespace. Thanks. --M@thwiz2020 21:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

And do not use it to edit talk pages or any page that isnt an article. Martin 21:59, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

It looks like the World is Breathing down your neck. Same coment as above--E-Bod 22:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks like you've been removed from the AWB authorized users list. I really don't see how you could justify this edit, for instance. --Cyde Weys 23:28, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

My edit did NOT only affect whitespace - it also unicodified several other sections of the page, which you can see by scrolling further down the diff. Cynical 07:38, 3 May 2006 (UTC) Note: this reply was posted to the talkpages of all of the above contributors - with the exception that my message to Martin included a request to re-add me to the AWB authorisation list. Cynical 13:21, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Virtually all your edits using AWB only affected whitespace. Martin 08:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

As far as I was aware, the diff shown for such edits (with identical text shown as a - and a +) meant that the paragraph involved was being converted to unicode. If that is not in fact the case then fine, I won't make edits like that in future. Cynical 12:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC) Note: these two were copied from Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage

Just to let you know that it was me who removed my name from the list of AWB requests - I no longer need adding to the list as I finally got round to downloading the source and building a check-free version. Cynical 14:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC) Note: this was copied from Martin's talkpage

Ok, fine, but I strongly advise you to be much more careful about how you use it. Martin 15:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Please do not link to this page, as you will just encourage others, also, changing links to avoid redirects is advised against. Martin 16:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

The reason I have the subpage is that I do not want people to think that I am using the real AWB without being on the checkpage, and that there is therefore some sort of flaw in AWB's security. The subpage doesn't supply the de-checked version (either as an executable or as source), nor does it tell people what they need to change in order to remove the checks, so I don't see how it presents any greater threat than the WP:AWB page telling people that the source code is freely available.

I will avoid changing 'piped' redirect links e.g. changing [[Dundee University|bla bla bla]] to [[University of Dundee|bla bla bla]] (I've taken another look at WP:REDIRECT, and discovered that this isn't a good idea). However I plan to continue correcting article text to refer to the subject's actual name e.g. changing '[[Dundee University]]' to 'the [[University of Dundee]]', since doing so improves the accuracy of Wikipedia articles (in the same way that an article would not refer to the 'Scottish Parliament' when it meant the 'Parliament of Scotland').

Thanks again for pointing out the redirects thing Cynical 17:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

To reply to the comments on my talk page, this did not unicodify anything. When you see the exact same paragraph twice, deleted on the left and added in red on the right, it means that the paragraph was just moved up one line. If you look, nothing was unicodifyed - the entire edit was just whitespace changes. --M@thwiz2020 21:32, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

FYI I was referring to this edit. I did not check you history to find out about your other edit. I take it you were defending this edit. I was not commenting on it but it still is pretty worthless Please Do not edit articles Using AWB Only Making the Standard Charges That the program does automatically. Please do Something useful such as Disambiguation link repair - You can help!. Also Did you Modify AWB simply to doge a Block? That is Unacceptable. Why are you waisting you time with edits like this [4]. Your edit Does not improve the article. It just Rephrases it. If you were blocked from AWB don't modify it to evade the block. And Although My comment (actually i didn't even comment. I just said same as above and i joked that you were unnecessarily warned 2 times earlier about the same edit and that one waring would be enough because you would see your mistake and fix it). If you really need to know you have done Several Unjustifiable White space edits. earlier to the one i commented to. I didn't check all your edits but a random one i came arose you did 2 consecutive AWB edits to one article. [5] What were you thinking. The problem is that nobody Explain why what you are doing is upsetting us. The real problem is not that you are hurting the artless but these Edits mess up the edit summary and make it really incoherent. If I want tho view the changes between 2 edits and an AWB white space edit edit is in the middle of it it makes tracking the changes hared because the paragraphs are unessisarily moved around. It If you are going to do a whitespace edit please make it part of another edit. It is pointless for an article to have lots of edits clogging up it's edit history where all the changes are just White space. It is Best To include whitespace edits in another edit. Please Instead of Fixing Double redirects or changing the style of an article (What is the difference between X university and the university of X. It's the Exact same ting and the edit is unnecessary. It does not hurt but it doesn't help. It's like changing colour to color)WP:Style#Disputes_over_style_issues. If you want to change links you can do Disambiguation link repair - You can help!. It will be much appreciated and you can do whitespace edits inside of the other edits. The only ting is that with Disambiguation link repair - You can help! you need to make sure you are changing the link to the right one. With Disambiguation link repair - You can help! you can't quite do several edits a second. In fact you shouldn't ever do several edits a second because I doubt you can check several edits a second. Why did you copy/paste response to a comment made after mine to all the talk pages of people who commented on another edit different than that one. I say this edit is just a whitespace edit and is a bad edit and you point to another edit and say you are wrong about This edit is not because i don't just change white space i changed code, while the page still is Identical. you were told leave it at that--E-Bod 21:53, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I will certainly take on board your suggestion to participate in disambig link repair - I hadn't thought of using AWB for that. The reason I modified AWB to remove the 'check page' function is that I can edit Wikipedia more efficiently (I have limited Wikipedia time at the moment due to exams) using AWB than using a browser, and therefore it is beneficial to Wikipedia for me to use AWB rather than a browser.

The 'rephrasing' you refer to is in fact necessary - given that Wikipedia articles strive to be as accurate as possible, I think it is important to refer to an organisation's actual name rather than an incorrect common name - for example, most references to the United Kingdom use the term 'United Kingdom' (the actual name) rather than 'Great Britain' (a common, but incorrect, name). Of course there are certain circumstances where this is not appropriate, and in those cases I an capable of (and indeed I did, yesterday) using the 'ignore' button to not make the edit on that particular article. Cynical 09:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC) This message was left on E-Bod's talkpage. I have copied it here for archiving purposes. Cynical 09:03, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

What is the 'check page' function--E-Bod 21:18, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you know that it was me who removed my name from the list of AWB requests - I no longer need adding to the list as I finally got round to downloading the source and building a check-free version. Cynical 14:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC) Note: this was copied from Martin's talkpage

Please be honest with yourself. Did you Modify AWB (in part) to bypass that things that makes all user require approval. I will never know your true intentions but but if you do that (so that you can't easily be blocked from editing AWB if you misuse it without blocking you form editing all together) then that would be unethically. Someone has to reserve the right to say you can or can't edit using AWB. Just because you can bypass that level of security doesn't mean you should. Again this is something only you will know. I can't prove you intentions. New users to AWB are watched to make sure they don't abuse it and why should you have an exception because you are willing to modify the program. Bypassing safety switches leads to disaster. I my house a safety switch kept turning off the heater. We called a repair guy who bypassed it so we would have heat and very son (days) the heater overheated and send smoke throughout my whole house via the are ducts. Don't bypass because you can--E-Bod 21:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why awb should get any special treatment just because it originally had self crippling built in. If someone causes trouble using any automated tool that should be dealt with through the normal means such as bans etc. Plugwash 21:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Some questions

1. Who decides what is appropriate use of an automated/semiautomated tool
2. Where do you report about of automated or semiautomated tools after the rules of use are outlined

To further an analogy. (assuming But not necessarily true). Cars can go really fast. Some places have speed limits because most people can't drive safety at higher speeds. Cars have some speed control to prevent users from going above the speed. you feel you can drive safely above the speed and you trust yourself to go really fast so you bypass the speed control. I would feel uncomfortable having you driving that fast even if you know you can handle it. Wat if somebody imitates you who can't handle the speed? Don't edit to fast You may be able to handle it but somebody coping your idea may not be able to?--E-Bod 22:01, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

It is one thing to use Technology you make. you make it you can handle it. It is another thin for somebody else to make some technology, understand how it can be abused, add a safety switch and then release it to the world. This user didn't just Make a program this user took an existing program and removed the safeties. (Actually i don't know that this user removed the safeties. That is what i am asking and again only this user will know the truth)--E-Bod 22:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I have removed the 'safeties' on AWB, however I am perfectly capable of handling the program. As far as I am aware, none of the edits I have made so far violate any Wikipedia policies or guidelines (although the practical edit history problem posed by whitespace-removing edits is one I will bear in mind, and I wasn't deliberately making whitespace-only edits anyway) however if I use the modified AWB for vandalism then as Plugwash notes I would be blocked/banned/arbcomed etc. like anyone using any other client software (e.g. a tabbed browser) to speed up the editing process. (Note: my statement that I haven't violated any WP rules is just a belief, if in fact I have violated any then please let me know here and I'll be more careful in future.)

I don't really see why edits using AWB should be treated any differently from edits using any other client software features to speed up editing (e.g. tabbed browsing or a Firefox extension), and at the moment (and, from the looks of the comments on the proposed 'semi-bot' guideluine, probably in the future too) that is the position in Wikipedia rules.

I have no plans to release the modified version, since it would enable anonymous users (against whom a block/ban is minimally effective since the vast majority of internet users have dynamic IPs) to use AWB which could (in theory, presuming that a vandal couldn't come up with an automated vandal bot rather than the semi-auto AWB) result in significant vandalism. Cynical 11:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that, on the List of Firefox extensions page, you removed a handful of extensions - "Answers", "1-Click Weather", "A Price Following Toolbar" and "Bumble Search" - with a comment that they were ads. While the links to the sites providing the extensions are ads, the extension is itself not an ad even if its utility or origin is questionable. So I think the extensions should continue to be listed on the page with no external link. After all, the page is called List of Firefox extensions. --Arun 22:31, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no particular problem with the extensions themselves being listed, I just felt that the style their listings were written in was very much like an ad, rather than the formal, objective tone Wikipedia articles are expected to have e.g. answers.com extension - 'Hold down Alt (or Option on a Mac) and click on any word to get a quick definition, an up-to-the-minute reference and more. You don't even need to highlight the word!'

In addition, just because they are Firefox extensions does not mean they should be listed on that page - 'This is not a complete list. For a more complete list, see http://addons.mozilla.org.' Since there has to be a limit somewhere, and these extensions aren't particularly popular (according to figures from addons.mozilla.org) it's probably best to leave them out. Cynical 07:33, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree that the style was not best for an encyclopedia. However the claim that this is not a complete list can be said about anything in Wikipedia. Anything that's in Wikipedia is probably elsewhere on the web too, and probably in much greater detail. However as an online reference, Wikipedia should constantly be enriched with reference material. It can never been a complete reference but it strives to provide more and more information. To that end, if there's a new Firefox extension that someone is aware of, they should be free to add it to List of Firefox extensions as long as they adhere to the style requirements. It shouldn't be up to one individual to censor extensions just because they "aren't particularly popular". By the way, your claim that they are not popular is not completely true. One of the extensions you removed - "Answers" - is on the official list of recommended Firefox extensions. Again, the page is called List of Firefox extensions, not List of popular Firefox extensions or something similar. I hope you will at least reintroduce the names of extensions back into the page even if you are not interested in putting descriptions that adhere to Wikipedia's style guidelines.--Arun 18:00, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't aware that 1-Click Answers was on the recommended list, so I've re-added it with a more neutral description. However I think it's best to leave 1-Click Weather out for now, because it's not even listed on addons.mozilla.org at all, never mind on the recommended list. Cynical 22:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. --Arun 04:40, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the vote in my RfA! The nomination didn't gain consensus, but I'm happy to have accepted them. - Amgine 17:46, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Lord Advocate Scottish Executive Lord President of the Court of Session Project ReGenesis Irish community in Britain Notre Dame College, Dhaka General Hassan Norman St John-Stevas, Baron St John of Fawsley William Cullen, Baron Cullen of Whitekirk Jim Murphy John-Paul Lavoisier Thomas Dunlop Galbraith, 1st Baron Strathclyde William-Henry Gauvin Secretary of State for Scotland Scottish Football Association John-Paul Clarkin Otto-William, Duke of Burgundy Irish-Scots Celtic Park

Cleanup Stalag Luft VII-A Townhead Demographics and politics of Northern Ireland Merge Ultras Desert Combat George Young, Lord Young Add Sources Chronoshift Port-a-john tipping Free Boolean algebra Wikify Algoma University College Mohammed Zahur Khayyam Mike Bickle Expand Andrew Browne Cunningham, 1st Viscount Cunningham of Hyndhope History of the Republic of Ireland Operation Desert Fox

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 01:56, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You should probably at least upgrade to the latest version as it is ALOT faster. I did the same thing as you before I got approved =) --mboverload@ 18:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I had downloaded a new version today (because I screwed something up in my modifications) and it certainly seems better. Thanks for the tip though. Cynical 19:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Welcome, Cynical to Wikipedia:WikiProject Proposed Deletion Patrolling! It's an ugly job but someone has to do it, and I'm glad you've signed up. You can help by adding the project page to your watchlist. When you want to do some patrolling, take a look at the task list which will help us coordinate our efforts. You can monitor this from a user page or anywhere else by adding {{Wikipedia:WikiProject Proposed Deletion Patrolling}} to that page and checking it from time to time. Thanks again! Mangojuice^talk 21:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Hey how come you reverted my edit to Giffnock? All the things were true and you should know considering you live in Newton Mearns. I figured someone needed to write something more on Giffnock since its pretty empty. --The macabres 12:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Yeah it's all true, but the bit about Au Naturale being 'forever doomed' and Valentinis selling 'home made, creamy ice cream' isn't neutral and the pubs aren't notable enough to deserve an article (so they shouldn't be links). Cynical 18:40, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

...on your exams. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 18:13, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, and have a great birthday tomorrow! Cynical 18:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your vote on my RfA. Unfortunately there was no consensus reached at 43 support, 18 oppose and 8 neutral. I've just found out that there is a feature in "my preferences" that forces me to use edit summaries. I've now got it enabled :) Thanks again. Sukh | ਸੁਖ | Talk 15:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you,Cynical/Archive 3! Thank you for voting for my recent RfA, which passed (to my extreme surprise and shock) with a total tally of 66/15/2. Although you didn't give me a support vote, I would nevertheless like to thank you for your helpful comments and offer a helping hand in any admin-related tasks that may be required -- it's as simple as leaving a message on my talkpage. Thanks again! -→Buchanan-Hermit™/!? 22:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your recent vote on my RFA, regardless of how you voted. I appreciate all votes. I am going to wait until I have more edits in all namespaces. (And also improve answering impossible questions ;). Hopefully one day I will be more sucessful than it was looking, once I meet most user's voting standards. Again, thanks for your time! ~Linuxerist E/L/T 02:31, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your vote in my recent RFA. At 43/43/14, I decided it was best to withdraw. I will wait until another time for an RFA. Thanks again, ILovePlankton 03:19, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for voting in my recently unsuccessful RfA. I plan on working harder in the coming months so that I have a better chance of becoming an admin in the future. I hope you will consider supporting my if I have another RfA. Thank you for your comments. --digital_me^(t/c) 15:56, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello could you explain to me why did the revert on Extraordinary Rendition. Was it the "restricted" thing, the memorandum was on the Council of europe website with a picture link(one of the small jets) to the report, i do not think it is noteable. The scare quotes are inapropriate as it is called the explanatory memorandum. As to the info on the flights themselves this was the most detailed bringing together of the alligations. Could we discuss this to help this article.Hypnosadist 23:33, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

The reason I reverted is that the information you added, while valid and useful, was already included in the rest of the section - so it was basically repeating what was already there. Welcome to Wikipedia by the way. Cynical 14:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I have just read your edit summary on Kelvinhall. It seems you use the Glasgow Subway. Could you help expand the current sites and also ask other people to or refer me to where i can get help with them? I have completed the whole loop of stations but i have never been on the Glasgow Underground. Simply south 22:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure that I understand your question, but if you are wanting to get more information on the Subway then you could either ask me (if you have a specific question then feel free to ask, I'll try my best to answer) or try Wikipedia:Reference desk. You could also try posting on Talk:Glasgow Subway Cynical 22:28, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, hold on. Just read your Talk:Glasgow Subway post. I understand now - I'll see if I can expand the articles you created. Cynical 22:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Although no consensus was reached in the end, I still wanted to thank you for your vote in my recent RfA. Thank you very much. Fritz S. (Talk) 17:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I've moved the page back to its original place. Although 'Buchanan Street bus station' may be its common name, that is of no consequence. If there is an official name then the Wikipedia article should use that - for example Glasgow Subway is almost always referred to as 'the Underground' but the page is still called 'Subway' because that is the actual name. Cynical 13:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually official names is correct. Buchanan bus station has been called that since 2001 (according to the Buchanan Street articles). In the glasgow subway articles, i have used "subway station" as that is the official name given to them by SPT. Simply south 18:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Erm, currently there is now a problem with this. Ignoring the confusion, there are now two seperate articles with similar information about them on (ignoring the redirect).

The articles are:

• Buchanan Bus Station
• Buchanan bus station

:~

Simply south 13:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, there was some extra information in the 'uppercase article'. I've moved it to the 'lowercase article' (which seems to be the convention for such things - e.g. Cowcaddens subway station, Glasgow Queen Street station) and made the 'uppercase article' a redirect. Problem solved (hopefully). Cynical 18:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Hello Cynical, and thanks for voting in my recent RfA, which passed with a tally of (68/19/3). I appreciated your comments, which I hope to take on board in order to gain your respect in my work as an administrator. Best of luck in your continued editing of the encyclopedia! Sam Vimes 19:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for voting at my RFA. My Request was successful with 41 supports, 12 opposes and 5 neutrals, and even though you did not vote for me, your counsel was appreciated. As an admin, I intend to work on expanding my involvement in the project namespace. If in any point in the future you get the feeling I'm doing something wrong, do not hesitate to drop me a line. -- mtz206 (talk) 02:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi there,

Just wandering why you removed the addition I put in there? It's perfectly true, fairly non-partisan, and affects us all. I thought it would be good to point out that journalistic freedom doesn't actually exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.113.57.163 (talk • contribs)

As I pointed out on your talk page, the edit was non-neutral and did not cite any sources. Being 'true' in the eyes of one contributor isn't sufficient for inclusion on Wikipedia - find a newspaper, academic book or a well-known website saying the same, and then you can put it in. Wikipedia isn't a hosting service for political opinions, it is an encyclopedia of facts. Cynical 11:38, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

aha, thanks for the clarification. I found it in a book, but not an academic book, from a well respected investigative journalist (Greg Palast). I don't suppose that's enough?

Ian — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.113.57.163 (talk • contribs)

Sorry, when I said 'academic book' I just meant not something which is primarily an expression of political opinion from someone unknown, I could have been more clear I guess. If the book is from someone well-known then it would certainly be good enough, provided that you write the paragraph in a neutral tone, and cite the book as a source. To find out how to cite the book as a source in a WP page, read WP:FOOT. Cynical 18:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

At the start of my RFA my editing summary usage for major edits was 27%, but have since risen to 51% as of now. This is because when the editing summary usage is raised I tried my very best into putting in editing summary in my every edits. --WinHunter ^(talk) 01:05, 25 June 2006 (UTC)