Well, I was trying to defend him and his response was to reject the chance to make a clear statement that he's not anti-Semitic. He was, I should say, at the very least offensive and insensitive, and an apology for that (to the people involved) wouldn't have gone amiss either (he didn't say 'you' and mean the person he was talking to — he referred to other editors . And I'm afraid that veganism isn't inconsistent with racism, any more than is living in different countries, having friends of different nationalities, or working in linguistics. The only things that count are actions, and his actions here haven't helped him. If and only if he changes his behaviour, people's attitudes to him will change. (I don't understand, by the way, why making a fresh start entails not replying on Wikipedia but only in private.) Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 15:07, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Chammy Koala, thanks for keeping the Pointless Waste of Time VfD tidy. The PWoT denizens are not too hot on wikisyntax, or indeed wikiquette. adamsan 17:10, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for supporting my nomination on RfA, it failed because of Wikipedia's minority rule system, although I thought 21/8 support was sufficient. It was also cut short by 12 hours. But your vote of confidence is greatly appreciated, now let's build an encyclopedia! --Bjarki 14:03, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I reverted your addition to the article; see Talk:Evacuation of East Prussia Mikkalai 00:42, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You have redirected a number of articles to Towns in Victoria, Australia. My understanding is that many of the articles in question had enough information in them to justify their existence and in some cases even more. For example, in redirecting Tallangatta and Castlemaine a significant amount of content was hidden. While the information can be retrieved and again made available by reverting your edit, I would rather be contributing content to the Wikipedia than reverting such changes.

If you wish to discuss the policy about Australian Geography articles, perhaps you could contribute to the discussion on the Australian Wikipedians noticeboard. Stubs might be boring but perhaps for more insights into them you might like to check WP:PSA

Regards --AYArktos 23:22, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

While I appreciate that you might feel that one larger article with comprehensive information is better than many short articles. The article produced is now very long (54 kb when I last checked) and thus exceeds the recommended article size. The table of contents exceeds one screen's length and the sections are very inconsistent in content and tone - not least because the content has been derived from the original articles.

I think an article on Towns in Victoria should have information about what characterises such towns as opposed to towns elsewhere in Australia or elsewhere in the world. The list of towns in Victoria could then be gleaned from the relevant category page - Category:Towns in Victoria. The problem I see with continuing the article in the format at present will be that there are many more towns in Victoria than those currently included, does information about other towns not get included because they were written about later? Will some of the information presently there about the towns be edited out for consistency, thereby reducing the information content?

I do think having individual articles is more helpful for users of the encyclopaedia and the content more easily managed.

To distinguish from the article on Domestic AC power plugs & sockets and whether or not each type of plug should have its own stub - there are only 14 types of plugs and sockets listed. There are currently over 40 towns listed in the article and there will be many more if it is to be comprehensive. How do you see the article developing?

Regards --AYArktos 01:11, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand why you keep suggesting that redirecting articles such as Tallangata has caused a loss, as I copied the entire articles accross, including images and any external links. You have valid points, but my reasoning was that the stubs are not about to become more than that in the near future. I actually created the stub on Euroa about a year ago and it's still a stub. If there are any articles that are quite long then I can just have a link to them from the article I've created. This will result in fewer stubs floating around wikipedia, and a more detailed article than just a "list of towns" linking to stubs. I've only worked on it one day, there are things that can be done to make the style more consistent etc. In the future, if it becomes much too long, then perhaps it can be deleted, but for now, I feel it is a better option. If you really want the longer ones to be their own articles then fine, I can just make links to those articles. In regards to the size of the article, I have read about the policy on that, and it's not an issue. There are not very long sections of text to read, and the article isn't just on one thing that someone whould have to read all of. It is in sections, and you can just read the sections that interest you. The contents list can be hidden, or modified. Unless there is a very good reason not to have the new article, then I feel it should stay, until such a time as it isn't necessary due to there being no more stubs. I am not satisfied with it the way it is now, and wish to continue editing it. I hope you will at least allow me this. Regards --Chammy Koala 01:28, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi, while I appreciate what you are trying to do with the list, I think it is a really bad way to present that information. Its unweildy, hard to use and not very informative, whatsmore there is no precentdent or policy for merging geography stubs to a list, unlike characters from super mario, town stubs do have the potential to grow. I think time would be better spent categorising, and eventually destubbing these stubs.--nixie 02:09, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

List of towns is probably much more "unweildy". My article, not what I'd call as "list" is perfectly easy to use, and in fact much easier to use than going to a list of towns, clicking on that link to get to a stub, to then have to go back to the list to go to another town. By putting them all together there is much less repetition as you don't need to have internal links under every section, and after some carful editing there can be a uniformity which makes them very easy to read. And while there is no precedent, a lot of wikipedians feel that stubs are the epitome of evil, and shouldn't exist at all. Someone reading my article is also more likely to read information on other towns, not just the one searched for, as they are all right there. And I was planning on tying them together better, so you can have a much better understanding of which towns are in the same region, on the same highway etc. And other articles have much longer contents lists than this one. In time, the stubs will grow, but I have a solution for that, and new stubs will replace them.--Chammy Koala 02:25, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

When I first saw the redirects I did not realise that the content had been copied into the towns of Victoria article. It is not my intention to stop you editing the article - to the contrary. But I am concerned about the other articles and how they will develop. Even a very stubby stub like Kyneton has had more than half a dozen people work on the article - admittedly most of them not adding much content. Eight people beside yourself worked on the Euroa article and content has been added in that process. By no longer having individual articles, I believe less content on these towns will be added. There are not many wikipedians from Australia and it will take quite some time before many articles develop beyond stub stage.

For me, one of the questions is when does an Australian geography stub become no longer a stub - what should it include as a minimum to be a useful encyclopaedia article.

In the article you are working on I believe it would be useful to produce consistency in the tone and content of the sections, so similarly what is the minimum information you need about a town to have a meaningful section. I also think that in an article about a collective, it might be useful to think what characterises the collective and distinguishes it from other similar groups. I suspect that there are characteristics of Victorian towns that do not depend only on their locality. Is there something about them that is not found in towns elsewhere in Australia or elsewhere in the world?

Regards --AYArktos 02:20, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I feel that by looking at the Towns in Victoria, Australia article with all the towns put together, it will be almost easier to edit them, as one can easily compare what information is on another town, and can mimick that information and style. Also, a number of towns had stubs, but were hard to find, and would be impossible to find if you didn't know the name of the town. There are only 4 towns on the List of towns for the Northern Territory for example. I have faith in this article, I think it should at least be tried, as it's not doing any damage that I can see by being up, and could possibly even be an aid to stub growth in the future. This one is my "test pilot" and if it works I was hoping to do the other states etc. But this is only day one. --Chammy Koala 02:36, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC) P.S. I'm from Euroa.

i have to agree with ayarktos and others, this is not a good idea. at the very least you should make the threshold for redirecting a lot higher, e.g Woodside, Victoria i can see an argument, but Wodonga, Victoria is well on it's way out of stub-dom and the category system already "groups" them together. there is no precedent on wikipedia for this kind of grouping and it runs into the article size limit as has been pointed out above. clarkk 05:23, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The others have explained why this is a bad idea, but I'll be considerably more blunt. If you want to make changes of this nature (which are unprecedented on Wikipedia), then discuss them somewhere, or put the original articles up for deletion. If you - or your boyfriend - blank these articles en masse again without doing this, I'll block you for vandalism. This has taken far too long to clean up. Ambi 11:40, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The following was written by Jimmy Wales the man behind Wikipedia. "Just my own little two cents worth -- one reason that no stub page is better than a stub page is that no page generates a question mark after the term when mentioned elsewhere, which is an admission that we don't have the information, and a "teaser" to all of us who can't resist the urge to write. :-) Whereas a stub page satisfies our thirst *just a little bit*, which perhaps doesn't encourage authors nearly as much". — Jimbo Wales. --Chammy Koala 19:23, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your support on my RfA, and for your protest about what would indeed have been a ridiculous vote had it not been facetious (sad enough that someone actually cast that vote, slightly altered, in earnest, once). In any case, I shall attempt to put the shiny new buttons to good use. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 03:00, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Erin, thanks for letting me know about this. I appreciate it. Best, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 01:48, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for that latest information. Regarding a possible link between TonyMarvin (talk · contribs), UDoN't!wAn* (talk · contribs), LevelCheck (talk · contribs), and Chunkyhoyo (talk · contribs), see TonyMarvin's complaint about me [1] and my response. [2] Best, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:41, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting my successful RfA. I will do my best to live up to the responsibility and your trust. Oh, and best wishes for your wedding! --khaosworks 07:07, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I believe I have pushed no propaganda. I have made one edit to Prussian Holocaust that relates the term to a well-documented effort by neo-nazi outfits like the NPD to draw moral equivalences between what the Jews suffered in the Shoah and what Germans suffered at the hands of the Allies. If you feel there is bias in what I have written, why not edit the text to balance it? --- Charles Stewart 12:11, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If it draws a moral equivalence, then that's great. All suffering is morally equivalent. Failure to understand this is central characteristic of every monster. But anyway, all that is irrelevant. It doesn't matter who uses the term. Wikipedia policy does not take that into account. — Helpful Dave 12:32, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I replied here, glad to hear from you, cheers, Sam Spade 15:59, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Just trying to help! Thanks for the info about gallery. Roodog2k 13:29, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Erin. Thank you for alerting me. Yes, I do believe these two (ab)users are the same person. He has twice vandalized my talk page, each time removing Slim Virgin's comments. I have actually blocked both IP's permanently, yet he seems to have no trouble evading the block. That means either that he knows something about hacking, or that he's got some accomplice who's a sysop. I'd be interested to know who it is. Anyway, as soon as I'm finished here, I'm off to block him (again). Once again, thank you very much for drawing my attention to this matter. BTW, I loved looking all those photos you've uploaded. You've certainly been around some interesting places. David Cannon 11:16, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• • The two IP's are totally different. They are not the same user. The abuse depends on who is performing it and who receives it. David Cannon has abused this user. SlimVirgin has abused this user also. The so-called abuse cuts both ways.

Erin, I've blocked the latest one for a week, but I daresay he'll back with other IP addresses. We can't block them for longer in case it's a library or similar. Hopefully he'll get fed up eventually. Best, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:02, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

This counts more as POV editing than vandalism, and there's been no other blockable offense, but I've left a note on his talk page suggesting he seek consensus before making substantial changes in future. Let me know if the problem continues. Hope this helps. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:41, Apr 29, 2005 (UTC)

Hi - I saw your post on the Australian Wikipedians' noticeboard and did some sleuthing.

I think the material should be recreated but you will need to note that the previous data apparently violated copyright. This edit of Towns in Vic which took out the Moe material can be compared with Monash uni material referred to by Ambi in her listing for copyright violation and you can see where she was coming from. However, I believe a better course would have been to modify the article back to a stub and let somebody work on it.

Regards--AYArktos 10:55, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bad idea. Adding copyrighted material to Wikipedia is both against policy and against the law. Removing it doesn't help, as it still leaves the history in place. By all means create another stub - but the copyrighted version must be deleted first if at all possible. Sorry, but that's the way it is. Ambi 12:20, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hello! I can't work out why you marked this article for speedy deletion; I've removed the template for the moment — could you let me know what you had in mind? Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:43, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't a complaint — I just wondered if you knew this to be a hoax or something. I've never heard of the television series, so it could well have been. I'll leave it there unless and until someone who knows better either adds information or VfDs it. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 19:31, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

For voting in favour of my RfA, and for your very kind comments! I greatly value your support. Happy May Day! Sincerely yours, El_C 01:07, 2 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comments on my RFA. Although the voting period just ended with a 14-8-2 vote, I will admit once and for all that I used it more as an evaluation of myself. Being promoted would have been a plus. I was more interested in who voted, when they voted, who would change their votes and when, and the comments I would receive. Hopefully I will correct the main weakness that was raised by those who voted oppose -- that I was too eager to put articles on VFD. Also, I will try to interact more with those Wikipedians who did not vote at all.

As for next month, I don't know if I will nominate myself again. I might not think about it until somebody else puts me up there on RFA at a later date. Eventually, I see myself as an admin, especially as the number of articles and users continues to grow. Thanks again and good luck at improving this vast archive of free knowledge. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 09:26, 3 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When you find a page of nonsense, please check the history before tagging it for speedy delete. Bean was a perfectly good article which someone turned into nonsense. The appropriate action would be to revert to the good version rather than to tag it. I do appreciate your efforts in fighting vandalism.-gadfium 09:25, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, you may remember this user has recently been vandalizing pages about movie actors and it has been a pain to rewrite them from scratch... what do you recommend me to do? Purple Rose 03:05, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It's okay, it's been my little brother who went to translate some text from French website and even though he alerted them, they were not too happy about it... I've put some big changes. Purple Rose 17:04, 5 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for contributing. Please do not add non-existant entries onto the List of Albums (S). Only albums with formatted articles should be added. JamesBurns 12:46, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry I withdraw that. It was Mike Garcia who added those ablbums, I just noticed you add the links back to the band. JamesBurns 12:53, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi James, I was wondering what your critera for inclusion on the list is? Basically there are 3 albums on the Skin Yard article that have as much information on them as other album articles - in some cases more. So why are they not worthy of going on the list? Does there have to be one article for each album? Please review the Skin Yard article and let me know what you think. --Silversmith 14:04, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well I didnt start the list but Tuf-Kat had a lot to do with how it was set up and to what should be included. The list has always been all albums listed have articles in the Wikipedia - I am assuming it means each album has an individual entry. As far as I know other editors in the past have also deleted entries that dont exist or dont qualify as albums. Even unformatted albums have also been deleted. JamesBurns 03:02, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, Erin. On WP:VIP, you said "User:Temporary is ClockworkSouI back, avoiding block.". How sure are you of this? It seems likely to me, but I don't want to block User:Temporary unless there's more evidence than a hunch. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 15:55, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

• The reason for my belief is due to: "What?! I don't know what you're talking about, but my edit in Pope Benedict is legitimate. I saw that phrase this morning while reading TIME, I saw it last week on cnn.com, and I found it on one of his transcribed speechs on vatican.va. How can you say this is illegit? It may have been an impostor who ddi it, but will you revert all his edits even the good ones just because hes an impostor? That is purely illogical. I'm putting it back right now and you do all your editing and stuff but don't take it down. What note are you talking about? Temporary 15:22, 6 May 2005 (UTC)" — where Temporary says that the edits made by ClockworkSoui were done by him. So, he basically has admitted being the same user. Also note user temporary's contributions. --Silversmith 16:01, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I admit it, but it still doesn't justify your REVERTS of a perfectly fine sentence. If you'd take the time and trouble to search on Google, I'm pretty sure you can confirm. Temporary 16:06, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes Temporary - please see my edit to User talk:Quadell.--Silversmith 16:11, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have now blocked Temporary for attempting to circumvent a block of ClockworkSoui. Also, you're right, the quote was not made up. I thought the quote was bogus because I had not found it on Google - the quote as given ("Evidently, he didn't listen to me this time") was not correct. The actual quote was "Evidently, this time he didn't listen to me" - not a significant difference, but it accounts for the confusion. I have now fixed the quote. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 16:32, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. If I am not mistaken, I have to wait until May 26 for me to be put back onto RFA. Thank goodness that the ones who opposed me on my last RFA really had only one major objection: that I was too eager to put articles on VFD. That issue is easily correctable. Anyway, thanks for helping me deal with that imposter. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:12, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please explain the meaning why you redirected all the albums by Skin Yard? That's why I reverted you yesterday. -- Mike Garcia | talk 21:46, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, to let you know, a user was trying to impersonate you. The vandal picked the name User:SiIversmith. Zscout370 (talk) 21:52, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• An "I" instead of an "L" in the third letter. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:55, 6 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Silversmith, please stop adding the album covers and everything you did on the band page (Skin Yard). You have been reported about this right here. For the last time, do not, I repeat do not do this again. -- Mike Garcia | talk 16:58, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Erin. I saw your photo, and now I've forgotten what I was going to say. Wow. Your David is a lucky man, and a very good photographer, if he took the pictures. </creepy observation> Anyway, that entirely aside, I did write on the Skin Yard talk page. Primarily, I see stubs as violations of logic and usability. I do have a private war on substubs (a fact is not an article, and if I see "Was the winner of Jeopardy in 2005's tournament" I will delete the article without a second thought), but I'm no fan of stubs, either. As you saw on my user page, I think stubs make us look like an inferior site. They send users away from us and reinforce every slander Britanica has of us. More to the point, though, this article brings up the subject of when it's appropriate to split a topic.

What I always ask is whether like is with like. Who needs the information, and how can we present it in a way that causes least duplication and fewest clicks? Some people think that there are no taxonomical shelves between Kingdom and Individual, but I think we have Phyla, Genera, etc., and it bothers me with the vanity of editors overrides common sense and they decide, instead of looking for the master subject, they'll just write an article about a particular non-speaking character in a James Bond film or a particular trading card. I also think that the reflexive wikilinking of every proper noun is a huge mistake. Instead of an article on "Girl by the pool" in For Your Eyes Only, how about looking to see if there is a Tula article, first? Instead of writing about a monk who founded a monastery and reflexively wikilinking Renaud because someone named Renaud gave the land, check to see if there is more to know about this particular Renaud and make sure that the extant article doesn't cover someone much more famous. This, to me, is just a matter of logic, of making sure that we discuss things in their proper places, and not wherever the hell some editor can think of putting them.

Interestingly, I had silent reverts from Mike Garcia before on the Guadalcanal Diary article. He wrote it as a substub and even labelled it as a stub. Well, I know those guys personally. I was in a band in the same city at the same time. I wouldn't say they're dear friends, but we speak when we see each other. Now, I added a bunch of material, and Mike then put the article on Cleanup, asking for people who knew something about the band to clean up the material (that I had added). Also, though, he wikilinked every single band member's name. Again, I know them. While the singer, Murray Attaway, had a solo record after, none of the other members is generally known in the world except for having been in that band. So, do we want to encourage anyone to write an article that says "Rhett Crowe played bass for Guadalcanal Diary?" Why? Is there more to say about her? I therefore unlinked the names. Mike then came along and linked them back. I wrote on his talk page asking him to only wikilink if he already knew material that could be said about the other three members. No response, except to wikilink them again after I had unlinked them. Finally, I had to write something a bit sterner. It's unfortunate.

At any rate, if the subject reaches advocacy, let me know. I don't really want to be too involved in the article mechanics, as I know nothing of the group and want to remain an outsider (so as to be able to speak without passion if the matter does go forward). I certainly support your general position. Frankly, if these albums were split off, the natural reaction to me would be to list them on VfD. They're not significant records enough for encyclopedia articles, as we are not allmusic.com, nor the archive of bands.

I hope that helps. Geogre 21:02, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I do know you after all, but under a different name! For your fine detective work, I award you this cupcake of deliciousness; I would have given you a whole cake, but I had to take some credit away since your username confused me (and, in fact, I initially read it as Silverback!). But it should prove a good snack nonetheless! See also: see also. Yours, El_C 23:08, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Silversmith, I have just learned something that I did not know about the parties involved in the conflict you are having. If you do not hear anything for a bit, it's because I'm going to speak with one of the other admins who is helping (hmmm, how to put this?) behind the scenes with one aspect of it. The short version is that it is not surprising that Mike has violated the 3RR, nor that he has been slow to correspond on the talk pages. However, we may be able to achieve a peacable answer without any more hassles. I will let you know if there are more developments. I apologize for being cryptic, but it is necessary. Geogre 02:47, 8 May 2005 (UTC) P.S. A little less cryptically: Mike Garcia has two mentors assigned to help him out. One of them is Danny, one of the most august and respected folks on the project. I wrote to Danny and mentioned the 3RR violation. The important thing is to not let your stress level rise. You are not alone, indeed, and, had I done any investigation to start with, I could have told you that instantly. Of all the folks on the project, Danny is among those I most trust to do the right thing. Geogre 03:11, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]