This page is an archive of my talk page. Please do not modify it. If you would like to comment about anything on this page, please use my talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
Alert
Please do not spam my talk page looking for help on an issue because of a Wikipedia user category of which I am a member. This annoys me greatly, and I will usually not respond.

Past discussions on my talk page may be found on the following archive pages. My personal talk page archiving policy may be found at User:Jdavidb/Talk archiving

Cool[edit]

I like that. I've never made templates before; I'll have to explore that a bit when I have time. paul klenk talk

Believe it or not, I still am a bit new and am learning so much every day. (See my user page regarding my foreign pages.) I did take a look at your templates; I will give your procedure a look as well. paul klenk talk 19:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Joyce Carol Oates[edit]

You don't really have a clue about who she is, do you? (Really, seriously, you wouldn't be calling her a spammer if you did) Tanya! Ravine 20:29, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you...[edit]

...very much for that. You are very kind. · Katefan0(scribble) 04:42, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You know, to your evidence posted this evening -- up to an hour ago, I would've agreed with you. I was pleasantly surprised by our discussions on the Ann Coulter page and was hopeful that perhaps a corner had been turned. I had even considered entering the arbitration myself just to place that in evidence as real improved behavior, Paul Klenk's well-meaning list aside. But after this, the well is irretrievably poisoned for me. How does what I see as shameful behavior figure in to your feelings about his improvement? · Katefan0(scribble) 04:50, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's a mixed bag. Saying he's improved is not the same as saying he's 100% reformed. I know he's not 100% reformed. I know he's not fully aware of and committed to our policies. (Yet, though I hope such a time can come.) I knew about his later actions on his talk page before I knew about the Ann Coulter conversation that I posted as evidence in his favor.
The problem with BD is that he is so quick to take offense. He thinks everybody's out to get him (most definitely me). He is easily confused and something as trivial as you trying to help by commenting out that weird comment is easily mistaken, in his mind, for an attack.

And in BD's mind, every offense must be avenged.

You mean like this? "I was done, until you started making baseless attacks. I won't let that stand unanswered!"-- KateFan) Big Daddy 07:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It entitles him, in his mind, to satisfaction extracted either through some non-existent enforcement mechanism in Wikipedia's policies or through entitling him to make personal attacks with impunity.

Doesn't that completely describe why he's in RFAr? Things people have done to him, things that were totally right and benign according to Wikipedia rules and standards of common decency, have appeared to him to be attacks and he has responded by fighting back ... with all guns blazing and no holds barred.
And my statement above, "things that were totally right and benign according to Wikipedia rules and standards of common decency," leaves some things out, doesn't it? Because aren't there truly people here who have delighted in provoking him? They provoke him, he responds and digs his hole deeper. Yes, his responses are unjustified. But provoking him isn't justified, either. Where is it written in Wikipedia policy that personal attacks are justified in response to a personal attacker?
It's an endless cycle of anger and fighting that can only be broken if one person stands up and says, "I will not take personal attacks into account. I will not assume that is a personal attack. I will chalk it up to a misunderstanding and let it end with me." I think as of yet BD has a lot of trouble doing that. Jdavidb (talk) 05:03, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As much as I respect your thoughtful comments, I think it's past the point where this much understanding is necessary. He's been around long enough to understand the way this place works, and even if he didn't, a person doesn't have to understand Wikipedia's policies to know that you ought to treat people with a basic level of civility and respect. The situation to me seems thoroughly untenable, though I admire your continuing attempts at bridging gaps, even as he attacks you too. · Katefan0(scribble) 05:10, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Main thing I want to say is, hang in there and don't let it get to you! You tried to do the right thing, and it was misunderstood. And the reaction was bad, and unjustifiable. But the rest of us saw you do the right thing. He doesn't understand, but we do.
In a few days it won't matter: either he will have reformed, or the RFAr will have kicked him. Jdavidb (talk) 05:14, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Well, that's a nice narrative you guys have going but it's not grounded in anything even approaching reality. The first attack from my perspective came directly from Wikipedia in the form of an article I read about Bill O'Reilly that was incivil, full of cheap personal attacks and in general a fun house mirror caricature of what the man is all about. And I did NOT KNOW that wikipedia was the liberal bastion it is accused of being. I found out in short order after checking out both metafilter and free republic but orginally I was just shocked and outraged.

Is it possible you two are just so insular that you can't see the forest for the trees? That's what I think. Remember Katefan was an editor all the while that Bill O'Reilly article (as well as Pat Robertson, Ann Coulter, Karl Rove and probably countless others) were subjected to this incivil sliming.

So Wikipedia, whoever was responsible for overseeing content, which includes Kate, assaulted me first. And not just me but everybody. Fair minded liberal and conservative alike. By pretending to be something it wasn't - nPOV.

So, admittedly I was a little passionate about this assault when I first arrived. I mean my first few posts, including my now infamous post where I claimed to have 100 isps at my disposal (as does every other resident of the city of Ann Arbor btw) was literally made on the Bill O'Reilly page. Not his talk page. His article lol! That's how new I was.

So I learned the system and began making edits. The fact that both O'Reilly's and Coulters article are SOO much better today is largely because of my efforts along with Paul Klenk.

So I feel I should be apologized to for the way Wikipedia was and thanked repeatedly for the good I have been able to accomplish, despite the ENORMOUS RESISTANCE that both of you know I encountered in doing so.

And btw, Mr. Conservative JDavid, you did NOTHING to help in any of those articles and you presided at Wikipedia when they were literally slime pits. Can you point me to some articles about conservatives that were similarly slimed that YOU helped to clean up. I'd love to see the before and after.

So, I come in and find Kate CONSTANTLY jumping down my throat. She was caught telling Ryan 'just give him enough rope - he'll hang himself' in reference to a battle that RYAN started and I was still a BRAND new newbie and that NOT COINCIDENTALLY had to do with this EXACT same thing.

So spin it in reverse as she will, it is KATE who should have known better than to edit my words on my page without at least asking me.

I reject this whole hacking story and I reject this semantic spin that it was something other than a deletion.

In the end, I grant you that it might not be that big of a deal. But notice how she clammed up, accused me of being ugly and said she's refuse to talk about it anymore? That is until you came up with your revised standard version of what happened. Then all of a sudden she's not only happy to talk about it, she's effusing about it on your page and commenting more briefly on mine.

Bottom line: Kate knows I don't trust her. She can ascribe whatever Freudian motives she may want to way, it's not a newsflash to her. She should have known WAY BETTER than to pull this stunt and pretend it was an act of 'kindness.'

I don't buy it and she never should have done it. Ask Fred? Why Fred? That's suspicious too as he is one of the arbs. I think she wanted to point out the joke to Fred. But not as an act of kindness.

Trust has to be earned. Neither of you have earned it.

It's laughable that JDavid somehow thinks he's more intelligent than I am. But, I'm happy to let him revel in that conceit. Just know it's one of the least attractive aspects of your approach towards me and there's plenty of competition in that regard.

But there are plenty of people I do trust in Wikipedia. Honest and good people like the gentel Paul Klenk and the truly intelligent Gator1. Other railroaded people like ultramarine, ketoohwah and oldright.

I always WANT to get along and trust people. And I'm always hopeful that things will change. Even with you two. But, straight up, neither of you even come close to meeting that standard right now. And that's your fault...not mine.Big Daddy 05:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was done, until you started making baseless attacks. I won't let that stand unanswered. As for the rest -- of course, nothing has ever been your fault. Right? · Katefan0(scribble) 06:08, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


No, I think posting on Bill O'Reilly's ARTICLE (lol!) how mad I was at the 'liberal editor' was definitely MY FAULT.

I think engaging in what can only be characterized as tit for tat insults with liberals on ARTICLE talk pages was MY FAULT.

I think some of my intemperate comments on other's talk pates are MY FAULT (or at least unecessary.)

I am happy to accept the fact that lots of things are MY FAULT.

I'm not here to be perfect or faultless. I think even you would have to admit I have a very comfortable way of approaching things on the actual article talk page especially when I'm dealing with honest actors like JamesMLaine despite our political differences. I invoke Jimmy Wales words as much as possible because afterall it's his vision and yet people jump on me over that. So, I think there's been a lot of growth here and I honestly think that, despite my slightly rough around the edges way of expressing things (I am a guy remember. Not a weeny or geek like a lot of the other people who post here - no specific person intended:) so I do engage in a little chit chat. But I try to keep that on the personal talk pages and away from the articles. I don't see any harm in the guys having a few disagreements now and then. The main problem is culture. I come from a highly masculine conservative background and most of the others do not. It's more a cultural clash than anything. I understand that. I'm willing to work within a 'geek framework.' But look how they've treated me. Disgracefully and despicably. Like little church ladies who can't wait to 'make a case' against me and railroad me out of here. If anything, the way I've been treated is evidence of how SICK the culture in here is. Not just me but the way they've treated outspoken conservatives like me, oldright, keetowah, ultramarine is unconscionable.

I'm sorry, this is not about me and whether I'll admit I'm wrong. I clearly have and gladly will again. I think I just admitted I was wrong to you, Kate tonight on the Ann Coulter page.

This is much bigger. This is much more serious. This is about how Wikipeians treat people who are different.

You can cry and shry for the next 50 years that the reason I was treated so shabbily is because of my attitude or my demeanor, but I'm telling you that people in the real world, who will ultimately deciding this case, just won't buy it.

I mean look at people like that woohookitty dude who literally is drooling and salivating all over himself at the prospect of adding 'fresh new evidence' to my case. LOL! It's pathetic.

Or Ryan, who even the gentle Paul Klenk has deemed an insufferable bully. All she does is call everybody who dares disagree with her a troll. A troll this, a troll that. trollery, trollbating, trollfishing trollfoolery, shrimp, jumbo shrimp...popcorn shrimp....

Of course, they look perfectly sane in comparsion to the completely unhinged elemosynnary and his paranoiad musings which I still think he clings to.

Think about that for a second...

They were my welcoming committee at Wikipedia. Those are the ones who represented the Wikipedia community to me.

By that standard Kate, you're actually pretty cool. (Not that I trust you.)

But these people, as they would say in MY culture, are some very SICK MOFO'S.

Are people outside the Wikipedia community, when exposed to their insidious behavior, gonna buy the argument that I was the 'mean one?' Hmmm...


If JDavid really wanted me to believe he had my best interests in mind, he would already have a proven track record of helping other persecuted conservatives in here and he'd have a track record of cleaning up hit pieces like the ones on Coulter Rove etc. At least Paul Klenk has tried. But JDavid does not. So his arguemnt - 'Well I'm a conservative and I just get along fine in here' is unpersuasive. I'd like to see him take the lead I've established and follow suit. Instead he somehow thinks it should be the other way around. That gives me a chuckle I must admit. But JDavid, go ahead, give me a chance to say I was wrong. Point me to some articles...Big Daddy 06:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And now you are attacking a fellow conservative. You know why he doesn't fight your battles? Because he believes in the *neutrality* of Wikipedia and he believes in working within the system. What a thought! Stay neutral, jdavid. We need more people like you who are willing to forget personal views occasionally for the betterment of everyone. --Woohookitty 07:05, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


You need to catch up my little friend. This isn't the first time that I 'attacked' JDavid. Why I've attacked him...let's see now...Oh, I know...ever since...he attacked me.Big Daddy 07:13, 8 October 2005 (UTC) [reply]

Friend? Yeah. The only reason why my comments are not being deleted is because I'm posting on someone else's talk page about you. If I did this on your page, the comments wouldn't last. And btw, I'm not relishing adding evidence to the evidence page. You are one paranoid man. --Woohookitty 07:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Why not friends? I'm willing. I'm not quite ready to invite you over to my talk page. You've goofed up that opportunity enough that I think even you should understand my reluctance. Besides, I'm a private person. I'm kinda selective as to who I want posting there. But why not be civil? I think we have a good arrangement. I keep posting. And you...keep collecting evidence! lol! Big Daddy 07:31, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And this is my last response to Big Daddy. --Woohookitty 07:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Damn! And I thought we were just getting a good thing going! Big Daddy 07:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you[edit]

I've read your page and I know that you are a conservative so...I *really* appreciate the even-handedness in which you've tried to handle the BigDaddy stuff. It's much appreciated. I really think you are an example of what BD should be following, i.e. a conservative who tries to work within the system. As I've said all along, I don't object to his views. It's the methods I object to. I welcome all viewpoints. And I'm glad to see that you do as well. Thank you. --Woohookitty 07:01, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spam[edit]

Hey there. Nlu is probably running into some spam issues. Check out this post here [1]. I've suggested on his talk page that s/he come to you for help. I hope that is okay?

I also noticed today that you know Perl! Perhaps you can help me write a bot to clean up the reference desk archiving process? --HappyCamper 14:41, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Karma and Reincarnation page[edit]

Dear Jdavidb, I believe you are the one who objected to my page Karma, Reincarnation and NDE? Is this correct? Did you look at my page? I have no agenda and am not selling anything. Nor do I make any money on the page. If looked at objectively, many consider it one of the best pages on the subject out there.

http://www.reversespins.com/karma.html

William House editor@reversespins.com

Your 3RR block of jguk[edit]

You blocked Jguk for a 3RR violation on his own user talk page. 3RR doesn't apply to one's own user space. I have unblocked him. Please don't do this again. Kelly Martin 21:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP policy[edit]

WP policy is that a user can do what he wants with his userspace - if you'd been here long enough, you would have learnt that - together with it deemed to be uncivil to keep re-adding comments that a user has explicitly removed.

The 3RR does not apply to the userspace either.

Additionally, please do not interfere with discussions made by editors to WP on how articles should develop. Generally you just end up angering them and prolonging the dispute, as indeed you are doing here. Kind regards, jguk

Uriah copyvios[edit]

If you haven't followed User talk:Uriah923, our friend has caused more copyright violations. The ones I checked were from a while ago, but they are blatant enough to call into question the rest of his contributions. Please see what you can do to check the rest, I won't have time. Sorry to dump this on you, but thanks. Check Wikipedia:Copyright problems if you aren't familiar with how to deal with them. - Taxman Talk 21:38, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Church of Christ, Scientist[edit]

I'm curious if your concern for this subject is motivated by your religious faith and if you see Melchizedek's claim to ecclesiastical statehood as a threat to that faith.

No. I believe in open study of all religions. I have studied religions with which I emphatically disagree, including Catholicism, Orthodox Judaism, B'nai Noach, and Islam, sometimes to such depths that I think my wife feared I was planning to convert. I do not believe in the principle of withholding information about a religion on the idea that it may be a threat to true faith. And I certainly fear nothing from the DOM "religion." I see no grain of truth there nor do I even see anything of interest.
Thankfully on Wikipedia we have constructed policies which can be followed by any editor regardless of his personal convictions or motivations which will result in unbiased articles. Editors on any side of an issue or even editors who do not care about an issue can still make the right decisions for an article.

I'm glad to see that you want unbiased articles. Do you really believe that the DOM article is unbiased? I certainly can't see how it is either fair, balanced, or completely factual. Do you see any genuine faith in their translation of the Bible or their effort to "resurrect" the "Dominion of Melchizedek" from antiquity?

No. Regardless of the fraud claims, the religious claims are utterly without merit and would probably be theologically irrelevant even if they had any merit.

I suspected you would have this opinion, but how much of their faith have you studied?

Your use of the pronoun "their" is disingenuous, but not unexpected. Jdavidb 13:41, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
What is disingenuous about my use of the word "their". Are you suggesting that I am one of them? Personally, I am a Christian Scientist, not a Melchizedekian. There is a connection in as much as DOM's translation of the Bible is based on the writings of Mary Baker Eddy. She is the founder of Christian Science. Do you also find Christian Science to be utterly without merit and/or theologically irrelevant? Johnski 16:59, 4 October 2005 (UTC) You didn't reply to this on my user talk page so moved it here in case you didn't see this.Johnski 04:02, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Mr. Jdavidb: I see you answered my question about DOM, which led me here to see you didn't answer Johnski's questions about Christian Science and how much you actually studied the Melchizedekian religion according to the Melchizedek Bible. This led me to another question: Do you believe that any member of the Catholic Church, if asked, would say of your Church of Christ, "the religious claims are utterly without merit and would probably be theologically irrelevant even if they had any merit"? KAJ 20:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your assistance in regard to the DOM page[edit]

I appreciate your assistance on backing me up in terms of the lack of consensus on the DOM page. Your user page was interesting, I suppose we could have an interesting conversaton about politics. That's one of my favorite hobbies. Anyway, I hope you'll continue to check in on the pages that are being vandalized. Davidpdx 06:13, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please answer my question instead of side stepping it[edit]

Jdavidb, this is not in response to the question I asked of you. Please answer it about Christian Science. You have totally missed the point of what I am trying to do with the Melchizedek article, as I've backed off the original position and only tried to make a compromise using stuff that there is consensus on, just rewriting it to tone it down. I didn't revert it just to revert it but because there was vandalism on the version that you seem to approve. You can also see I've reverted from vandalism on the Enenkio and New Utopia pages without making any changes to the articles.Johnski 06:19, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Esperanza Spam[edit]

Hello Esperanzians! A few announcements.

The Advisory Committee election results are in. In tranch A are Acetic Acid and Flcelloguy. In tranch B are Ryan Norton and Bratsche.

My other annoouncement is that our founder, JCarriker, has founded Esperanza's sister project, Wikipediology. I have written two essays here (my name is Matt Binder). My essays are under Teenage Wikipedians and Anon Editors.

On behalf of myself and Jay Carriker and the other wikipediologists, I would appreciate it if you were to join.

Cheers Esperanza! Redwolf24 (talk—How's my driving?) 23:34, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ArbReq against Jguk[edit]

You might be interested in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Jguk and date notation. ←Humus sapiens←ну? 00:21, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Sheen being pro-life.[edit]

Hello, I just noticed that some people have decided that Martin Sheen is not really pro-life despite the fact that he belongs to a pro-life organization and they removed the Pro-life celebrities category that was listed on his profile.

What do you think? I think that these two obviously liberal people can't believe that one of their own could actually be pro-life and they use every flimsy excuse to erase the facts. Dwain 02:31, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Nice to meet you

IP Check on Sockpuppets[edit]

I thought I'd let you know, I am still working on checking the various IP addresses I was talking about on the DOM page. I'll let you know if I have any sucess. Davidpdx 03:53, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

David, I was pretty sick last weekend and didn't get a chance to do it. However, I put it in just now. I guess I was hoping things would calm down and it wouldn't be necessary. It looks like that is not the case. Here are the usernames/IP adresses I had him check:

User:Johnski, User:Wiki-Facts, User:KAJ, SamuelSpade, User:207.47.122.10, User:202.162.66.158, User:12.202.45.74, User:67.124.49.20, User:63.164.145.198, User:71.130.204.74, User:66.245.247.37, User:208.57.91.27, User:68.123.207.17

Arbitration accepted[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/jguk 2 has been accepted. Please place evidence at /Evidence Fred Bauder 14:01, 22 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Car Accident Secrets Book Review[edit]

This is censorship at it's finest. I gave a book review and followed the format of Chicken Soup for the Soul. The "admin" keeps deleting the entry. This does not make Wikipedia an open community, it makes it a censored one. You might as well have the gestapo running it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.37.164.205 (talk • contribs)

minor vandal section on recent vand[edit]

Did some surfing and found where it was added... [2]

I'd go in and move stuff around (I assume everything "minor" should be ip low), but I'd feel better if someone who was an admin did it. I don't want someone 6 months down the line saying "OMG SYRTHISS VANDALIZED THE ViP PAGE AND REMOVED AN ENTIRE CATEGORY!11!" =D

Cheers, --Syrthiss 18:56, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello[edit]

Hi nice admin! That picture on your page is cool. The baby looks so happy and content!! --216.191.200.1 20:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. Have a good day! --216.191.200.1 20:20, 25 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VIP[edit]

Nice work at Vandalism in progress. I came here to suggest something: for those users who are indefinitely blocked, could you just delist them from the WP:VIP page? That will help to reduce the clutter and make it more effective to use, much like WP:AIAV works. Titoxd(?!?) 05:22, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, we noticed it on CVU, so you might want to rattle our talk page to get more opinions. Titoxd(?!?) 17:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


Reverts on DOM page[edit]

I've reverted the page multiple times today and reported User:Wiki-Facts for a 3RR violation. However, I can't revert it again for awhile or I myself will get one. Please keep an eye on this for me for awhile. Thanks... Davidpdx 04:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. I've ben adding new content to the above article, but Wiki-Facts is currently on a frenzy of vandalism to delete anything he doesn't like and insert his bizarre POV into it. If you could keep an eye on things and revert to the most recent version by me it would be appreciated. --Gene_poole 07:26, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spam management[edit]

Could you let me know if you could keep an eye on this Wikipedian? --216.191.200.1 12:46, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilante[edit]

Why don't you just follow the rules instead? You do recognize that while this behavior bothers you, protecting the Wiki is considered a value around here, not an undesirable thing. Jdavidb talk • contribs 14:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Dear David, Yes, I do agree that protecting Wikipedia is good through vigilance, and that should be included in the definition, but where am I not following the rules, lately? As I learn the rules, I follow them. I do admit that I am a slow learner, but have come a long ways. The real issue is Davidpdx's refusal to let the article become more unbiased. You and he haven't shown the slighest interest in doing that. I actually admire Davidpdx's Wikilantism on the one hand, but feel that he has gone overboard on the other. You and he claim sock-puppetry of me, and I have offered to reveal my IP address in good faith, if you agree to also, and I'll go first if you agree. Why have you not accepted my invitation? Other than having different religious backgrounds, you and I would probably see eye to eye in many other matters. Please see my comments on context and irony on the DOM talk page. Sincerely,Johnski 16:59, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Because he would rather make up his own rules, rather then follow those of Wikipedia. I guess whatever gives him his jollies. I'd be interested in seeing the text of the page he posted. It might be interesting to use against him in mediation or arbitration. Davidpdx 11:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dear Davids, the text of the Wikilante article is on my user talk page and it doesn't mention either of you by name. You can also seach Wikipedia for Wikilante, then look at deleted. The reason that I've asked for mediation with only you, Davidpdx, is that, I believe Gene Poole, if you aren't his sock-puppet is less capable of mediation, and I have more hope that you are a person of a higher sense of right, whereas, Poole seems like a manipulator, with an agenda that can't be changed. Probably the way you feel about me. However, I may seek arbitration with him later. While Davidb hasn't shown any sign of friendliness and is biased by his religious background, he hasn't gone over the line as you have. I may have to read his past publications again to see if he has lacked Wikiquette, but I don't feel that he has become a Wikilante yet. I strongly believe that you both are hiding something since you will not published your IP addresses. Why should you have to? Because you accused me. If you hadn't accused me of multiple personalities, I wouldn't be in a position to demand your good faith in this regard. That's just how I see it. Sincerely,Johnski 05:29, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

71.112.115.22[edit]

Hi jdavidb. I noticed you left a message on User:71.112.115.22's talk page. I am reasonably sure that it is a bot. Both it and 131.107.0.80 (that I have noticed so far) go up and down the year pages "fixing" things. I've never got a response from messages left on either of their talk pages.

Weird edits aside, I guess I wanted to say that its unlikely you will get a response from 71.112.115.22. --Syrthiss 19:43, 27 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What about 71.112.4.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)? -- Smjg 11:50, 11 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!![edit]

I know, I felt bad for abandoning you, my vandalfighting comrade, but I have had a hellaciously busy two weeks and am only just now unburying myself from the mound of work I've had to deal with. (Today I've been working for .... 10 hrs and counting!) Looking forward to easing off the throttle tomorrow. Not many spare seconds to sneak in some edits, how dare they! · Katefan0(scribble) 00:03, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To Do List[edit]

Thanks for the help on my to do list. Did you happen to see the latest note on my talk page from Johnski? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidpdx (talk • contribs) 2005-10-28 19:02:47

Sure did. We might actually need to move through mediation to start escalating this to the point where it can receive the attention it needs and be addressed.
Any results on that sockpuppet check? My newfound banning powers would love to lend their service to making the argument with Johnski as coherent as possible by shutting off his alternate personalities. Jdavidb [[talk • contribs]] 19:14, 28 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Davidb, thanks for giving him good advice to accept mediation, but sorry to see that you still believe I am schizophrenic. Is it so hard to believe, that as popular a subject as micronation, combined with the massive publicity DOM has received over the years, that there would be more than one person interested in this subject, that also see the lack of balance in the article? Sincerely,Johnski 06:11, 29 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that may be true. In fact, if you look at my talk page, Johnski is now threatening to take me to arbitration because I am refusing to participate in mediation with him. Everything that comes out of his mouth is a lie, including misrepresenting trying to misrepresent the arbitration process itself. I guess that's what happens when you know it all.
I pointed out to him that in fact there are several users that have a problem with him, not just me. Of course he won't admit it, he's making it out to be a problem solely between him and I rather then several people against him. I guess that's what happens with you enjoy twisting the truth. Davidpdx 11:04, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Sweetie![edit]

Thank you for fixin' "my" typo ... I'll be sure to watch that fro now on! --Carradee 01:30, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation[edit]

Hi Jdavidb - I think I may need your help in the future regarding a copyright violation another Wikipedian spotted at Crossoff Incorporated. Would it be possible for you to give me a hand if I receive a response from the user? I may not be able to do everything myself during the next few days. I left a message here, and if you get a chance, could you also check the content of that page for more details? Please let me know if you can help out. Thanks a lot! --HappyCamper 02:50, 30 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that. Oh, a little thing...I think your signature is missing a set of nowiki tags :-) --HappyCamper 00:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From my talk page

Excuse me for intruding upon your discussion, but did you know you can check the Raw signatures box in your preferences to get rid of that extra ]]? —Ilmari Karonen :-) 00:41, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yup :-) --> I'm gonna paste this over to his talk page. :-) --HappyCamper 00:56, 1 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Block of 204.209.247.2[edit]

Thanks for blocking the vandal at 204.209.247.2. Unfortunately, I doubt it will help. The IP address belongs to a school division and administrators at that school division has stated that they see no value whatsoever in the Wikipedia and they believe the edit this page button on each article page specifically encourages and accepts vandalism. They have no intention of taking any action to prevent the vandalism. Virtually every single edit from this user for almost a year has been garbage. Occasionally, the user is blocked but then the vandalism continues as soon as the block expires. Very frustrating. --Yamla 22:35, 31 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Diwali[edit]

Tamaso ma jyotir gamaya ( Lead me from darkness to light.)
Wish you Happy Diwali
- P R A D E E P Somani (talk)
Feel free to send me e-mail.

JDavidb - you're the man[edit]

Hey JDavidb. I want you to know how much I appreciate your work on the church of Christ article and linkspam. You have inspired me to take a Wikichainsaw to linkspam as well. Danlovejoy 04:29, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Alito family caption[edit]

The (R), (L), and (C) refer to right, left, and centre...their positions in the pic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rorschach (talk • contribs) 2005-11-02 16:58:25

Bokak atoll[edit]

I think the first step is to protect the page, which I've done. It might take weeks for him to come to the Talk: page, but it can stay protected till then; let's hope he does. Jayjg (talk) 23:30, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't realized that he had done this on so many pages. I'd have no issue with blocking him for trolling, if he starts it up again on another page. Jayjg (talk) 23:52, 2 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Lilian Bernas[edit]

Thanks for pointing that out. When I googled, I think I mispelled Lilian with 2 l's and didn't see the references. Glad you caught that! .:.Jareth.:. babelfish 21:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

3RR[edit]

Jdavidb, if you have a chance would you mind taking a look at this: WP:AN/3RR#User:FuelWagon. Thanks. Jayjg (talk) 02:18, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would never suggest anyone try to read the whole thing - that way lies insanity... Jayjg (talk) 03:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

blocking - Bidding the evil of the hateful Jews[edit]

So as typical they used a christian to do their evil deed :)

It reminds me of the BBC report about a statement made by Sharon the criminal - something to the effect - "We control america by proxy"...

You have blocked my account, even though I didn't revert any body's work. Rather my words were reverted by hateful zioinst jews. In steady - as a typical westerner - you block me.

This double standard can't continue nor would it last. That is the nature of the world. Justice will eventually prevail. Evil, silencing others, torture and bullykng can't win and will never win.

aabaas

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Aabaas (talk • contribs) 2005-11-04 06:52:51

DOM Page/Headers[edit]

David, I saw your note to Johnski on the DOM page. I'd caution you against trying to negotiate with him. The reason being is he has in the past manipulated things I've said to try to show that he had consensus when he in fact didn't. I think your probably aware of this. Also, he is trying to weaken the case against him in mediation or if it goes that far arbitration. We need to stick together on this one.

Also saw your note on my talk page about the headers. I'll try to not mess with them as much as I have. I was trying to clean up the page and make it more readable. Maybe it was just making the talk page more confusing, instead of helping. Davidpdx 04:20, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a note left for Davidpdx: Who the hell are you to call me sockpuppet? You dudes might want to read more carefully. Just looked at Taongi talk and what Johnski wrote is that there is consensus on the DoM article about Taongi's Iroijlaplap granting a lease to it. Where has he or I ever claim other consensus on points that there is no consensus for? Put up or shut up! SamuelSpade 05:34, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: Micronation Infobox[edit]

An info box template has recently been created by myself and O^O for use in Wikipedia articles about micronations and other unrecognised entities, to address longstanding concerns and edit wars that have resulted from the inappropriate use of the standard country infobox in these types of articles.

This new info box has so far been successfully incorporated into the following articles: Sealand, Republic of Rose Island, Independent State of Aramoana, Empire of Atlantium, Avram and Province of Bumbunga, and it is intended to incorporate it into most of the other articles in the micronation category in due course.

However, one editor, Samboy has suggested that the micronation infobox should be excluded from Empire of Atlantium on the grounds that the article is "not notable" and because only 22% of micronation articles in Wikipedia currently have the info box (ie because the info box project is not yet complete).

As someone who has contributed to similar discussions in the past, I thought this might interest you. I have instituted a poll on this subject here, and invite you to review it if you are so inclined.

Thanks. --Gene_poole 06:17, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My personal issue with Gene Poole's action is that there is a conflict of interest here. One of the first micronations he added this infobox to is, conveniently enough, his own micronation. And, while he sets up a poll about whether we should add the template to the article, he did not mention the poll in WP:RFC, which is the best way to make the poll visible to people who have never been involved in the issue. Instead, he posts the existence of the poll on the user pages of a number of users who he feels are symphathetic to his micronation. User:Tony Sidaway has felt that this kind of campaigning is dishonest. Samboy 07:21, 7 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Arbitration[edit]

You have been requested to appear as a plantiff an arbitration case. Comments have been added on your behalf. If you wish to add comments please contact me. Here is a link to the case [3] Davidpdx

Arbitration accepted[edit]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Johnski has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Johnski/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be made at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Johnski/Workshop. Fred Bauder 04:06, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I read your blog![edit]

I bet you didn't know you had readers, eh? Anyway, I thought I would mention that <noinclude/> works when templates are transcluded but not when they are used with subst: Demi T/C 17:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Fred Bauder thread[edit]

The thread on Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration regarding the Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Fred_Bauder has long since ceased to be productive. May I suggest a cooling off period with regards to that thread and that any follow up discussions be take to individual talk pages. FuelWagon 02:30, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

good job. FuelWagon 19:51, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, David. First, thanks for your support on my RfA. I have a feeling that I don't actually meet your standards, although I've lost the address of the page on which you posted them (and on which I posted mine). As far as I remember, it was one of your requirements that a candidate be here for at least a year, or you may even have said eighteen months. Anyway, I've only been here since April, so it's flattering that you made an exception in my case.

Regarding the Fred Bauder issue, the RfAr page is on my watchlist, so I saw your name popping up several times yesterday when I refreshed the page, but didn't go in and examine the thread in detail. Nevertheless, in my view, this proves that I was right to vote for you at the time of your RfA – not that I ever had any doubt. If mine goes through, which is looking increasingly likely at this stage, I hope that I'll similarly live up to your standards. Cheers. Ann Heneghan (talk) 23:31, 17 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Talk Page[edit]

I have created a special arbitration talk page. This is to discuss what evidence we want as a group and to present and make recommendations before putting them on the arbitration page. Please feel free to make suggestions here:[4] Davidpdx 07:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I have begun to post evidence. Hopefully some of you can help me a bit with this. It's turning out to be a lot of work. Davidpdx 10:40, 25 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

ASV, pt. 2[edit]

We chatted about the American Standard Version a while back, wishing about how good it would be if the text were corrected. There is an effort between the folks at eBible.org and ASV1901.com to proofread the ASV text. It's not a wiki, but it's a start (the eBible website has the latest version of the ASV for download). - Thanks, Hoshie | North Carolina flag 03:12, 22 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Noahide Laws in Category:Jewish Christian topics ?[edit]

There is a dispute over whether Noahide Laws should be included in this category, anyone with an opinion is asked to express it here: Talk:Noahide_Laws#Jewish_Christian_topics —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.78.20.99 (talk • contribs) 2005-11-26 08:53:21

Category:Pro-life_celebrities[edit]

Hello again. Thanks for your (fairly) recent message I've just discovered that the above category is being voted on for deletion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion. Since I understand that you created it, I think somebody should have told you. I think someone did inform people who had added a category for Category:Pro-Life_Wikipedians to their user pages, but you don't seem to have done that. I've just added it to my page[5]. There's also a vote on the same page for deleting Category:Pro-life_politicians. By the way, I don't feel passionately about whether those categories should be kept or not, but I felt you should know about it anyway. Cheers from a friend with a new username! AnnH (talk) 12:24, 29 November 2005 (UTC) (P.S. This is the real message – I accidentally hit the wrong button a moment ago!)[reply]

Last Call[edit]

Ok guys, this is a last call for evidence. No one has posted evidence besides myself. At the end of this week, I'm going to let the Arbitration Committee know that we are done.

When recommendations are made, I will need you guys to check in and sign on that you agree with them. Otherwise this will be all for not. I intend on asking for a six month ban for Johnski from Wikipedia as well as 1 year probation from editing DOM related articles. Davidpdx 01:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Church of Christ Link Policy[edit]

Hi! I'd like to point editors to the Church of Christ Talk Page to finalize a policy on links. Would you mind weighing in on the current language and editing, or giving a yeah or nay vote? Thanks! Danlovejoy 20:22, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

poop[edit]

u smell —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.232.148.104 (talk • contribs) 2005-12-07 17:48:06

poop[edit]

Arbcom Comments[edit]

Thanks for posting evidence in the arbitration case. It certainly helps having someone else show the pattern of disruption besides just me. I'm really disappointed no one else helped. Hopefully, in the end they will rule in our favor. I don't know if you saw what I asked the Arbitration Committee for in terms of punishement. For Johnski and KAJ, 6 month ban from Wikipedia and 1 year ban from DOM related articles. SamSpade 1 year ban from KOM related articles. Hopefully they will take that seriously. Well I guess now we will just wait and see what happens. Please keep an eye on this as it goes through voting. Davidpdx 05:46, 10 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

my user page[edit]

Dear Jdavidb, I've responded to your comments on my user page. Please respond to my questions there and the ones you've ignored at or near the heading above entitle, Church of Christ, Scientist. Cordially, Johnski 20:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Jdavidb, I posed it as a question not a statement? Isn't it normal for members of your church to hate Christian Science? Do you love Christian Science? Do you have a NPOV about it? It is relevant to the subject, because the Melchizedek Bible claims to be based on the writings of Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of CS, and the DOM claims to be based on the principles of the Melchizedek Bible. You've made negative comments above about the religion of DOM, making it more than relevant. You also know that I am a Christian Scientist. Can you honestly say that none of this clouds your judgment? Can you give honest answers to my questions posed to you above under the heading, Church of Christ, Scientist, regarding it and DOM? Sincerely, Johnski 22:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Signpost[edit]

Posting here because you had requested to know when the Signpost was updated. By next week, I should have a system for handling these notices, and (optionally) e-mailing users when the Signpost is updated. Ral315 (talk) 05:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spam project[edit]

Is there any particular reason why Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam is living in your userspace? Is the project going inactive, or should we just move the real page into Wikipedia: space? Let me know, and I can delete the redirect to make way. -- Beland 21:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Huh. Well, if I make a copy, then there will be two versions, and they will slowly diverge and generally cause confusion. If, for some reason, you wanted to keep the page in your userspace, that's fine. Usually these sorts of pages go into Wikipedia: space so that it becomes a sort of community thing, so people don't feel uncomfortable modifying or joining it, and it will continue on even after you leave (assuming it lives that long). And of course you can continue to participate or lead the effort as you like. -- Beland 21:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, will move as requested. -- Beland 22:05, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Vandals added the change. I'm not sure how. Help![edit]

Thanks for your POV comment. I didn't do it. I will look and see where it occurred and report back.--Beth Wellington 22:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC) (By the way my signature went astray. Delete it if you find it. This is my first post. --Beth Wellington 22:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I looked it up. This change was made by http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Stanley_Williams&oldid=31373043#Aftermath. It was reversed to my version and then somehow reintroduced! This doesn't even resemble my style of writing.

This type of censorship makes me sick[edit]

Vote to keep, show these hypocrites what's what, tolerance? ha, only when it's good for them--Diatrobica;l 23:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just to let you know, I responded to your question at the afd page. Diatronica;l contacted all of the people he found at Category:Conservative Wikipedians to vote for keep. I think his resoning is fairly understandable, but then, I voted delete so what do I know. Regards Smmurphy(Talk) 23:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
S/he appears to be spamming Category:Conservative Wikipedians - Guettarda 23:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • BLOCKING THAT USER IS AN UNJUST ACT OF WIKINAISM!!! PLEASE RESTRAIN YOUR HATE SPEECH TENDENCIES AND UNBLOCK HIM!!! VALUBLE ASSET TO THE ENCYCLOPEDIA!--Halopinacka 00:05, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Halopinacka (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Howdy[edit]

Sent ya an email.--MONGO 01:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration Proposed Decision[edit]

Just to make everyone aware, arbitrators have begun to write the proposed decision in the arbitration case. You can view the decision here:[6].

So far no punative measures have been offered to solve the problems regarding the behavior of those involved. I strongly urge people to post comments asking for a stronger proposed decision from the Arbitration Committee. Otherwise, this will be all for nothing. We need to lobby them to get a ban on users as well as having them banned from editing certain articles for a period of time. There needs to be a clear message to those involved to stop reverting the article. Your comments can be left here: [7].

I know this is a busy season for everyone, but this will only take a few minutes. We need to deal with this now. If not, this problem will continue to disrupt Wikipedia. Davidpdx 00:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments on the proposed decision talk page. It seems like we need to try to keep the pressure on to get the arbitration committee to make the sanctions stronger. I'm a little surprised Johnski hasn't been anywhere to be found lately (short of the reverts). I am sure he's probably lurking waiting to disrupt the arbitration hearing at some point. I will try to continue to keep a close eye on the pages and keep everyone updated. Davidpdx 06:59, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More Melchizedek nonsense[edit]

Hi. I wonder if you could keep an eye on the Melchizedek entry in the micronation article. I've just edited it to remove the weasel wording the Johnski previously inserted there in an attempt to confuse things, and of course he keeps reverting my change. I've already reverted it 3 times today. I've added a comment at the bottom of the discussion page concerning this. --Gene_poole 00:54, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Need your help[edit]

Editor's contributions singled out for his faith, please help keep this notable article--172.159.25.124 16:42, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of my talk page. Please do not modify it. If you would like to comment about anything on this page, please use my talk page. No further edits should be made to this page.
More