Welcome!
Hello, Tznkai/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
Dave (talk) 02:03, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
PS thanks for cleaning up the Reagan vandalism.
Hi, welcome to wikipedia. You seem to be a rather nice and sane person, let's see how you do on the wiki too! :-)
Kim Bruning 21:34, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for supporting my candidacy for administrator. Kelly Martin 15:12, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
Robert consistently remove facts from reliable sources. His personal opinions are unreference and often out of date. He is not an expert in this field but he consistently remove quotes by the leading experts Gallo, Fauci, Weiss and others.
I am not an AIDS denialist and resent this ad hominum attack.
We should be discussing the article!
Fred2005 14:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Just thought I'd let you know - subpages are case sensitive. I've corrected the template call on the VFD page. Cheers, Alphax τ ε χ 14:45, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hi. Sorry for getting snippy and inflamatory on the vfd page. I tend to get defensive of my articles. I appreciate your open-mindedness on the topic, and willingness to be persuaded by contrary arguments - those are the marks of a great contributor. Cheers. -- BD2412 talk 01:46, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
Perhaps you should consider that dispute resolution doesn't magically happen simply because you "excise" a section from an article and ask everyone to talk about it. Maybe that's all well and good when you're dealing with rational users. The AIDS article is under attack by conspiracy theorists. You are relatively new to both the article and to Wikipedia, so perhaps you haven't realized this yet. Rhobite 16:41, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
Sorry for messing things up in editing this section. Gone for today. Str1977 22:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No problem. Been a little frustrated, i've been working on that article all day. sorry if I seemed snappy-- Tznkai 22:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That's all right. I think it's difficult to walk the fine line between reducing and including. Also thanks for deleting the cynicism section on religion and abortion - I reduced it considerably a few weeks ago, cutting out, well, quite cynic language, and cut it down the things actually saying something about the issue. However, I didn't dare deleting it all, lest I be accused of "religious imperialism" or something like that. So thanks. Str1977 07:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You're welcome, although it may be premature... but always nice to know I'm doing something useful around here. :-D - Roy Boy 800 23:52, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I see 3RRs on Intelligent design. I got it from here for a couple hours. Can you report this? I haven't had too before.-- ghost 20:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You wrote: Glanced over your bit on the talk page about presenting ID as a philisophical idea. I'd like to work with you on this, while I, llke the majority of the eitors detest ID as a scientific theory, I personaly subscribe to the general concept philosphically (stacked deck). I think it'd be an intresting article to write on. Any ideas?
Thanks for your kind words of support on my RFA nearly a month ago. I appreciated the compliment you left, and I am trying to keep living up to it in my dealings with other editors. Unfortunately a sad event occurred at that time in my family, and I have not been able to participate in Wikipedia as much as I would like. I hope to get back to active contribution soon. Thanks again! FreplySpang (talk) 01:27, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I was wondering what exactly you objected to in my revised intro for the intelligent design article. You deleted the whole thing, when I'm sure there were some parts that even you could have seen as accurate (especially on the philosophy of science, etc.)
Micah Fitch 28 June 2005 19:53 (UTC)
ok then, if it doesnt go there, where DOES it go?
i think it should go wherei put it because it has some relevencey to where the notion comes from. Gabrielsimon 3 July 2005 03:57 (UTC)
Thanks. It wasn't really revert, more like step-by-step removal. But I get your point, perhaps I should have just reverted once. I am sure you will agree as you seem fair in your edits so far. Thanks for warning me though. Anonymous editor July 3, 2005 04:32 (UTC)
Not only would it be beyond boring if we always agreed with each other, but little would be accomplished as well I think. It's by challenging each other that arrive at the best articles, don't you agree? Big thanks for all your hard work and keeping a cool head on a genuine hot-button topic. Lesser editors would have descended into rants long ago... And a genuine heart-felt thanks for the kind words left on my talk page, that was absolutely uncalled for... and I do so appreciate it. Thanks again. FeloniousMonk 4 July 2005 02:32 (UTC)
Did you eat my comment deliberatly? And RPA makes me very nervous.-- Tznkai 5 July 2005 05:29 (UTC)
I deleted a redirect you created that went from article space to your userspace. They're generally discouraged. Best wishes and happy editing, Meelar (talk) July 6, 2005 15:56 (UTC)
I appreciate your suggestions. FW reverts everything I do. I agree, the article is not about the design argument, so why is it introduced as Aquinas's fifth proof? That's what I was trying to change. Can you just change the language rather than a full revert? David Bergan 6 July 2005 16:45 (UTC)
Yeah, that's pretty much how I read Dembski on this. I'm making another run at it, and keeping the Aquinas reference. This should be more in line with the comments you raised. David Bergan 6 July 2005 16:55 (UTC)
I agree, this is getting to be a lot more fun since you and started seeing eye-to-eye. Maybe we should hash some issues out on our talk pages or through email where there is less noise. It sure is interesting stuff once you get past this mentality FW expresses where he doesn't seem to want to give ID a gram of credibility. We wields concepts like observation/intuition/repeatability/a priori/etc around without fully thinking how they apply to other things in science. The claim that natural selection gave rise to different phylums is not observable or repeatable, but most would consider it scientific. Again, it seems more like forensic science to me, though, and the rules are slightly different.
Or consider the term "irreducible complexity". FW says it's an a priori concept. And it is... you make the definition and then see what things fall into that category. But the term "mammal" is also an a priori concept. You make the def and then apply it to monkeys, porcupines, kangaroos, and platipi. Either way you make up the classification first.
Anyway, I would love to discuss these philosophy of science issues if you're interested. David Bergan 7 July 2005 21:17 (UTC)
Re:
If you and David Bergan want to start secret correspondence about ID, fine. If the two of you want to discuss how moronic I am, go for it. I see you've already started some of it above. Whatever. But if you're going to make the article suffer because you don't like my tone, then you have lost sight of the point. Articles must be useful and informative. Everything else is secondary. Goethean was being a righteous ass, and his question that is answered in the article showed he was ubstructing for no valid reason other than to be right. he also changed the intro and put "critics claim" in front of facts four times. [1] [2] [3] [4] and then he reports me for 3rr violation [5]. Apparently he feels he can violate 3RR, but I can't. He then refutes facts with "that's your opinion" [6] apparently his opinion is simply right and logic doesn't matter. he quotes the last half of a sentence, ignoring that the first half completely changes the meaning [7] and gets in my face about it. And you want me to apologize to him? Nice to see you being "neutral" in the midst of the storm. FuelWagon 7 July 2005 23:12 (UTC)
I remain surprised that you object to my behavior. It is FuelWagon who feels no responsibility to respond to anyone in an adult manner, and until that changes, I see no reason to show him any more respect than he does to others. -- goethean ॐ 8 July 2005 14:31 (UTC)
I've tried to be very specific with him now, let's hope he can be pinned down to something concrete. Jayjg (talk) 8 July 2005 17:52 (UTC)
You might want to read what Haiduc recently posted about you and the debate in Homosexuality on the Wikipedia:LGBT notice board: aside from the insulting description, he's also mobilizing the base for action (i.e., the local LGBT posse which attempts to control articles on these subjects). For his edit, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia%3ALGBT_notice_board&diff=18575293&oldid=18508904
That's awesome. I'll admit it, I have a CS Lewis fetish... I own nearly everything he has written, including diaries and personal letters. Here's how I rank the books in your new collection:
David Bergan 17:04, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
My edit fixed the numbering. No, Clive didn't do formal logic, but that doesn't mean his arguments are illogical. I find his reasoning to be completely legit. I would even go so far as to say that there isn't a single opinion he shares in his books that I don't hold myself. My father read the Narnia books to me as a child, but I should go through them again now that the movies are coming out. How much CS have you read? David Bergan 17:56, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
You are receiving this notice due to a consideration that has come up during a VFD for the article Comunleng. As there was no clear consensus in Comunleng's previous VfD, it has been nominated again. Please see Votes for deletion/Comunleng 2 for comments. The Literate Engineer 23:43, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Can you please take a look at the editor's poll I posted at the Jihad talk page here? BrandonYusufToropov 15:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
[ [10]]
The information was too detailed for the intro, and belonged, if anywhere, in the Historicity article. Remember, it's an intro - the scope of the argument was already covered, and specific scholars and their poisitions are brought in more detailed sections/articles. Jayjg (talk) 17:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, but your insulting revert of the talk page rather than just repairing the glitch has shown me you're nothing but a POV warrior in sheep's clothing. Feel free to prove me wrong, but I doubt you will, you're just another BYT crony. Existentializer 18:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
It has been like this for months and months on end. There are a couple of us trying to sort through the mess. You may (or may not) be interested in the disposition of the case of User:Enviroknot. (aka User:KaintheScion).
After such a proceeding, and such a result, one outcome is that the person goes away and obeys the ban. That is not, alas, the only possible outcome. BrandonYusufToropov 22:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Tznkai: Please see the VfD on
List of purported cults. I have participated heavily in this article, but now I am siding with supporting deletion. I think that it is being used as a way to throw mud at religious groups that are not mainstream and thus inherently POV. Read and vote if you wish at
Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/List_of_purported_cults/2 I think that it is an important precedent in regard to many lists in Wikipedia and their ability to attain NPOV. Thanks.--
ZappaZ
04:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
"If I see him being an asshole, I'll toss him up on RFC too." [11]
No, problem, here you go: [12]. This RFC should be a slam dunk for you; Sam calling me an "asshole" is by definition a personal attack, as opposed my demanding an apology and identifying the hypocrisy of his failing to refrain from abuse. Let me know if you need help drafting it. FeloniousMonk 18:12, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Hey! You're online, but not on IRC! Care to log in? Kim Bruning 20:24, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Hi there! In an effort to make the article here on AIDS the best possible before trying to submit it as a " Featured Article", I've looked up some active submitters in the last month or so and found you. Please, take a little time to go by the AIDS article and it's Talk page to see how you can help. One rather large source of confusion and complication, the References/External Links section, has just been cleaned and polished, thus your experience should be much more tolerable in general ;).
AIDS is a very serious world wide issue; never before have we needed to spread AIDS education as much as we do now. We need as many people as possible working together to make this article on AIDS the best it can be. Hope to see your contributions soon! JoeSmack (talk) 17:53, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
... fairly serious ones, I'm afraid, necessitate a wiki-break. You're doing a superb job, and I'm very very grateful to you for all the help. Prayers, please; Godwilling I'll be back eventually. BrandonYusufToropov 15:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
If I can I am up for it. Write me an email, SqueakBox 17:52, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
Because I am convinced you seek a non-POV presentation in articles, I hope you will leap over to wikiquote. I have been active there, and (shocker) the editors there invented a slate of unique rules for the abortion page designed to shield abortion advocacy from the statements made by their own leaders. I hope you will weigh in there assist the editors there to treat the topic like any other - no special rules that obfuscate facts. 214.13.4.151 15:42, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Tznkai, could you take a look at the talk section of the IC page? Duncharris is reverting edits like he owns the place, and I don't think he has logical grounds for doing so. [14] Thanks. David Bergan 18:34, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Can it wait 12 hours? Of course. In my opinion, real life always trumps wikipedia. David Bergan 18:44, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
True story. I got engaged on July 15... looking to have the wedding on Dec 31 or sometime in January. I'll link some pictures of us from my user page. David Bergan 19:21, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
I see that you have issued something that you call a "warning" to Zeno on his talkpage. Personally, after reading the discussion, I can't see that Zeno has made any uncivil remarks and he has obviously explained all of his actions on the Template talk:Islam, this unlike some of his opponents there. Could you please substantiate your claims and provide some evidence, before making any allegations? Or maybe you should just stick to (and start to respect) Wikipedia's policies regarding assume good faith? Your uncivil remarks labeling Zeno's edits as "ugly" [15] on the Template talk:Islam are not very helpful eighter. Please cease and desist. -- Karl Meier 09:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Please make your voice heard and "vote" on the deletion of vfd. I was going to put you down in italics as opposing, but I wasn't sure if you objected to the fact or the method. Uncle Ed 21:06, August 1, 2005 (UTC)
Welcome!
Hello, Tznkai/Archive 1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a
Wikipedian! Please
sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out
Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}}
on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!
Dave (talk) 02:03, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
PS thanks for cleaning up the Reagan vandalism.
Hi, welcome to wikipedia. You seem to be a rather nice and sane person, let's see how you do on the wiki too! :-)
Kim Bruning 21:34, 25 May 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for supporting my candidacy for administrator. Kelly Martin 15:12, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)
Robert consistently remove facts from reliable sources. His personal opinions are unreference and often out of date. He is not an expert in this field but he consistently remove quotes by the leading experts Gallo, Fauci, Weiss and others.
I am not an AIDS denialist and resent this ad hominum attack.
We should be discussing the article!
Fred2005 14:44, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Just thought I'd let you know - subpages are case sensitive. I've corrected the template call on the VFD page. Cheers, Alphax τ ε χ 14:45, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Hi. Sorry for getting snippy and inflamatory on the vfd page. I tend to get defensive of my articles. I appreciate your open-mindedness on the topic, and willingness to be persuaded by contrary arguments - those are the marks of a great contributor. Cheers. -- BD2412 talk 01:46, 2005 Jun 15 (UTC)
Perhaps you should consider that dispute resolution doesn't magically happen simply because you "excise" a section from an article and ask everyone to talk about it. Maybe that's all well and good when you're dealing with rational users. The AIDS article is under attack by conspiracy theorists. You are relatively new to both the article and to Wikipedia, so perhaps you haven't realized this yet. Rhobite 16:41, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)
Sorry for messing things up in editing this section. Gone for today. Str1977 22:19, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
No problem. Been a little frustrated, i've been working on that article all day. sorry if I seemed snappy-- Tznkai 22:21, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
That's all right. I think it's difficult to walk the fine line between reducing and including. Also thanks for deleting the cynicism section on religion and abortion - I reduced it considerably a few weeks ago, cutting out, well, quite cynic language, and cut it down the things actually saying something about the issue. However, I didn't dare deleting it all, lest I be accused of "religious imperialism" or something like that. So thanks. Str1977 07:54, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You're welcome, although it may be premature... but always nice to know I'm doing something useful around here. :-D - Roy Boy 800 23:52, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I see 3RRs on Intelligent design. I got it from here for a couple hours. Can you report this? I haven't had too before.-- ghost 20:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You wrote: Glanced over your bit on the talk page about presenting ID as a philisophical idea. I'd like to work with you on this, while I, llke the majority of the eitors detest ID as a scientific theory, I personaly subscribe to the general concept philosphically (stacked deck). I think it'd be an intresting article to write on. Any ideas?
Thanks for your kind words of support on my RFA nearly a month ago. I appreciated the compliment you left, and I am trying to keep living up to it in my dealings with other editors. Unfortunately a sad event occurred at that time in my family, and I have not been able to participate in Wikipedia as much as I would like. I hope to get back to active contribution soon. Thanks again! FreplySpang (talk) 01:27, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I was wondering what exactly you objected to in my revised intro for the intelligent design article. You deleted the whole thing, when I'm sure there were some parts that even you could have seen as accurate (especially on the philosophy of science, etc.)
Micah Fitch 28 June 2005 19:53 (UTC)
ok then, if it doesnt go there, where DOES it go?
i think it should go wherei put it because it has some relevencey to where the notion comes from. Gabrielsimon 3 July 2005 03:57 (UTC)
Thanks. It wasn't really revert, more like step-by-step removal. But I get your point, perhaps I should have just reverted once. I am sure you will agree as you seem fair in your edits so far. Thanks for warning me though. Anonymous editor July 3, 2005 04:32 (UTC)
Not only would it be beyond boring if we always agreed with each other, but little would be accomplished as well I think. It's by challenging each other that arrive at the best articles, don't you agree? Big thanks for all your hard work and keeping a cool head on a genuine hot-button topic. Lesser editors would have descended into rants long ago... And a genuine heart-felt thanks for the kind words left on my talk page, that was absolutely uncalled for... and I do so appreciate it. Thanks again. FeloniousMonk 4 July 2005 02:32 (UTC)
Did you eat my comment deliberatly? And RPA makes me very nervous.-- Tznkai 5 July 2005 05:29 (UTC)
I deleted a redirect you created that went from article space to your userspace. They're generally discouraged. Best wishes and happy editing, Meelar (talk) July 6, 2005 15:56 (UTC)
I appreciate your suggestions. FW reverts everything I do. I agree, the article is not about the design argument, so why is it introduced as Aquinas's fifth proof? That's what I was trying to change. Can you just change the language rather than a full revert? David Bergan 6 July 2005 16:45 (UTC)
Yeah, that's pretty much how I read Dembski on this. I'm making another run at it, and keeping the Aquinas reference. This should be more in line with the comments you raised. David Bergan 6 July 2005 16:55 (UTC)
I agree, this is getting to be a lot more fun since you and started seeing eye-to-eye. Maybe we should hash some issues out on our talk pages or through email where there is less noise. It sure is interesting stuff once you get past this mentality FW expresses where he doesn't seem to want to give ID a gram of credibility. We wields concepts like observation/intuition/repeatability/a priori/etc around without fully thinking how they apply to other things in science. The claim that natural selection gave rise to different phylums is not observable or repeatable, but most would consider it scientific. Again, it seems more like forensic science to me, though, and the rules are slightly different.
Or consider the term "irreducible complexity". FW says it's an a priori concept. And it is... you make the definition and then see what things fall into that category. But the term "mammal" is also an a priori concept. You make the def and then apply it to monkeys, porcupines, kangaroos, and platipi. Either way you make up the classification first.
Anyway, I would love to discuss these philosophy of science issues if you're interested. David Bergan 7 July 2005 21:17 (UTC)
Re:
If you and David Bergan want to start secret correspondence about ID, fine. If the two of you want to discuss how moronic I am, go for it. I see you've already started some of it above. Whatever. But if you're going to make the article suffer because you don't like my tone, then you have lost sight of the point. Articles must be useful and informative. Everything else is secondary. Goethean was being a righteous ass, and his question that is answered in the article showed he was ubstructing for no valid reason other than to be right. he also changed the intro and put "critics claim" in front of facts four times. [1] [2] [3] [4] and then he reports me for 3rr violation [5]. Apparently he feels he can violate 3RR, but I can't. He then refutes facts with "that's your opinion" [6] apparently his opinion is simply right and logic doesn't matter. he quotes the last half of a sentence, ignoring that the first half completely changes the meaning [7] and gets in my face about it. And you want me to apologize to him? Nice to see you being "neutral" in the midst of the storm. FuelWagon 7 July 2005 23:12 (UTC)
I remain surprised that you object to my behavior. It is FuelWagon who feels no responsibility to respond to anyone in an adult manner, and until that changes, I see no reason to show him any more respect than he does to others. -- goethean ॐ 8 July 2005 14:31 (UTC)
I've tried to be very specific with him now, let's hope he can be pinned down to something concrete. Jayjg (talk) 8 July 2005 17:52 (UTC)
You might want to read what Haiduc recently posted about you and the debate in Homosexuality on the Wikipedia:LGBT notice board: aside from the insulting description, he's also mobilizing the base for action (i.e., the local LGBT posse which attempts to control articles on these subjects). For his edit, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia%3ALGBT_notice_board&diff=18575293&oldid=18508904
That's awesome. I'll admit it, I have a CS Lewis fetish... I own nearly everything he has written, including diaries and personal letters. Here's how I rank the books in your new collection:
David Bergan 17:04, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
My edit fixed the numbering. No, Clive didn't do formal logic, but that doesn't mean his arguments are illogical. I find his reasoning to be completely legit. I would even go so far as to say that there isn't a single opinion he shares in his books that I don't hold myself. My father read the Narnia books to me as a child, but I should go through them again now that the movies are coming out. How much CS have you read? David Bergan 17:56, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
You are receiving this notice due to a consideration that has come up during a VFD for the article Comunleng. As there was no clear consensus in Comunleng's previous VfD, it has been nominated again. Please see Votes for deletion/Comunleng 2 for comments. The Literate Engineer 23:43, 16 July 2005 (UTC)
Can you please take a look at the editor's poll I posted at the Jihad talk page here? BrandonYusufToropov 15:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
[ [10]]
The information was too detailed for the intro, and belonged, if anywhere, in the Historicity article. Remember, it's an intro - the scope of the argument was already covered, and specific scholars and their poisitions are brought in more detailed sections/articles. Jayjg (talk) 17:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
I was giving you the benefit of the doubt, but your insulting revert of the talk page rather than just repairing the glitch has shown me you're nothing but a POV warrior in sheep's clothing. Feel free to prove me wrong, but I doubt you will, you're just another BYT crony. Existentializer 18:48, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
It has been like this for months and months on end. There are a couple of us trying to sort through the mess. You may (or may not) be interested in the disposition of the case of User:Enviroknot. (aka User:KaintheScion).
After such a proceeding, and such a result, one outcome is that the person goes away and obeys the ban. That is not, alas, the only possible outcome. BrandonYusufToropov 22:42, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
Tznkai: Please see the VfD on
List of purported cults. I have participated heavily in this article, but now I am siding with supporting deletion. I think that it is being used as a way to throw mud at religious groups that are not mainstream and thus inherently POV. Read and vote if you wish at
Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/List_of_purported_cults/2 I think that it is an important precedent in regard to many lists in Wikipedia and their ability to attain NPOV. Thanks.--
ZappaZ
04:45, 23 July 2005 (UTC)
"If I see him being an asshole, I'll toss him up on RFC too." [11]
No, problem, here you go: [12]. This RFC should be a slam dunk for you; Sam calling me an "asshole" is by definition a personal attack, as opposed my demanding an apology and identifying the hypocrisy of his failing to refrain from abuse. Let me know if you need help drafting it. FeloniousMonk 18:12, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Hey! You're online, but not on IRC! Care to log in? Kim Bruning 20:24, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Hi there! In an effort to make the article here on AIDS the best possible before trying to submit it as a " Featured Article", I've looked up some active submitters in the last month or so and found you. Please, take a little time to go by the AIDS article and it's Talk page to see how you can help. One rather large source of confusion and complication, the References/External Links section, has just been cleaned and polished, thus your experience should be much more tolerable in general ;).
AIDS is a very serious world wide issue; never before have we needed to spread AIDS education as much as we do now. We need as many people as possible working together to make this article on AIDS the best it can be. Hope to see your contributions soon! JoeSmack (talk) 17:53, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
... fairly serious ones, I'm afraid, necessitate a wiki-break. You're doing a superb job, and I'm very very grateful to you for all the help. Prayers, please; Godwilling I'll be back eventually. BrandonYusufToropov 15:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
If I can I am up for it. Write me an email, SqueakBox 17:52, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
Because I am convinced you seek a non-POV presentation in articles, I hope you will leap over to wikiquote. I have been active there, and (shocker) the editors there invented a slate of unique rules for the abortion page designed to shield abortion advocacy from the statements made by their own leaders. I hope you will weigh in there assist the editors there to treat the topic like any other - no special rules that obfuscate facts. 214.13.4.151 15:42, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Tznkai, could you take a look at the talk section of the IC page? Duncharris is reverting edits like he owns the place, and I don't think he has logical grounds for doing so. [14] Thanks. David Bergan 18:34, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Can it wait 12 hours? Of course. In my opinion, real life always trumps wikipedia. David Bergan 18:44, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
True story. I got engaged on July 15... looking to have the wedding on Dec 31 or sometime in January. I'll link some pictures of us from my user page. David Bergan 19:21, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
I see that you have issued something that you call a "warning" to Zeno on his talkpage. Personally, after reading the discussion, I can't see that Zeno has made any uncivil remarks and he has obviously explained all of his actions on the Template talk:Islam, this unlike some of his opponents there. Could you please substantiate your claims and provide some evidence, before making any allegations? Or maybe you should just stick to (and start to respect) Wikipedia's policies regarding assume good faith? Your uncivil remarks labeling Zeno's edits as "ugly" [15] on the Template talk:Islam are not very helpful eighter. Please cease and desist. -- Karl Meier 09:07, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
Please make your voice heard and "vote" on the deletion of vfd. I was going to put you down in italics as opposing, but I wasn't sure if you objected to the fact or the method. Uncle Ed 21:06, August 1, 2005 (UTC)