User talk:Boothy443/Archive 3

Boothy444

Did you notice your alter ego Boothy444 (talk • contribs)? I think someone created it as a sockpuppet because of your edits to Pat Robertson. It might have something to do with miss Wendydrag (talk • contribs). — mark ✎ 19:22, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• No I was not aware of that, but it does not suprise me. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 02:22, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry

hi everyone, i just want to tell you that i am sorry for everything i did. I am not here to vandalize, but to apologize and to say a few things also. i am sorry for everything i did. Rickk, booth443, i apologize for vandalizing articles, being impolite at talk pages, and for getting a little too mad at you, ken. calles loco, sla boy, and tj raza are all my accounts. I am very sorry for the vandalism. please accept my apologies.

but what i am upset about is that all of you admins dont even care about the presence of dangerous sex offenders on wikipedia. the victims get banned, but a convicted feloner gets treated nicely and doesnt even recieve a warning?

i know ken. he knows me. one night, he broke in and attacked my girl friend scared her and just beat her up bad. he mercilessly and savagely humiliated an innocent life. he didnt just do that for no reason, it had something to do with a complicated matter that i dont want to mention.

but anyways, shouldn't feloners like this receive a warning? shouldnt potential stalkers and criminals be notified or banned on wikipedia? why dont you even care? im not trolling this time, I'm serious. please deal with ken - he is not just a harmless contributer. a ferocious and savage rapist wont just be ignored on wikipedia. please at lest do something!

Amigo de compton 21:31, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Admin?

Yo Boothy, is there any reason you are not an admin yet? You seem to spend several hours every day RC-patrolling. I would be willing to nominate you, if only you accept. Best, jni 06:28, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I don't belive in the self nomination. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 08:02, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • That answers to my (rhetoric) question, but how about my offer? jni 08:07, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Okay, as you wish. Feel free to drop me a note if you change your mind and decide to take the plunge into RFA. jni 08:12, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Montargull

Hi,

I have seen that you have updated a page that I have created (Montargull) and would like to know more about the formatting that you use to avoid making the mistakes again. Could you please point me to the documentation (if any) where I can understand the formatting?

Thanks --ElTato 21:37, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)

The John Edwards Vandal

On the John Edwards page, you reverted vandalism that included protection on the page! How did you do that? Thanks. --Harro5 07:09, Apr 23, 2005 (UTC)

The {{protected}} tag, like many others, HAS NO POWER unless you take other appropriate steps as well! On its own it's merely a text header alert rather than a server controller, so he didn't need any awesome magical powers to revert it. It was merely an attempt to make most editors think it really *was* locked. Master Thief Garrett 05:10, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:24.48.229.57

He has vandalised both your User and Talk pages, but I've taken the liberty of reverting it. I assume it's some sort of juvenile response to your warning against his actions. This and other vandalism has prompted me to officially report him, so the proper steps will now be taken. Master Thief Garrett 05:10, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• ok?--Boothy443 | comhrÚ 05:17, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Msg From a Vandal

Boothy,

Just noticed that I received a couple messages from you recently. I just wanted to clarify what they mean, and want to truly apologize if I have erred in any manner. Please clear this up with me so that I can make the required adjustments to my post.

Thanks for your help...sorry if there has been any confusion.

Excuse me

I have not vandalized anything. I am simply stating the facts. If you don't like that, find another forum for your historical revisionism. Moral Clarity 08:34, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• sure what ever buddy, your extremeist views arn't welcomed here. So why dont you go back to your consipircy theory clubhouse and hunker down for the next big war. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 08:37, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Um, be very very careful how you word things, you don't want to offend anyone... or start a vandalism war... or anything nasty like that... Master Thief Garrett 08:46, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • Why it's gonna happen any way, they user is a puppett, so he will do what he wants anyway. What pisses me off is that we have these so called people that wso call ahve instaled as adminstrators that are supposed to stop this kind bs but all they do is sit on their hands.--Boothy443 | comhrÚ 08:48, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, yes, I agree, but it does take some time for action as you say, so in the meantime you don't really want 50+ swear-word-based edits to your page. Although that might help speed the process along... hmm... now there's an idea...!

...but the sysops/admins must be very careful about deleting someone. They must carefully assess the motives of their actions, and there is ALWAYS a "resting period" before any decision is finalised, otherwise people complain that they had no chance to defend themselves and the deleter themselves comes under scrutiny for their motives!

Certainly our friend here is the first Wikipedian whom I can truly say is a Redneck. I haven't met many of them, but he's a prime example. Just look at his User page, he basically wants Bush to start a World War III against anything "un-American"...

it will be a long wait for him to go, but I guess the wait will be worth it...Master Thief Garrett 09:08, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've blocked Moral Clarity indefinately, sorry it took a while and thanks for your vigilance--nixie 09:47, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• whatever. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 09:49, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Moral Clarity and wikistress

First off Boothy please calm down, your wikistress seems to be thorugh the roof [1]. I'll be brief, as to save time because I intend to look into your concerns imediately. Please read about wikistress in the mean time, I'm rather prone to it myself. :) -JCarriker--Boothy443 | comhrÚ 10:14, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC) 09:38, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

I'm still researching, but I'm not sure what all the hub-bub's about it seems perdy dern obvious to me that your assertion that User:Moral Clarity is sockpuppet of User:Captain Liberty is an undeliably logical and accurate conclusion.-JCarriker 09:53, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

• thats just great to know. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 09:57, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My Wikistress level

I'm sorry the community took as long as it did to respond to Moral Clarity-- and most imortantly block him. This incident clealy shows flaws it our current system. I hope you will not let it discourage you as the system still does work, e.g. 200.73.181.142. Still I'd suggest you read wikistress if you haven't and maybe even add a Wikistress level image, shown left, to your page and chage it to alert other users of your current level of stress. -JCarriker 10:09, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

• Dont know why you pointed that out that hasnt worked either, it now is know as LevelCheck (talk · contributions), but what ever, i dont care. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 10:14, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

While I am usually know for my diplomatic tone and please forgive me if I cross the line, fuck User:Moral Clarity and 200.73.181.142. My concern is with your well being. Please don't let users like Moral Clarity and 200.73.181.142, or wikipedia's problems in dealing with them, discourage you. Wikipedia doesn't always work and when it does it can be slow to the point of madness. I have myself threatened to leave on several occasions. Your a great user, more than one user has cited you as admin material, if you let this get to you it will be far more damaging to wikipedia than any article that these vandals can vandalise. Again if you haven't read wikistress please do so, I found it most helpful-- especially the concept of a wikiholiday. :) As for the anon vandal, you should weigh in at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/LevelCheck. -JCarriker 10:37, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

User:Moral Clarity

Hi there. Has User:Moral Clarity been confirmed to be a sockpuppet? Because I just reduced their block to 24 hours after a message on WP:AN/I seemed to indicate a sockpuppet check was still pending. I'd appreciate a response before the block expires please :) Thanks. -Frazzydee|✍ 00:28, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

He's got a duplicate User page to two other users, Cap. Freedom and... and another Captain something, I had him a minute ago... which is the head and which are the socks is open to debate. Master Thief Garrett 00:49, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

MIM's review of The Aviator

Just because you don't agree with the review, you have no right to say others won't. This review is added as an external link, and people can make the choice to read it or not. They can start reading it, and stop anytime if they wish. Many people may disagree with what MIM thinks of The Aviator, others may agree fully or partially; and others still may just find it entertaining to read and/or refreshing to come accross an alternative viewpoint. If you continue to remove the link because you don't like it, I will take it up. --Mista-X 01:40, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

Regarding the ongoing debate over Mista-X's edits to movie-related pages, AndyL has objected that the discussions have not taken place at Talk:The Matrix. To accomodate this objection, perhaps future discussions should be centralized there rather than various users' talk pages. -- Curps 21:11, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

communism vandal

[[2]] [[3]] Kevin Baas^talk 23:30, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)

i noticed you gave him a warning, i assumed thus that you could, wanted to make sure you got the vandal. Kevin Baas^talk 23:34, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)

no offense intended. i am not aware of if you were aware of the continued vandalism. there is no way for me to tell if you banned him, or if there is, i don't know. i'm assuming from your response that you did. thanks, we all appreciate it. :) Kevin Baas^talk 23:38, 2005 Apr 25 (UTC)

Pop culture

Many articles have pop culture occurences mentioned in them, why is it a problem for Wikipedia when I mention pop culture trivia in articles? I try to make good contributions like always (i.e. they are not malicious at all). --SuperDude 04:04, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Yeah what ever man, if you spent the energy that you put into your "pop culture" refrences into writing a good article with some sunstance about oh something it might bee a some what good artile, but sicne you seem to want to add trival information about every article you come across i doubt that you will or that you can. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 04:10, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Flags

So you been to the Vatican but not to Italy, strange? --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 08:00, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have lived in Italy for 2 years. I see it as a "culture exposed" rather than a mere visit. --Cool Cat ^{My Talk} 08:13, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Willard Scott

But he is one...

Besides, if you only put information about the positive aspects of people's lives as relevant information fair, balanced information will leave the world. You could at least allow for someone to provide a reason, possibly in essay format, for any view that they feel needs to be expressed on wikipedia.

Umm no, wrong. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 21:12, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Removing tags

I'll edit articles as I see fit. You do the same. Don't threaten me either. I don't find it conducive to a good atmosphere. I don't have the faintest idea who you are, or care, but I do know that I file threats in the "not civil enough to be bothered with" bin.

Adding "importance" tags to school articles is tantamount to trolling. I'm disappointed to see that you support it. Readers can question "notability" all they like, but I think it's more constructive to spend your days working on articles, not trolling other editors with your opinions on whether they should be included. Grace Note 07:26, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, whatever you call it, don't "warn" me, don't "threaten" me, don't try to "bully" me. All three end up in the same bin. You can report me for whatever you like. I have the same right to remove tags as you or anyone else does to add them. We are all editors. That's why I advised a reasonably new Wikipedian -- and I give you the same advice -- not to chase contention by this route. You seem to have been around a bit longer. I'm astonished that you think it is a good idea to encourage newbies to spend their days stirring the shit. Well, I would be astonished, but I'm well aware that it takes all sorts to make an encyclopaedia.

Now, I don't come here for confrontation, and after a certain point, which a belligerent attitude pushes you past very quickly, conflict ceases to serve any purpose but to self-perpetuate. So I consider this discussion closed. Grace Note 08:38, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've been here for three months plus. Longer as an anon. When would I stop being a noob in your eyes? Grace Note 12:46, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

the "tagging war"

Your constant (re)addition of the tags back and forth could be criticised by some here as a childish mini-edit war. Now while I know you had very good motives for doing this, many would say you should have contacted them much sooner. I myself would probably have fared *worse* in your position, so I think you did very well...

...but please bear this in mind if you want to avoid comments from, um, "certain members" here. I won't name any names of course, but you'll already have an idea of who I'm alluding to. They won't even hesitate to target any and all "slip-ups" they spot, especially in those they view as "n00bs". And we all know how much that sort of jeering can hurt, especially if one reads such comments at a bad time (or any time for that matter). So be on the lookout for cynics, they strike when you least expect it...

...anyway, I realise I've rambled, but I hope that helps you! Master Thief Garrett 10:35, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No i welcome them opening their mouths, i love to tell move of them how much they are hippocrits, and what a deplorable job many of them do at adminstraion of this site. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 10:39, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ah! That's OK if you're using it against them! In that case, go ahead and fumble! hehehe... Master Thief Garrett 10:42, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

But instead i figure they will just argue with each other, like they have been doing, continue to be lax, and just let the vandals and the pov pushers contiune to get a bigger hold then they already have. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 10:42, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am not doing anything worse then what has been alowed to happen already. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 10:45, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I am curious though, why critise me, if your going to some what support me anyway. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 10:50, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't criticising you, nono, I completely support your views, I'm merely suggesting you be on your guard against the attacks that will undoutably arise. Ah, the ambiguities of plain-text...

But you raise a very valid point about a known problem, indeed one that has noticeably worsened even in my short time here, and that can only be seen as a Very Bad Thing. This can most notably be seen with the Schoolwatch, where some users have ganged together to subvert school-based Vfds with their "all schools are noteworthy!" view. This is probably why Grace responded so strongly to the tagging, and indeed even more viciously to your dutiful replacements of them.

However, what of the solutions to such problems...? The answers seem to be far from us... I dearly hope that such matters are to be discussed at the upcoming Wikipedia conference thing... But if not then I do not know what to think.

If things continue like this for much longer, and if the conference does not resolve anything, I will seriously consider voicing my concerns at the Village Pump. Although such complaints will be speedily and viciously swallowed up by the already rampant opinions, at least I will have made an attempt to make my voice be heard. Perhaps you will join me there, and I hope we can both manage to carefully word our statements in such a way as to mask the feelings of frustration and even anger at our helplessness in this situation, so as to sound all the more convincing and calm... which I cannot say I am at the moment... gahhh...

...but anyway I've rambled again... I think I'd better move on now and think about something else that doesn't frustrate me so much... gahhh... anyway, thanks for your time... Master Thief Garrett 11:05, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about the confusion then, and apoligies if i have come off wrong to you about anything, i can be a bit short tempered when i get worked up at times, it's a family trait or something. It just godes me to some nerve, to see what has happedn here over really the past 2 months, though it's been working up, i have seen a lot of good admins and users fall by the way side, and i chalk most of it up to frustration, and a lot of the new crop of users that have come in are just terible, it seems most are pov pushers or just, to put it simply, moronic. As for policy, just look at the notice board and you can see what the probls is with the admins, all they do is bicker, and stab each other in the back, and their is praticlay no enforcment on them, no one keeps them in check, it it's come to be very clear that they cant do it them selves. I would not expect anything to come from the confrence, i would guess that it going to be more technobabble and how to better promote the site then how to deal with the problems, and if their is anything that does come from it, i doubt that either one of us will be reltavity happy with the results, just based on the experience on how policy seems to go on here. Aand as for the VP, what a waste of time and space, i have yet to see any use come out it, for the most part things their are DOA. The problem isn't the simple vandalism, like pelican shit or Mr Commie, it's the unsimple type, the POV pushing, the bias that is being wirrten into this thing, which is maiking wikipedia less of an information source, what an encylopedia is supposed to be, and more of a blog for people to push the agendas, and very few people seem to be willing to do much about it. I dont know what else to tell you i could go on for ever about it, but if you want to fight it, i have no problem with backing you up, and i could problely get some others to follow, but i am not sure. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 11:26, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I can fully understand your anger! I agree about the admins' actions (and inactions) but there is really little that can be done about it.

Perhaps there are simply too many admins, or the admins are not carefully chosen? I have visited many forums with, say, 25 mods and 6 admins at most, and while Wikipedia is infinitely bigger than any forum I can't really see that all the 400+ admins we have are necessarily helping things. The ideal is to have a small core who think the same way and can act as one mind.

Also forums have a ladder of positions; while Wikipedia officially tries to dissuade any ideas of the admins holding superiority, they often wield their power like they do anyway. Perhaps there is need for some sub-admins who can do some actions but not others... thus leaving far fewer actually at "the top". But I don't really know, I'm no organiser.

Yes we could both talk forever about it, but the problem is we're not covering anything we don't both already know! What we need is some action! ...or at least a resolution to this issue. And it's not like we can take out a Request for Arbitration against the whole flippin' establishment...

You may be right about the Pump being dead, I can't say as I've properly visited it yet, but it's the sole official "forum"-like system here, so it's that or nothing as far as complaining against the whole establishment goes.

I would rather NOT have any called-for assistance. Don't get me wrong, it would otherwise be a good idea, but I don't want it to end up sounding like it's a coup, that would not help our case. And if you call in "cronies" someone will be quick to look at your Talk page and point out your whole recruitment process as being in bad faith or something like that. But if people came to the defense of their own volition then that would be fine. Anyway, part of my contention is these people who band together for things like the Schoolwatch; if we called people in to plead our case, would we look just as "bad" as the very bands we were trying to expose?

Anyway, it's a little late for me to try to think clearly about such things. I may write my complaints up sooner rather than later, although I will be careful to repeatedly revise it until it sounds as convincing as possible, and I'll keep you informed both before and when I go public. Master Thief Garrett 12:06, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I entirely agree with Boothy. The worst thing is people with agendas. Those who have decided what an encylopaedia that encompasses all of human knowledge should exclude prima facie are among the very worst. My conception of Wikipedia is clearly far broader than either of yours. Still, I don't suppose I disagree with you that shattered, useless stubs are something we could do without. I don't get worked up about it as you boys do; I simply edit in accordance with the aims of the project as I see them. Master Thief, you are not actually going to help anything by going on a "mergist" crusade. The two sides in this debate are more or less irreconcilable -- on one side, those who believe that all knowledge implies a broad, inclusive encylopaedia; on the other, those who believe it means all things worth knowing and nothing more, with values of "worth knowing" something to be negotiated. I'm sure it would serve you, and the project, better, if you focused on finding common ground -- agreement that crap articles need to be fixed into at least workable short articles that do not need updating, so that they are not a detriment to WP. Crusading against "Schoolwatch" looks very much to the neutral like the other side of the same coin. As for Boothy's desire for "enforcement". What you are both asking for is to have your views enforced! Can you be surprised that in a project whose one nonnegotiable item is the NPOV approach, you don't easily get that? Grace Note 12:58, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Mista-X and external links

Hello.

There is an active discussion at Talk:The_Matrix#MIM_review regarding the suitability of Mista-X's external links, which he added to The Matrix, The Aviator and quite a number of other movie-related pages. If you wish to, you could come and take a look. -- Curps 02:15, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Comcast logo

I listed Image:Comcast-logo.jpg on IFD since you uploaded another, better logo for Comcast and there are no current links to this one. [4] -choster 06:10, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Matrixism vandal

Hi! You're one of the editors I've noticed reverting "Matrixism" linkspamming, so I thought you might be interested in voting on Wikipedia:Redirects_for_deletion#April_25. Matrixism currently redirects to New religious movement, and this has been used as a justification for linkspamming in the past. I believe an overwhelming vote to delete Matrixism will demonstrate a community consensus against the linkspamming, deterring further vandalism. Thanks for your help. — Phil Welch 19:46, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

About Energy Directory

Regarding Energy directory

Did you read my response on the "votes for deletion" page? Did you read my letter to Jimbo Wales? You are vandalizing a legitimate page by defacing it with a "vote to delete" notice. I will be supremely disappointed if this goes through. Sterlingda 00:07, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

More from Sterling

What about vandalism to a legitimate page by posting a Vfd notice when the page does not deserve it, but is in actuality a very productive, Wikipedia mission-congruent page -- a major table of contents akin to a home page for an entire area of study: energy, which is a highly pertinent issue in our day. It is an eyesore to see a Vfd notice on a key page, and it should not be allowed. There should be some kind of penalty for people who post such notices and don't look at the larger picture.

I understand what Vfd is for generally, and I concur with the rules pertaining to it generally. But there are exceptions to every rule. If I were to go to a completely legitimate page that has been at Wikipedia for years, and post a Vfd notice at the top, according to your rule, no one could take it down for a week until it had been voted on. But of course, that is ludicrous. The person posting the Vfd was the one out of line, not the page. That is an example of a legitimate exception to your rule.

That is what has happened here. That is why I am requesting you to stand down and let the page be. I am also requesting of an admin to review the case so the one-line notice can be removed as well.

Don't be so hog wild about rules. That is what brought us Nazi Germany -- "Just following orders." I expect better. Sterlingda 00:32, May 6, 2005 (UTC)

Umm intresting, your still a vandal, that has no respect for the vfd process, and is out for his own promotional gain. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 02:28, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Hamilton, Ontario

Hi. I saw that you took up the baton with reverting the Hamilton vandal. You'll be please to know that he has been blocked now. Cheers. TigerShark 01:01, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

• Took long enough, as usuall. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 01:03, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

College year articles

I think we need a discussion in the Wikiproject at Category:Educational years about the inclusion of college years. Georgia guy 01:46, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Issue about José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero

Hello, Boothy. You have recovered a redirect version of Zapatero's foreign policy. Why have you made it? Do you really imagine anybody deciding to search for an article with that title? Don't you realize you are rendering that article useless? Is that the wikipedia way, to destroy articles and make more difficult to restore them? If the article is useless. Why don't you ask the administrators to remove it if it must not exist? Please, read it. It has been attacked by a strange person, SqueakBox, who removes things, I am afraid, because he enjoys destroying other people effort.

• First off i have no respect for users who vandalis other users, userpages. Secondly if you cant msg me from your won account, and you cant sig your msg then your a vandal. Thirdly you are a yob, their are secions in the article that mention his policies on the article that you have provided, and the article that you provied are nothing more then POV soapboxes. So why dont you take your smelly sockpuppett and go sod off, but bieng your a sock, and apparently blind as well, i doubt that you will do that. Oh and BTW i don't directly respond to yobs/sockpuppets anymore so unless you are looking at this page, your not going to get a responce. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 09:18, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

It seems you like insulting a lot. I have vandalized nothing. It is SqueakBox who is a vandal. He has removed all my comments in the talk page of Zapatero. Can you give me an example of those POV soapboxes, we can solve the problems. That is the Wikipedia way, not insulting. Zapatancas 08:52, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

• Sorry, I dont negotiate with vandals. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 09:26, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting out my user and user talk pages. Cheers, mate, --SqueakBox 16:33, May 10, 2005 (UTC)

he went staright from here to vandalise my user page again, --SqueakBox 14:45, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

User:Monkofthetrueschool

hi,

I`m new here - can you explain to me why you replaced my perfect article for "treehouse" with that nonsense ?

I`m about to quit Wiki; as it doesn`t seem to make sense !!

thanks monkofthetrueschool

ok, I understand the sense of a Disambiguation site, but it must be possible to create a sensfull definition for treehouses !!

It`s my dream-profession to built treehouses. I`ve been studing it for years and I have a serious interest in representing this very important architectural style properly.

Why don`t you take the nano technology site for your Disambiguation thing ?

Abif VfD

Hi, see Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Abif. Thank you. IZAK 06:11, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Revert on my user page

Thanks! Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 06:57, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Oisin.oreilly

What patent nonsense are you accusing User:Oisin.oreilly of contributing? He would appear to have breached copyright however. --John Carroll 21:33, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

OSI Grid

Intelligent Guessing--The Ordnance Survey allows you to center on any town and pull up the grid reference that way--so at least the reference is within the town boundaries if not at the original town site. Ordnance Survey unfortunately does not list every town (I did a search for Ballina and got Ballinamallard---) ℬastique▼^talk 22:02, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Update... I found this website: Ordnance Survey Ireland that allows you to convert Latitude and Longitude to Easting and Northing on the Irish Grid. Registration is free, and doesn't require that you fill out any address information. After that, it's just a matter of figuring out what number corresponds to what part of the Irish Grid code... and that I found somewhere else... ℬastique▼^talk 17:25, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my user page. Much appreciated. →Vik Reykja 08:30, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Sorry

I would like to apologize for my reckless behavior over the reverting of edits regarding PhoenixPinion's user page. PhoenixPhinion and I are good friends and we were bored so we deiced to see if we could stir up some trouble (what can I say I’m a reckless teenager) my apologies for doing such a childish and stupid thing. I would like to request that you remove your comment from my user talk page, however if you feel that my actions were deserving of such a comment I will leave it on the page as it is not my decision as to remove it or not. Have a nice day. 578 (Yes?) 20:07, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Howard Stern

Why did you edit out my additions to the Howard Stern article. Everything I added was factual. Stern is indeed an atheist and the interview with Rick Salomon did indeed involve a caller using the word nigger, which Stern indeed made light of. That's why Clear Channel removed him from their stations. So it's not point-of-view or any--Boothy443 | comhrÚ 05:15, 26 May 2005 (UTC)thing, just facts. Your removing of my additions amounts to vandalism, so I'm putting them back. I'm just trying to make the article as detailed as possible. If you have more to add to the information that I have provided, then fine. But please don't vandalize the article by removing relevant material. -- Old Right 05:00, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

No once again you are wrong. Stern has never admited to being nor is their any defenitive evidence that he is an atheist in any form. While he might not have strong religious convictions, that does not make one an atheist in any form. I would find it hard to belive that atheist would allow yet attend his daughters bat-mithvis, he is more along the lines of non praticing jewish. As for the cc incident, thats your interpertation of why cc removed him, i have never seen in a pr or herd from cc that they removed him for the exact resons you have stated, so unless you work fo cc it's your POV. But being that your a right wing zelot, i doubt that any of this will matter and that you'll just keep on adding your right wing pov to this and other articles. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 05:15, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

EWTN

You just crashed into me doing the exact same edit, so just letting you know there is someone else who doesn't think that section should be removed. --Kiand 21:08, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Part-time Shels fan only, BHA being my main love... yes, the article could do with more balance, but on the whole, based on what I've seen and heard of that channel, the Criticism section actually isn't that off the wall at all. --Kiand 21:19, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't particularly agree with the move out, and I'll probably go -less- often (Tolka is extremely handy for the train line back home, and I don't like dry matches (if I'm driving, they'll have to be)) --Kiand 21:27, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Of course, if you ask a board member its the, ahh, umm.... the, errr.... the flooding! Yeah, its the flooding thats making them move... --Kiand 21:33, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

User:Rchamberlain

well, the sources need to be cited

if they can be, i'm all for leaving that section of the article up. however, as it is right now, it is breaking US civil law for being a libelous article

I know the law....

I'm familiar with the libel law, but criticisms need to be backed up especially on a site such as wikipedia which purports to keep itself factual. All I am asking, is where are these alleged critics? If they just exist in the authors head, I guess that's okay (right? [sarcasm])... If anyone of you have ever watched EWTN, then you would know the claims are baseless and are not true. If you can cite something from EWTN itself, then go for it. however, you won't be able to.

Yes i have watch the newtork, my mother is a supporter of the network, and no i would not see that those critisims are to far fetched. Overboard yes, but just like any religious network, they are going to be critiseid in the same vain as the theories that propgate from the oprg they represent. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 21:28, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Clear abuse of editing authority

Introduced a few corrections to factual misstatements in the Chicago article, and added some information regarding Alsatian cuisine. Soon found that my work had gone entirely to waste because of this busybody (Boothy443), who apparently isn't even an admin.

To h*** with this. This was my first day of dealing with wikipedia and it will be my last. Giving everybody instant editorial access is clearly a stupid idea, precisely because of users like this one who will go out and engage in censorious tests of will just for the h*** of it. It becomes too easy to abuse this opportunity, because one can make somebody else's words drop out of sight so easily. If any admin is reading this, please revoke this user's access.

    - Joseph

You say that that was your first and last day of "dealing with wikipedia" -- but a day later, you returned to edit it. So perhaps you're not quite serious. Some comments: (i) It's probably not a good idea to make extensive changes to a large and well established article on your very first day. Better see how articles and editing work first. (ii) While I didn't look at your edits in detail, some looked interesting but the overall impression was of prolixity. Perhaps unfortunately, this is an encyclopedia of the early 21st rather than early 19th century. (iii) I think you're referring to hell. It's quite OK to speak directly of hell. (iv) Anybody can revert anybody else's changes to articles. For example, you can revert Boothy443's. (v) If you want to have Boothy443 (or my) access revoked, there are standard ways of applying for this. Dig around here for a bit and you'll find them. (vi) It's better to sign and date comments here. You do this with four twiddles: "~~~~". Happy editing! -- Hoary 04:26, 2005 Jun 3 (UTC)

Thanks...

... for reverting the vandalism to my user page.... Kelly Martin 03:00, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

WMATA

Neat tables you've put on all the station pages :) However, one comment - They say "preceding" and "next" station. They used to be more agnostic; i.e. "next station west" and "next station east", etc. I still think they should do this, to give a more geographic representation to the table. Just saying I want to do this while you're still popping them in, so less work can be duplicated. :) Like adding a "before" direction and "after" direction, like "east" and "west". --Golbez 07:17, Jun 4, 2005 (UTC)

Reverts on Szczescin suburbs

Pls take a look on [5] - the changes by the anon were absolutely correct.--Witkacy 07:09, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

No sorry your sockpuppett and you are wrong, that vote has to do with Gdansk, the last time i looked Szczecin was not the came city as Gdansk, and their has been no decision on Szczecin. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 07:24, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Its not my sockpuppett. But you are one of Chris i see.--Witkacy 07:28, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

WRONG, try again. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 07:30, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Spammer (thats what i call people that dont like my anti-german bias, but i really dont know what the word means)

Please stop spamming Szczecin suburbs and other Polish cities with German/Nazi names and superflous links to German languages. Your activities are extremely provocative. If you continue to vandalize pages, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia

Block me then. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 07:24, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I promise !!! ;-)))--Boothy443 | comhrÚ 07:45, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am sure you will, and you will go down just as well, but being that you are a POV pusher, a vandal, are very ethnoncentick (or how ever you spell it), and a history revisionist, some one else will come in and just fix your vandalism. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 07:41, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia defines Spam (electronic) as follows:

Spamming is the use of any electronic communications medium to send unsolicited messages in bulk, indiscriminately -- unlike sending to a selected group in normal marketing. In the popular eye, the most common form of spam is that delivered in e-mail as a form of commercial advertising. However, over the short history of electronic media, people have done things comparable to spamming for many purposes other than the commercial, and in many media other than e-mail. In this article and those related, the term spamming is used broadly to refer to all of these behaviors, regardless of medium and commercial intent.

Your activities of inserting thousands of links to Germanic languages this/last month is simply spam according to any definitions. Additionaly you you spread nazi-related hatred and do much harm to Wikipedia community.

Lets just distort the truth some more. And you still have no idea what spamming means. Oh and calling me a nazi, which i am not, amouts to a personal attack, which you can me baned for. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 07:45, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

3RR

Mind the 3R rule, which you've broken on some articles. Remember, just because the other party does it doesn't mean you're allowed to too. I've reported the incident and I'm sure whoever blocks will also rollback. --W(t) 07:36, 2005 Jun 5 (UTC)

Well i woulnt have to do that if ppl didnt vandalise the artciles and the admins did their fucking jobs. So to protect the integerty of this so called "Encylopedia" i'll just keep on doing it. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 07:39, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

...for reverting the vandalism on my User page. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:36, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

lots of edits, not an admin

Hi - I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins. If you're at all interested in becoming an admin, can you please add an '*' immediately before your name in this list? I've suggested folks nominating someone might want to puruse this list. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:29, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Roger Moss

Hey - I was just wandering through VfD's today for no good reason, when I came upon the name Roger Moss. It rang a distinct bell, so when I finally remembered who he was, I went back. I made a comment, left, came back, made another, left, did some research, came back - well, you get the gist. As you seem to be the only one who has been involved with the article lately who is also sane, I was wondering what you thought about the situation. I've gone from feeling fairly vague about it to really irate. Might I have your opinion as to what the article's fate will be? Thanks. --Mothperson 21:46, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I've got a master's in hp, and while I haven't worked in the field for about ten years, I have vivid memories of what Roger Moss contributed to my education. I think the article is a disgrace. I would have started whacking out almost all of it today, but I knew I should wait, and see what other, calmer heads thought.

So you don't have to go there again ( I know when I do, I start huffing and puffing like the Big Bad Wolf) here's how my comments went earlier at VfD, to which none of the wretches has replied to as yet (wonder why?):

• Comment I'm not going to vote on the grounds I may be biased (I don't know the guy, but I certainly know his work), but Roger Moss was very well-known in U.S. historic preservation circles, at least in the 1980s and 1990s. His book about historic American paint colors was pretty influential at the time. I don't know what's going on now. --Mothperson 18:34, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I take it back. I am going to vote. He's a large part of the reason old American houses are no longer automatically painted white. Keep and expand --Mothperson 18:40, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Also, google "Roger Moss historic American paint colors" and there are 70,900 hits (except I forgot to turn off French and Italian, so that may be wrong, still...). Add "Sherwin Williams" to that phrase and you cut it down to about 40,000, but Moss was involved in getting that paint company to put out a whole line of what, at the time, were pretty outré but historically accurate colors, Arts and Crafts stuff, really deeply pigmented . And the line sold. Still does, as far as I know. Even has imitators. --Mothperson 19:06, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• And yet another comment. Okay, now I'm getting pissed. I've been out of the preservation loop for a few years, but after doing a little checking around, it's obvious to me that Toast up there and other anonymous contributors to the article as it stands now are writing it because they can't stand the man. It has nothing to do with the executive director of the Athenaeum of Philadelphia for the last 36 years who just got a life-time achievement award for his works in Philadelphia preservation, or the man who has written multiple influential books and articles about preservation, or the man who was one of the first to start collecting historic architectural drawings for the Athenaeum's library, or... I could go on, but I would prefer to save it for the article, which should be wrenched from the POV-slimed hands of these disgruntled folk. You should not delete this article. This man is notable. And yeah, you do make a lot of enemies in the preservation field in the U.S. The concept of stewardship is all too often viewed as unAmerican. I feel myself going off into a rant. I will stop. But seriously, please do not delete this article because of misunderstandings as to who Moss is, or where the article comes from. For you article "authors", go write a letter to the editor or something. --Mothperson 21:31, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Votes_for_deletion/Roger_Moss"

Argh. Blood pressure rising again. Anyway, in short, I'm with you. Anything I can do to help, let me know. --Mothperson 00:04, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

So how do I find out who counts the votes? Don't hesitate to rewrite/add/delete anything. I'll come back to the article in a day or so - I just wanted to clean up the oil slick. Meanwhile, no sock puppets will screw with it without me wringing their little necks. --Mothperson 23:01, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hmm. I find this rather fascinating, in a sick sort of way. I am doing some sleuthing. User:209.137.173.69 responded under the name of User:Spotteddogsdotorg after he accused User:Ryan Prior of "biased POV" about some t.v. composer on May 22, 2005. Ryan Prior refused to discuss the matter with an anonymous user. The next day Spotteddog showed up to ask the same question, using the same edit summary, same language. I'm just going to track things for a while, and see what I come up with. A little side trip for me. A brain break, as apparently I don't have to use it much for this. --23:48, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I"m sure you're right, but I think his obsessions are going to trip him up. He's using at least 7 user names. I've copied lists of almost all the relevant edits and I need to peruse them and see how the obsessions track. Toast, 209, and Spot are all frazzled about that composer I mentioned, and there are several t.v. reporters everybody seems out to get. I should go edit one of my things, but I'm having fun. --Mothperson 00:51, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not surprised other people are starting to notice. The entity isn't dropping bread crumbs as he goes. It's whole unsliced loaves of bread. So 209 is the base "personality" if we pretend he has mpd. He's a busy guy from December until - June 1, when he drops off the scope, just when the other personalities are getting very busy. 209, Spot, and Toast all work on the composer article, but not on the same days, and they certainly don't discuss anything. Poor traffic reporter John Ogden - everybody hates him. 6 of them showed up to vote against him. Only 209 didn't. I keep waiting for Spot to show up at Roger Moss, but maybe Kaibabsquirrel and Tobycat are making 209 edgy. The same put-down phrases are used over and over, and I want to see if he doesn't start mixing up his characters' favorites. The range of interests is somewhat spread out over the personalities, but it's all of a piece with 209's history. I want to do some more prowling, and I still have to look at the timings of votes and edits. After that, I have to stop wasting my time on such a joke. But it's all highly instructive. --Mothperson 01:53, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Image:BismarckND.jpg

Image deletion warning

The image Image:BismarckND.jpg has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. If you feel that this image should not be deleted, please go there to voice your opinion.

Zscout370 (Sound Off) 19:49, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• fixed --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 20:10, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Vandal

Thanks for helping to keep my user and talk pages tidy after the vandalism by 198.74.20.75 (talk · contribs). Careful, though, or he'll start coming after you. I can deal with a little vandalism to my pages (as long as an admin gets one of my notices eventually and blocks him) so long as he doesn't branch out to other users or real articles. - Jersyko talk 02:43, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Well, yeah, his attacks are juvenile, but he is incredibly persistent. At last count (yesterday) he has made (with 3 or 4 IPs) 150+ edits to my user and talk pages. It's not offensive, but it's really annoying. - Jersyko talk 02:50, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks again for the reverts today. FYI the user typically makes edits with 198.74.20.73, 198.74.20.75, 198.74.20.77, 198.74.20.78, 198.74.20.73, and 198.74.20.118. All of these accounts are owned by Norwest (aka Wells Fargo), and I've been trying to contact their network administrator but have not been able to locate an e-mail address or phone number thus far. Thanks again, I owe you. - Jersyko talk 21:05, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Wow, i don't know where you found that contact info, but thanks a lot! I do believe our friend might have been frightened by my last message, though, as his posts are now quite tame and he has stopped editing for now. I'm going to send an e-mail if he starts up again, so I definitely appreciate your message. Happy vandal-hunting. - Jersyko talk 02:52, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Zionism is not rascism

I'm sorry if what i did seemed like vandalism, i'ts my first day on Wikepedia and I was greeted by rascist remarks while reasearching Zionism. I was simply pointing the fact. If you could contact me and explain, it would be greatly appreciated.

Sock archives

It's a mess, because I just put it up, but you can go here for stuff about certain knitted wear. You may shovel stuff around at will. User_talk:Mothperson/Litterbox --Mothperson 01:52, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My user page

I put Jeff Gordon is the best ever and you deleted it. Why. What is so bad about that?

Because he sucks, and being that you have no regestered account you have no user page, annon acount can be blanked. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 02:53, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Your a prick. keep your personal thoughts to your self. Jeff is the best driver ever and thats a fact. You musy be an idiot redneck.

"keep your personal thoughts to yourself" - good advice! try following it. have you considered that your love of jeff gordon and your vandalism to people's user pages/talk pages/articles are "your personal thoughts" that you are MOST CERTAINLY not keeping to yourself? - Jersyko talk 03:01, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't talking to you jerkso, your such an idiot you cant even realize when someone is talking to you. No go back to your trailer boy!

I am a redneck, i am not the one that likes NASCAR or Jeff Gordon, NASCAR = redneck, Jeff Gordon = redneck. And you calling other people gay, thats the pot calling the kettle black, espically the way you swoon over Jeff Gordon. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 03:08, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC) I do love Jeff Gordon in a gay way, im gay, why do you hate gays so much? Jeff Gordon is not a redneck, he was born in CA and moved to Indiana to pursue his racing. Your obviously have a low iq to think someone from CA is a redneck. You also must be retarded to think that a household cooking pot would call a kettle black, they are silver.

RfA

Why are you voting against every nomination for adminship? --Golbez 08:01, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Why is is that you, adminstrators specificaly and other useres, only confront users that vote in oppsition, i see a majority of votes for support with no explnation what so ever, yet no one questions them why they voted in support, and when most resons for support are give they are things like "i think he will do a good job", or "i have had no problems with the user in the past", or "because so and so voted oppose". yet an oppsition supporter basiclay is forced to write war and peace to explain why they voted no or else they are basisicaly left to felt like their vote is discounted. So no you dont need to know why i voted oppose, only that i voted oppose. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 08:17, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That sounds like a sound argument to me, except that it doesn't explain why you opposed everyone. — Chameleon 09:59, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I seldom give clear reasons for supporting, but on occasion I've subsequently been asked for reasons and then have always given the reasons. It's true that people don't need to know why you voted against, but if you don't explain your votes when asked, I don't think I'll be alone in dismissing them as meaningless (while of course not objecting at all to their being counted). -- Hoary 10:15, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

Just like i noted above, it's ok to vote in support with out giving a reason or stating reson, but if you vote aginst and your not explcit in why you dont support something then your vote will be discounted. And while discounting my disenting voice, you will just go on and count the supports that gave no reason as valad, and you see no double standard in that. Just goes on to prove what a joke the RFA process is and the Adminstration are. As for my opposing, i have my reasons, and if i want them known i would have said, but i do not need to justify my oppsition to these "canidate" admins to anyon but myself. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 10:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I think you're replying to me and yet have misread or misunderstood most of what I said. Nobody here has so far suggested that your vote should be discounted. Rather, I said that I and probably others would disregard your vote when considering which way we should vote ourselves, unless you explained your vote. Also, I've said that I've given reasons for my support votes when asked; there's no difference between that and giving reasons for an oppose vote when asked. However, I suspect that the key here is your implication that the RfA process is a joke. If I'm wrong, feel free to enlighten us. -- Hoary 10:54, 2005 Jun 16 (UTC)

People don't have to go to great lengths explaining their support votes because adminship is intended to be given out to anyone who has been around for long enough to understand policy, has kept out of trouble, and has shown an interest in performing administrative tasks. There's a presumption in favour of granting adminship to experienced users who show these traits. Having seen a user around and found them to be quite reasonable seems a valid reason for supporting to me. If you oppose a candidate it's up to you to explain what's missing from their track record, or where they are going wrong in their dealings with the community. This only needs to be a sentence or even a couple of words. Furthermore, if you object to people giving no justifications for their support votes, isn't it a little petty to go down the list opposing everyone and offering no justifications yourself? Isn't this disrupting Wikipedia to make a point? Do you actually have any valid reasons for opposing these people that you've chosen to keep to yourself, or is it nothing to do the individuals and everything to do with your objections to the system which could be brought up elsewhere? It would be good if you could go back and provide some brief reasoning for your votes, or else withdraw them and apologise. I don't hold out much hope that you'll do this, but I think lots of people would appreciate it if you did. — Trilobite (Talk) 16:15, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

WP:RFA

Hi, Boothy; I noticed you voted oppose to all the requests for adminship currently open, without comment. I was curious why you did this, since you normally don't vote on RFA, and it's a bit unusual to vote in this manner. Is it just that you have very high standards for administrators, and so none of these people qualify, in your opinion? Or is it something else? Your votes are your decision, so you don't have to explain anything to me—but you are a long-time contributor to Wikipedia and I'd appreciate knowing what you are thinking. Thanks! — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:05, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I'd like to ask the same. I think the point is that the nominee may want to what the concerns with his behavior are, so that he may be able to do things differently in the future. I found several of the criticisms against my RFA very helpful, and have been keeping them in mind for recent edits. Radiant_>|< 11:02, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)
  • It's precisely for that reason that I came here - I would like to know what your concern is regarding my actions/behaviour, so that hopefully I could avoid such actions in the future. Guettarda 12:01, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I suppose you can make that a me-too. It's not the oppose that I mind as much as not giving a reason. If I can fix something, I will, but I need to know what it is. --Kbdank71 13:06, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • I too would appreciate to know about any faults in my behaviour so that I will be able to remedy it. Sjakkalle (Check!) 14:42, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Concerns

Boothy, I'm noticing some disturbing trends going on here. Your RFA oppose votes were only the tip of the iceburg; I also noticed (from looking at your talk page) that other users seem to have differing points of view than you do. What's up? Is there something that you'd like to share or to express? Your actions haven't been exactly normal; I would like to know why there seems to be a problem. Linuxbeak | Talk | Desk 13:23, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Hi Boothy: Although I cannot take your opposition to my nomination personally, I am concerned that you are feeling a level of anger or distress that makes such blanket opposition attractive to you. You opposed all thirteen candidates in just eight minutes. From this I deduce that it is unlikely that you researched each of us individually. Was your hostility directed at administrators, the RFA process or Wikipedia more generally? If you prefer not to discuss this publicly I would welcome your comments by email and I will respect your confidentiality.—Theo (Talk) 17:46, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Sorry to but in here. But perhaps the time has come for some computer expert editor (certainly not me) to devise some form of anonymous voting system (similar to that enjoyed by the greater democracies) which could then dispense with this inquisition. It would be irritating and dull to have Tony Blair, or George Bush phone up and say "Give me your reasons for voting against me" Giano | talk 18:04, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But Wikipedia is not a democracy. RfA isn't about obtaining a simple tally of votes for and against, it's about discussing the merits of a candidate and then seeing if there's a consensus in support of their promotion. I think this "inquisition" is quite a reasonable reaction to Boothy's actions. — Trilobite (Talk) 18:12, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• I very rarely vote for admins only in the very rare instances when I have been greatly impressed. I suppose I think there are probably too many rather like a public school overrun with prefects, but that's not the issue here. The issue is: if someone chooses to oppose or support, that is their decision. Yes, it is lovely when we are all given a controversial reason to all chew over , debate and discuss ad nauseum, but when an editor chooses not to give a reason, then that should also be their unopposed choice. I am merely playing the devil's advocate here - so why do you all not chase those who merely vote "support"? Giano | talk 21:29, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I can't speak for the others, but I'd be happy to ask for a reason for support if support surprised me. For example, There have been some truly bizarre nominations for adminship; if somebody I thought of as sane and reasonable (you for example!) were to support one of these, I'd ask you why. Yes, there's something to be said for democracy; but as long as the process is not democratic I don't mind being asked for my reasons for support, and in the past I have been asked and have then given these reasons. -- Hoary 02:20, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)

This is not a board for communication between users, if you wich to continue this conversation, take it to your own talk pages and not mine, and further post or responces will be removed. --Boothy443 | comhrÚ 02:24, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)