User talk:BaronLarf/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

For messages regarded opera articles, see the Opera archive.
For messages regarding school articles, see the School archive.
For messages regarding Wisconsin articles, see the Wisconsin archive.

[edit] Comments for a new Wikipedian

Welcome!

Hello, BaronLarf/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! --Flockmeal 04:14, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC) BaronLarf

Hi. Usual practice is to wikilink the first appearance of a relevent term (for example "Mexico" in the Cancún article) rather than every occurance. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 23:36, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. Duly noted. --BaronLarf 20:04, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I'm also curious why you're changing the capitaliations in the categories for names like McWilliams and MacCarthy. What are we missing? Thanks --BaronLarf 23:16, Jan 7, 2005 (UTC)

Simple really. In wikiworld (and a lot of others) McWilliams is not the same as Mcwilliams alphabetically. Bornintheguz 23:20, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Members Church of God International

Thanks for the good and critical external link. That is very helpful for NPOV. -- Chris 73 Talk 02:26, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Genealogy

What makes you think that the genealogy links on the New York page was "spam"? The site linked to is a reputable, valuable, and pertinent site; non-commercial and free to use. -- Cribbswh 14:12, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your objection makes no sense. My edit is identical to your edit that was reverted by Neutrality. --BaronLarf 14:19, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

There was a line item with your username that said, "If your going to remove one genealogy link, then we must remove them all. The last two were spam". Those last two were added by me. These sites are not commercial and are pertinent to the state of New York. They are research related and valuable resources. The reason that I had removed them before was because I misunderstood Pavel and when it was clear what his objection was, I reinstated the links. If I have misunderstood the line item, then I apologize. Cribbswh 14:22, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Let's take the discussion to Talk:New York#External links. Thanks. --BaronLarf 14:47, Mar 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] George W. Bush articles

FYI, I resent (i.e. do not appreciate) you calling the 2004 irregularities article "[my] pet article". I did not create it, I did not make the most contributions to it, I do not claim any authority over it, and I do not consider it a pet. It is the product and property of the general public, and, as such, is as legitimate as any other wikipedia article. Articles on wikipedia are not "owned" by any member, and represent the consensus of the community. etc. etc. See the pages in the community portal section for more detail about the nature of wikipedia articles. Also, please look over the behavior pages, such as Wikipedia:Civility. Again, I do not appreciate this.

Regarding the 2004 irregularites article, there have been numerous blanket pov allegations on the vfd pages, and the allegors have repeatedly been asked to bring their disputes to the article talk page and make them specific. Most of them just ignored the invitations, but a few of them decided to make contructive use of their criticism. As soon as they brought their specific criticisms to the talk page, a NPOV dispute tag was put up. Their contributions to the article were quite welcome, and all of their qualms have been resolved. They took the NPOV dispute tag down when the article met their satisfaction. As far as I know, everyone contributing to that page would like the article to be as NPOV as possible, so if you have any specific disputes, I encourage you to bring them to the article's talk page. Kevin Baas^talk 07:41, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

I'm flattered that you wanted to write such a long commentary on my use of the word "pet" on Rhobite's user talk page. I'm sorry if I offended you; such was not the intent. I am fully aware of the nature of articles on Wikipedia, but that you for taking the time to explain that to me.

Articles on wikipedia should, indeed, represent the consensus of the community. This is why I was confused on your continued efforts to place a statement on the George W. Bush opening paragraph which others believed should not be placed such a position of importance in the article.

As far as the 2004 U.S. presidential election controversy and irregularities article goes, I had tried to enter into the discussion a month or so ago, but you repeatedly disagreed with every statement I had made. I received no support for my proposals and saw that this was a contencious article, so I chose not to pursue the matter further.

If I may, for a second, digress for moment about that particular article. Please do not construe this as a personal attack, just an observation. It seems that people who seriously believe that there existed a concerted effort to disenfranchise Democratic voters feel quite strongly about it. On the other hand, there are those who aren't convinced that a significant number of irregularities occured, such as myself. I don't feel as strongly about this issue simply because, in my opinion, statistical whining doesn't change the election's result. I will not go through as much effort to make an article such as that one NPOV from my perspective. But for those who seriously believe that great injustices have been wrought, Wikipedia might be the only outlet to vent these feelings. There is no way that I can match the passion that others feel on this issue, and I don't really feel like waging a hard fought battle alone for that article.

I look forward to working with you again. --BaronLarf 15:07, Mar 17, 2005 (UTC)

A nice reply. I have replied on the GWB talk page regarding the meaning of "consensus", according to wikipedia policy.

I don't particularly remember the conversions we had a month ago, and if I disagreed with you, that is not neccessarily objection to either of our arguments, or either of us, regardless of the proportion. Likewise regarding support for proposals. Regardless, users should feel welcome on all pages and I regret that you did not feel this way, and that I, as I suppose you mean to say, was a factor in this.

I really don't think anyone on that page has a strong opinion about how many irregularities there were, or whether there was a concerted effort to disenfrancise Democratic voters. (I see, however, how one might get this impression from reading the article.) From my experience, the contributors to that page have presented and organized the facts pertaining to irregularities in the 2004 election in a straightforward and impartial way. I wouldn't doubt that most of them, at least, are of the opinion that, say, Mitofsky has offered no evidence to support their explanation of the exit poll - vote count discrepancy. But I would much sooner believe that they are of this opinion because Mitofsky has offered no evidence to support their explanation of the exit poll - vote count discrepancy, than because they believe there was a concerted effort to disenfranchise Democratic voters. I would sooner believe this because I have read Mitofsky's reports, and they offered no evidence to support their explanation. Likewise regarding the inequitable distribution of voting machines. The probable are of the "opinion" that the voting machines in Ohio were not distributed in an equitable manner, because the voting machines in Ohio were not distributed in an equitable manner. I think you'll discover that everything in the articles has this simple explanation. Ockham's razor. No where in the set of article is it alleged that there was a concerted effort to disenfrancise Democratic voters, and the information in the articles is not guided by or contingent on that hypothesis. The information in the articles is a neutral presentation of the empirical facts, irrespective of any given hypothesis. Kevin Baas^talk 18:48, 2005 Mar 17 (UTC)

[edit] Lawrence University

Hello, BaronLarf. I suspected you might be a Lawrence graduate. The Lawrence University page is well on its way to respectable. It certainly needs more treatment of Bjorklunden, which should have its own article. I would also like to see the Conservatory with its own article. Milwaukee Downer deserves an article as well (with the predecessor schools given redirects). Few of my contemporaries at Lawrence have gone on to enough fame and fortune (though one is apparently an Internet-porn king) to warrent articles. If they do, I'll be sure to add them to the list of distinguished alumni -Acjelen 20:27, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Beer

Welcome to the WikiProject Beer. You may have noticed that we're very new, but we've hit the ground running and are making some progress. Thanks for the help! – Clockwork Soul 03:06, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jeb Bush & SummerFR

[edit] Jeb Bush

Thank you for any format changes you did to improve the Jeb Bush article. I was a bit perplexed that you came to that page, after I then saw this on your user page: "Trying to make articles on George W. Bush neutral really makes me want to scream, though, so I don't do much on that page." Ini any event -- please note: you are the 2nd person to change the way quotes appear in the article, and both you and the other wiki person claim to have the format correct, but neither one of you agree. So. I will just wait till the 3rd person comes along and changes the format again. Same thing with certain other format changes that others approved (and I never did in the first place), but you changed, and, I am sure, again, someone will come along and then change your format saying it was wrong, too. So, I am staying away from format arguments since no one here seems to actually agree on format. With respect to photos, kindly read my talk page and you will see an on-going discussion about it. Thanks again for your interest and help, and I am being sincere, because if you made the page look better, I appreciate it. But, FYI, I believe the photo issue is already resolved. And, I will let the other person I am already involved on that, on my talk page, know more. SummerFR 17:49, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

BaronLarf, I can not tell if you have seen my latest response to you about your concern over the myflorida.com photos, as I do not yet see any response from you

on the Jeb article discussion page. However, FYI, I did post an email response there that I received today from Gov Bush's spokeswoman, and I hope that satisfies you for now. Also, for the reasons I stated in my last response on the discussion page -- my belief that any lawyer will want to see how the photos are being used -- I intend to restore all photos as I had them, to enable those lawyers next week to see them on the page. I am asking that you leave those photos up for that purpose, since getting an answer is what both you and I seek, and I feel we will get an answer if they know what we are talking about. They will not know if you keep deleting the photos. In addition, I will later write to you a longer response on the discussion page of the Jeb article, outlining the reasons for a complaint I have about every single political and historical biography entry I have thus far read onwikipedia, and my complaint is this: there are not enough photos on those pages. There should have been more, and I will make my case about this. Consequently, in my view, as an educator and someone who wants to support the goals of wikipedia, the real problem here is not that I have posted too many photos, but that not enough photos have been posted on other wiki entries. That is something we can peraps discuss more after you consider my reasoning, to come. Thanks, SummerFR 00:53, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

BaronLarf,, Please stop reverting my edits that I just stayed up all night to do because of the reason I already explained to you. You asked me for permission about the photos. I got you an email from myflorida. com You were silent when I posted that email. I put all the photos back so those lawyers could see them. Now you are going back in and changing all my work yet again. Please stop it. It is annoying. You are not doing anything that is helpful to your alleged complaint of pro=Jeb slant. You are just doing what you want, no matter than I got you an email and asked you to stop so the lawyers could see. Please stop it now. If you are so big on woiki rules, then you know you can not keep reverting back that page 3X in 24 hours as yo have done. So, stop it. SummerFR

Hi BaronLarf,

I was close to putting all the photos up on WP:CP too. But I figured it couldn't hurt to try to have a conversation about them with SummerFR first, especially because SummerFR is new to Wikipedia. I was surprised when s/he got into emailing the Bush folks for permission. It doesn't seem likely to me that the copyright holders will release the images under GFDL. Now I'm feeling a little over my head, and I'm thinking of asking someone with more Wikipedia experience to look in on things. I'm worried that the Bush folks will grant some kind of permission that will be incompatible with Wikipedia, and it will turn into a big confusing mess.

Also, yes, the article is POV and I'm trying to think of ways to NPOV-ify it. I know that Mother Jones ran a lengthy article about his ties to Big Sugar that tend to, hmm, undercut his claims of environmentalism. FreplySpang (talk) 01:22, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Freply Spang, I don't know what "POV" means in wiki talk, but I am guessing it means you think the article is too slanted pro-Jeb. The last link I added, in the concluding paragraph, is an opinion piece that I think is decidely anti-Jeb. Have you read it? What did you think of it? I added that in an effort to appease you, but it seems you want something akin to an in-depth analysis of the sort that Mother Jones can publish.

If you are willing to write opinion pieces or whatever, to extend the article, to a much longer version, and that is something wiki wants in an encyclopedia, well, then, do it. But, as I said to you or someone else, I honestly don't think any encyclopedia entry is the place to attempt to denigrate someone's acomplishments -- and, believe it or not, even while there is of course criticism one can make in every area about every governor, there are, in fact, MANY environmental accomplishments of this particular governor, in terms of expanding the preservation of land, helping endangered species, and a long list of other things I could name. You might be surprised to know that environmental groups -- none of which I belong to or head, by the way -- have not only endorsed Gov Bush in the past, but have given awards and honors to him, to reflect his comittment to the environement. Yes, it's true. Believe it or not. BTW, do you live in Florida as I do? Do you know these things as people in Florida do? That's why people vote for him. People here care about the environment, deeply, whether they head an environmental group or not. And, any governor who didn't care at all would not last very long in this state. Any rational person would tell you the same thing I am telling you. But, people out of state tend to thinmk they are experts about this state, when guess what - they are not. They like to come and protest here and the rest of the state gets polled by newspapers, and big surprise, no one in the state agrees with the out of the state protesters. It has happened constantly, in every controversy here, from One Florida on down. One Florida, for example, has 66% approval rating in this state. Do the busloads of protesters that have come from out of state to Florida to protest One Florida even know that? I will guess not. But the Miami Herald knows it, as they did the polling.

No, they do not all agree with him on every issue, and yes, there are controversies in Florida, and yes, I intend to mention that fact if you would only give me a chance to write all the text I would like to write, but, people like you seem way too eager to highlight one issue over a record that is a lot more than one or two issues in any area. It might be painful for you to know environmental groups have given him awards, but, I can prove to you they have.

Does Mother Jones ever want to write an article about that fact? Should that fact be mentioned in an encyclopedia? Is it so terrible that myflorida may want to cooperatie with wiki? These are fundamental issues for discussions on a political forum, not a forum about the gathering of knowledge, in a non-partisian way.

I notice that after a flurry of messages to me from you and BaronLarf about those photos, neither of you directly responded to me by mentioning that email, after I posted that email from myflorida. I think it was very nice of Gov Bush to respond so promptly to your concerns, on a weekend no less. But, does he ever get credit, from certain people, for something like being so responsible and easily accessible to the public, a hallmark of his many years in office? The answer, sadly in my view, is no, he never will. It doesn't mean he's right on every issue, but, he does try to do things that other leaders, and believe me I know this, would never do. SummerFR 04:39, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

BaronLarf, Please post on the Jeb Bush discussion page a list of all the words/ phrases you find objectionable and you think should be changed, so I can know what you are talking about specifically. Thanks. SummerFR 09:01, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi BaronLarf and SummerFR. After getting myself wrapped up in this yesterday, today I realized that I need to pull away somewhat. I have real-life commitments in the next week that take precedence. I'll check in as I can, but I can't spend hours on research & writing this week. FreplySpang (talk) 21:04, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hello BaronLarf. Thanks for the message. Not sure if I dare change anything on the Jeb page (last time I checked I was blocked from editing it anyway, after last week's annoyances). I tried to make it a bit less POV and got my head bitten off for my trouble. Cheers, Jez 23:57, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

- Oops. It took me a while for the penny to drop. I shouldn't bite the newbies. You're absolutely right. I was initially fairly brusque after being accused of vandalism, but not overtly rude. Then the accusations increased in spite of my explanations for my edit. That pissed me off and I ended up being rude to the person in question - the wrong thing to do, I know. I apologise for my rudeness, SummerFR. Jez 01:18, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I'm not ignoring your message

I just don't quite know how to handle the situation, either. Joyous 23:03, Apr 24, 2005 (UTC)

Some users that I have a good deal of respect for include Dbenbenn, Mel Etitis, SWAdair, Rossami, and Korath. You might ask any of these for their opinions of what's happening. I would say that if it gets as far as RfC, you won't be the only one with an issue about the edits, or about the manner of Summer's communications. Joyous 11:37, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] NOTICE OF ARBITRATION

I am leaving this message to notify you, as required by the artbitration rules, that I have asked for arbitration in this matter concerniing your harasssment of me re the JEB BUSH article. Please do not write me back. Thank you. SummerFR 11:05, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you feel that way, SummerFR. I still don't know why you feel harassed. Hopefully someone else can step in to help us out here.--BaronLarf 11:09, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] SummerFR's arbitration

I'm afraid that there's little anyone can do informally. The pattern is a familiar one: an editor who ahs a very strong point of view but isn't very articulate, who sees everyone who disagrees with him as biased and hostile, and who won't or can't think clearly about the issues or reflect upon his own behaviour. I'll keep trying, but eventually I think that something more formal, such as an RfC, will be needed. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:21, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I would tend to agree that an RfC against him will probably be necessary. I don't want to be the first or only person to lodge it against him, though, since that would probably seem retaliatory. I have plenty of evidence compiled, though, if one eventually is filed. --BaronLarf 20:25, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for carrying the flag of NPOV and civility for now, BaronLarf. Like you, I hope that SummerFR comes to understand the workings of Wikipedia better. Her reluctance to go over Wikipedia policies before yelling "harassment" is certainly a concern. I just don't have time to be in the thick of it right now, I'm sorry. But I think you have been trying very hard to be a good Wikicitizen and I'll support you in formal proceedings if necessary. (By the way, SummerFR is a "she.") Oh, I was just wondering: SummerFR has mentioned that your user page used to say something about "trying to make GWBush articles neutral makes me want to scream." She takes that to mean that you want them to be anti-GWB. It sounds to me like you want them to be neutral, but you're surrounded by zealots on all sides, and so it's screamworthily frustrating. Am I right? FreplySpang (talk) 21:25, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, your interpretation is pretty accurate. My userpage (which I've editted now for clarity) used to list one of my passions as "Trying to make articles on Republicans a more NPOV. Trying to make articles on George W. Bush neutral really makes me want to scream, though, so I don't do much on that page." What I meant by that was I had tried to get involved at the GWB page, but there were so many people on every side along with frequent vandals that I gave up on the page, more or less. At some point I mentioned to SummerFR that I was a Republican, which I thought would help her understand that I wasn't out to tar and feather Jeb Bush. But it didn't seem to help; she then wrote that I was some sort of Republican who was anti-Jeb. <shrug> Thanks much for your message, and I completely understand that you didn't have enough time to get involved in this matter. It's taken huge chunks out of my day; I'm lucky that I can spare it. ;^) --BaronLarf 21:38, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

I confess - I am entertained. I think we need to go through the spill-the-guts mode - get it all out - deep breath - progress to useful wikipedia contributor. You appear to be the foil - I see your response in progress, but please don't sweat it. And certainly, continue to contribute in your areas of passion - I am not sure this is one of them. Wizzy…☎ 21:12, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

No, on some level I'm entertained, too. Especially when comments were removed from my user page. As if I wouldn't see that and revert it! Heh heh. Thank you for your comments. On the User:BaronLarf/Arbitration with SummerFR page, I'm just trying to more or less document what happened so if I ever get nominated to be a moderator when I grow up, I can show that I play well with others. Thanks again. --BaronLarf 21:23, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

It looks like SummerFR has left the building, see her user talk page. Wow. She really took it all hard. I can't imagine coming into a large, functioning community and not finding out how it works before making waves. You did a good job staying cool and enlisting others, and not making it personal. (From my point of view, of course. Clearly SummerFR took it personally.) Your pal, ;-) FreplySpang (talk) 13:45, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that last night. Thanks much for your moral support throughout; I think I can take my Wikistress meter down a level now. ;^) Oh, and sorry about calling you a "he." Next time I'll check user pages. --BaronLarf 21:26, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

No problem about the gender thing. It was just funny that we could be such great "pals" when you didn't even know that! Anyway, an anon with a familiar editing pattern is now adding stuff to SummerFR's user page and user talk page. FreplySpang (talk) 21:41, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been monitoring that, too. It seems like she's trying to recreate the Arbitration case on her userpage and talk pages. I want to tell her that she can do that just by hitting "edit" on the arbitration page and copying all the Wiki-code, but... it's probably best if I didn't. --BaronLarf 21:47, Apr 27, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Well. Darn.

I'm sorry that the matter has reached Arbitration so suddenly. I wouldn't be concerned about it; I doubt that the arb. committee will even agree to hear the case. Arbitration is supposed to be the last resort, not a starting place. Let me know if there's any way I can help. Joyous 22:43, Apr 25, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ouch! Typo!

Oh, no! I read your page User:BaronLarf/Aribtration with SummerFR and wrote an encouraging message on its talk page a while ago--some hours ago--at least, I thought I did. :-( See the typo though--"Aribtration"? Clicking on the link in your sentence "If any user has suggestions on how I could have better handled this situation, please let me know on this page's talk page", which didn't have the typo, took me to a whole 'nother talk page, one with no userpage attached to it. I only just figured this out. Shit. Anyway, please click on the link to see my original message. What I wanted to say was, I think you've handled the situation as well as humanly possible, don't let it get you down, and, uh, maybe you want to do something about the typo thing, so you don't get any comment forks? --Bishonen | talk 23:38, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Whoops, thanks. Duly moved. --BaronLarf 00:40, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for your support

Thank you for voting on my RFA. Have some pie! I was pleasantly surprised by the sheer number of supporters (including several people that usually disagree with my opinion). I shall do my best with the proverbial mop. Yours, R adiant _>|< 08:11, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Drake University

Not really sure what your problem is, but stop deleting the Drake University page. There is no case of vandalism or copyright infringement. The only site that it has direct quotes from is Answers.com which was there before I ever made edits. (comment left by Iamblueman4. Previously unsigned)

I have no problem other than with the poor quality of the page, hence my cleanup notice which you prompty removed. I suggest that you read a bit more about how Wikipedia works before removing any more tags. Cheers. --BaronLarf 23:32, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] CfD accidental deletion - oops

Thanks for catching and fixing this. Pavel Vozenilek 19:19, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusion not Deletion

(AIW) can you take a look at Wikipedia "apartheid"? There is a movement to delete a two-word inclusion that is fact and true. It's gotten to the point that everyone is focused on the disputing editors and not the edit itself.

" Deletionists are disputing the following statement: "South Africa was settled initially by the Dutch, Germans and French from the 17th century onwards. English, other European settlers, and Diaspora Jews followed in the 19th century." This statement is true, and it therefore should not be deleted.69.217.125.53 15:10, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Apartheid

Thanks!69.217.123.174 19:06, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Is someone trying to delete the page? If not, you are misusing the term. Also, try working towards consensus rather that spamming user pages. --Baron Larf 02:57, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Birthplaces

Notice the George W. Bush has him as People from Texas & People from Conneticut; I don't know that he ever lived in Conneticut, thoought his father did.Nobs01 5 July 2005 03:11 (UTC)

His biography lists him as being born in Connecticut, so I'd understand that listing. The category Category:People from Texas has this standard listed: "This category includes persons born in Texas and non-natives who are strongly associated with the State of Texas at any time in its history", so he meets that qualification as well. --Baron Larf July 5, 2005 03:13 (UTC)

So in otherwords, a person doesn't have to be born in that state to be placed in that category.Nobs01 5 July 2005 03:16 (UTC)

According to that category's definitions, no. But, according to Category:People from Wisconsin, the working definition is "This is category of people born in Wisconsin, a state in the United States." I have no interest in the list for Connecticut or Texas, but I'm trying to maintain the integrity of Wisconsin's list. Cheers. --Baron Larf July 5, 2005 03:18 (UTC)

Thanks. I had no idea wiki's policies were not uniform. Must be a States Rights issue. Thanks. Nobs01 5 July 2005 03:22 (UTC)

Yeah, it's too bad that the policies aren't uniform; it would take a person with more fortitude than I have to try to formulate a policy, get consensus, and then enforce it on 50 different, frequently-used categories. --Baron Larf July 5, 2005 03:29 (UTC)

[edit] Major cities in North Dakota

I'd like it if you'd reconsider your vote at CFD [1]. The idea of the category is definitely different from Metro areas. I've also made significant improvements to the implementation of the category, and have incorporated the "Largest cities" section of Template:North Dakota as a guideline for what constitutes "Major".

Please bear in mind that there is no legal differentiation between large and small communities in North Dakota. I feel that Category:Cities in North Dakota, being the full list of all communities, is inadequate, while Category:Metropolitan areas in North Dakota is too restrictive. This category fills an important niche that until now has not been met. --Alexwcovington (talk) 05:38, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I still believe that it's an unnecessary category. If there really needs to be a further list of cities, I believe it should be done in list form, not in a separate category with an arbitrary definition. Cheers. --Baron Larf 05:51, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

I feel that lists are rather archaic now that Wikipedia's been supporting Categories for a while now. I'll concede the point that the category is a bit arbitrary, but it does not follow that the category is POV and will get out of hand. It has long been the case on Wikipedia that articles have been cared for by their editors, and I think that will continue in this case. --Alexwcovington (talk) 06:34, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

User:Gene Nygaard and User:MatthewUND are the other major Wikipedians contributing to North Dakota articles, and I believe with their support and intervention, the category can be kept to an acceptable standard. If you have knowledge of the subject matter you are willing to contribute, then by all means, participate in the editing of the category. But a steadfast hold against "arbitrariness" is not in the best interest of the way I and others have been improving Wikipedia's coverage of North Dakota. --Alexwcovington (talk) 07:33, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

I applaud your work towards improving North Dakota articles. I have no objections about any material in articles you or others have created, nor am I trying to stand in the way of your continued improvements. My arguments behind my delete vote speak for themselves. Cheers --Baron Larf 07:42, July 10, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] {{Broadway-stub}}

I've enjoyed your participation in the Broadway WikiProject. Recently, a stub that I created for the project, {{Broadway-stub}}, has been nominated for deletion. I apparently neglected to follow the correct procedure in creating the stub, however I do feel the stub would be useful. If you would care to add your opinion to the deletion discussion, I would be most grateful. EvilPhoenix talk 02:57, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Please do not keep undoing other people's edits without discussing them first. This is considered impolite and unproductive. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. Thank you. -- BMIComp (talk, HOWS MY DRIVING) 22:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

I am aware of the 3RR rule, thank you. As you can tell be looking at the history of Talk:Truth, I was replacing text which had been repeatedly removed by an anonymous user who has since been blocked. No need to threaten me. Cheers. --Baron Larf 22:14, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Friends of Soviet Russia

May I remove the copyright warning on the Friends of Soviet Russia page? The material cited as being possibly in violation of copyright protection is in fact not covered by copyright. It is taken from the Marxists Internet Archive which allows free use of its material, when that material is not explicitly copyrighted. MIA's 100% free pledge: http://www.marxists.org/admin/legal/charter.htm This notice applies to all texts on the MIA that are not otherwise indicated as copyrighted.

Furthermore, the original author's main and subsidiary pages do not have copyright notices:

http://www.marxists.org/subject/usa/eam/index.html
http://www.marxists.org/subject/usa/eam/fsr.html
http://www.marxists.org/subject/usa/eam/socialistlaborparty.html (sample of organization page).

Also, I obtained prior permission from the article's author to repost his original organizational histories from the Marxists Internet Archive on Wikipedia. Please see the Talk:Friends of Soviet Russia page for my acknowledgements.

This is a revised post, since my initial response was unclear. Cheers. DJ Silverfish 03:02, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Just a friendly notice that I am removing the copy vio from Friends of Soviet Russia. I think the allowable use of the text is suffiently clear to move ahead. If you have any concerns, please contact me via my Talk page. DJ Silverfish 16:08, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Catholic encyclopedia

I've noticed you have worked on incorporating information from the Catholic encyclopedia into wikipedia. I've created a project page for the Catholic Encyclopedia as part of the Missing encyclopedic articles project to coordinate efforts and hopefully make the work easier. Reflex Reaction 14:11, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Comics RFA

I saw your personal RFA standards of at least 3,000 edits. Comics, who is currently applying for adminship, has only 286. See Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Comics freestylefrappe 22:31, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Seinfeld quote on your user page

Actually, what Jerry and George famously said was: "Not that there's anything wrong with that". Cheers JackofOz 06:54, 10 November 2005 (UTC)