User talk:Ashley Pomeroy/Archive1

Hey, thanks for reverting the vandalism on my user page. I'd say the fact that our special friend has tried so many times to make this personal is partly to blame for the occasionally acrimonious tone on the talk page. --MarkSweep 20:15, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes... pointlessness and waste. I'm hoping the article will do something to point that out ;) Thanks for your posts. Wyss 17:57, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi there. Just a random note to say that I very much like your user page. It is possibly the most entertaining self-description I've read on Wikipedia. BTW, I'm not sure what makes you think most Wikipedians are high-earning Nobel-laureate types; many of us are intelligent but unambitious. In fact, the unemployed are a pretty sizeable demographic here for reasons you can probably work out. Anyway I suspect you fit in here better than you think; we're all interested in knowledge. Besides, the project has plenty of Americans, who are generally much less conscious of social class than those of you across the Atlantic ;-) Isomorphic 11:47, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I enjoyed reading your user page as well. Ground 00:43, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, that's three members of my own international interventionist organisation, three members. It's free to join. What have you got to lose? We'll be heroes. History will remember us, and the... er, the dramatic manner of our passing...-Ashley Pomeroy 19:20, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Paragraphs in a list

Hi Ashley, I liked your method of indicating a new paragraph! in a list.
But did you know you can make actual paragraphs?
Dbenbenn 21:51, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
See, this is still number 2.

Everyking arbitration

I've filed an arbitration request against Everyking. Please comment; brickbats for my foolhardiness are more than welcome. Johnleemk | Talk 07:54, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Everyking/Proposed decision

Hey, you endorsed the RfC on Everyking, and as you know, it's gone to arbitration. Some of us feel that the proposed decision against Everyking is insufficient and too weak for a user who has abused Wikipedia so badly. I hope you can weigh in at Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Everyking/Proposed decision having read the proposed decision and discussion and share your opinion with us, whether it's that the decision is too strong, just right, or too weak. Just because you weren't involved as deeply as some of us shouldn't prevent you from sharing your opinion. Johnleemk | Talk 06:13, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Sollog" talk page amputation

In general I tend to ascribe the basest and most venal of motives to the majority of people. Uh-oh -- then you certainly won't like the way I reverted your scrupulously editorially-summarized chop of a chunk out of the "Sollog" talk page. Meanwhile, I think you had the best of motives in chopping it, but I just think the chopping was premature. If on second thoughts -- you decide that yes, your first thought was right, then just chop it again. You won't thereby get into a revert war with me, if only because to some extent I agree with the chop. Moreover, I'll try to make my own comments more concise in future, giving you less of an itch to chop. -- Hoary 10:58, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)

That's quite alright. I respect you, man. And I'm in a mellow mood, because it's Friday, and more importantly than that I'm wearing a new pair of trousers which (a) fit (b) are stylish and (c) are a size smaller than my previous pair. When a man's trousers feel good, he feels good. -Ashley Pomeroy 11:03, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Aha! Today I'm in a pair of green cords, but tomorrow I think I'll be in my tartan-lined black jeans. What color are yours? And: "Do you like soul music?" / "No." / "Then do the trouser-press, baby!" -- Hoary 13:56, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)

I'm glad you didn't pay anything for JING! Could you email me your copy? I'm interested in checking it out. But possibly not interested enough to learn eMule and search for it. Thanks, dbenbenn | talk 22:50, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

MGS2 edit

Nicely done; to answer your question, "Fortune" was the character with the railgun. In the trailers, her set-piece was set to a track by Harry Gregson-Williams named "Kill Me Now", but in the finished game, Hibino's similar "Yell Dead Cell" was used (presumably because all the other battles with Dead Cell used the music). Socka tume 00:40, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

WikiUser RfC

WikiUser has mentioned that your comments on the RfC against him should be deleted (Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/WikiUser), in case you think a response is necessary. violet/riga (t) 22:13, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Ashley You're a Star!

Ashley thank you so much for your user page - the best I've seen - it had me in tears! Long may the Brits on Wiki reign - I like your picture as well - Kind regards Brookie 13:49, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC) PS How are the new trousers?

Text "salvaged" from Internet terrorism

As you cast a vote on the VfD for Internet terrorism I thought you should be alerted to a current RfC about the fate of the content taking place at Talk:Cyber-terrorism. -- Antaeus Feldspar 20:04, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

(The?) Flowers of Romance

Howdy, I just saw your edits at Flowers of Romance (album). I visited the link and saw the label, as you mentioned in your edit summary (in fact I added that link but hadn't noticed this before). Maybe this is a difference between US and UK versions (as with the book Naked Lunch vs. The Naked Lunch)? My LP and CD both have "The" in the title. How about if I go back and make note of this? I also noticed that Wiki links are still pointing to the redirect page, I can take care of this though for all I know you're doing it right now... -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:59, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Wikipedia itself threw me for a loop, your edits are showing up in different chronological order on my watchlist. Also: my copy of the 12" single (from UK) of "Flowers of Romance" does indeed omit "The." -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:09, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Ashley, just saw your note, the article looks fine now. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:58, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(For anybody reading the page, the outcome was that the album seemed to have been released as 'Flowers of Romance' in the UK on Virgin records, definitely was released as 'The Flowers of Romance' in the US on Warner records - where, despite sounding like a wounded animal being attacked by an angry percussionist, it surprisingly failed to reach the top ten - and latterly absolutely definitely re-released on CD as 'Flowers of Romance' in the UK on Virgin, and as 'The Flowers of Romance' on Warners in the US, and the title track is just 'Flowers of Romance' and therefore on the balance of probabilities, which can alternatively be stated as showing a reasonable likelihood of persecution under Article 4 of the Immigration Acts, that the album is generally '(The) Flowers of Romance'. "John Lydon" is an anagram of "Lo! DJ Honny!".)-Ashley Pomeroy 23:11, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ach, I totally missed this UK/US title distinction in researching the article. I believe now it's a definite article, as 'twere. That's a joke. Ha ha ugh! Auto movil 05:35, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you! Perhaps PiL can reissue a couple of tracks on a single in the UK, call it 'The,' and make up the difference. Come to think of it, you had all those records by 'The The' on the charts there, so you're still ahead by one. Auto movil 18:15, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Howard Altman

Hi Ashley, I just read your comment about you contacting Howard Altman. That's great! I had contemplated doing that before, but figured he might sooner or later stumble across Wikipedia anyway. If you're in touch with him, could you point him to the article we have about him? There is some factual information that's unclear or missing, which he may be able to fill in. You can also email me via the "E-mail this user" link, if you think that's better. Cheers, --MarkSweep 18:34, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And for the curious, Howard Altman is pleased with the article about him, although he's a very busy man, too busy to actually use Wikipedia.-Ashley Pomeroy 17:58, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Minn-ogg-you

pretty funny. when i saw kylie on that airport show from heathrow, i figured she was something huge in england. a woman who saw kylie there called her husband so he could talk to kylie (his idol, apparently) on the phone; she couldn't have been nicer (though a vidcam was rolling, so who knows). too cute. SaltyPig 22:46, 2005 Apr 27 (UTC)

James Bond music

Your latest edit notes a song titled "Tomorrow Never Lies" being on the This Is Hardcore album, but the page doesn't list this as a track. Was it renamed or was it on a different album? Just curious K1Bond007 19:19, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, I was wondering. About "The Bond Files", actually I don't own it. I'll probably pick up a few of reference-type books in a while. I'm currently on a kick to read all the James Bond books (currently done with Fleming, Higson). The only reference book I've read is actually The James Bond Bedside Companion which is a great book, interesting anyway since a good portion of the book is made up of comments by Raymond Benson who became an official author. K1Bond007 20:03, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

And for the curious, "Tomorrow Never Lies" was Pulp's alternative theme song for the 1997 James Bond film "Tomorrow Never Dies" (which was originally to have been called "... Lies"). It wasn't accepted by the producers, and ended up as the b-side to Help the Aged, and appeared as a bonus track on the vinyl version of This is Hardcore. Which means that nobody got to hear it. The man Higson mentioned above is Charlie Higson, who was in the The Fast Show and a band called The Higsons, and who now writes children's James Bond novels!-Ashley Pomeroy 20:10, 4 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming I've done this correctly, all discussion up to 05/05/05 is here: User talk:Ashley Pomeroy/Archive1

In that case, time for some refreshments down at the pub?? LoopZilla 15:49, 7 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea - mine's a pint Brookie:the wind in the grass 11:58, 8 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Sollogfan and sockpuppet template

I seem to recall that there was at one point some display of evidence for Sollogfan's sock puppetry, but I notice that currently there is a sollog template there without the appropriate url parameter. Could you please insert an appropriate pointer there? I have edited the sollog template so that it passes the "evidence" parameter through to the "sockpuppet" template correctly.

The syntax is {{sollog|evidence=http://www.example.com/}}

Thanks. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 14:54, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:The Number, User:Sollogfan RfAr

Hi Ashley, I've filed an arbitration request against The Number and Sollogfan. Please consider if you want to add yourself as a plaintiff. Cheers, --MarkSweep 09:37, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why the heck not. Unfortunately it's too late for the person who would have benefitted most from this - User:Wyss - as she seems to have been hounded off Wikipedia by this [1] kind of thing. -Ashley Pomeroy 10:50, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. That's definitely worth mentioning. I'm increasingly convinced that we have been trolled and that the attrition tactics have to be stopped. I'm really sorry you've had to endure this kind of abuse. --MarkSweep 10:56, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In answer to some of the questions posted here:

- Yes, I did buy some new trousers. They were £3, from Matalan, where I am not ashamed to shop. They are jeans, with orange stitches down the sides and around the turn-ups.

Excellent choice Brookie: A collector of little brown things 19:22, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- Carrots, mostly. Oranges. Bright things.

- Beer is like a woman; it is seductive and repulsive in equal measure. It draws men towards it, confuses their minds, and then repels them.

- "Spondylolisthesis", "Spondylosis", and "Spondylolysis".

- I actually have a soft spot for "Trans", his synth-pop album.

Alice Springs

My apologies in commenting out your amendments too - I hadn't realised that there had been further edits when I pressed the save button. I think we are on the same wave length as far as verifiability of this sort of information. I do not wish to deny the sorts of assertions made by the eiditor but it is too easy to be emotional and I think accordingly the sorts of comments made about the population need to be particularly well-referenced. Your pursuit of references for the proportion of aborigines in the population was exactly what I had in mind. Regards--AYArktos 00:49, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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 _>|< 08:15, Jun 8, 2005 (UTC)

Operations Dove and Span

The source for my entries are the official United State Army histories (commonly called the Green Book Series) of World War II. While certainly obscure (they are more fun that way) the operations did in fact happen. Please feel free to check my contributions to see more even more arcane operations. If I can be of any help to you with this, please drop me a line. Paul, in Saudi 17:03, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ashley, as for myself, I feel no need for a 'references' cite on that page. Please feel free to add it if you like (you have to love Wiki!). I did much of the WWII research for the book at the (US) Army Command and Staff College at Fort Leavenworth. As I am now away from a good library, I am unable to provide bibliographic footnote. Paul, in Saudi 12:58, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)

W. Mark Felt

Salve!
I nominated W. Mark Felt as a WP:FAC. As you commented on the article's talk page, I'd appreciate your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/W. Mark Felt/archive1. PedanticallySpeaking 15:00, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Misleading place names

I've just reverted your change, and I thought that I should explain here rather than on what's an already hectic Talk page. Aside from the use of "that" (which we could discuss, I suppose), I'm pretty sure that the New York in Lincolnshire post-dates the American one. The Lincs one is small, and I it doesn't have a building later than the late nineteenth century. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 13:18, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

A bit rude

I just dragged myself out of my couldron and read your comment "I am LOOOSING my PATIENTS" person, if anyone else recalls him. The impression I get is that Mr Boulevard means well, but is... limited, to put it diplomatically. THE SLADE ISSUE WAS.. ahem... (lower case) the slade issue was a by product of a particular user p1ssing me off by reverting and deleting many articles over a period of time that I had started to contribute to, I am sure that if I started following your every move on wiki and started deleting your work you would lose your patience also at which point I may also consider you rather limited in your edits here :). If you can muster the time to read the more coloured in picture that now exists then I would appreciate your modern contribution. :\ Thanks Nick Boulevard 3 July 2005 23:47 (UTC)

The rainbow on your forehead

It took me a few moments to figure out the intent of the emphasis in your reference to the rainbow on your forehead. I would have found a description of the light-path more readily accessible: The rainbow on my forhead is the result of light coming from the lamp, reflecting off of the CD surface's prisms (grating, if you will), illumnating my forehead, reflecting off of the CD's mirror surface and then entering the camera.

See? Almost the same number of words, but clarity and additional observations provided.

Image:Muhself.jpg

Hi! I came across your picture on your user page. It's a great photo! Did you take it yourself? If so, you really should release it under the GFDL or into the public domain for use on Wikipedia -- fair use claims are sketchy in general, but for an image you took yourself, it's just needless. Releasing the photo under the GFDL is easy; edit the image's page and type in {{GFDL}}. If you want to release it into the public domain, type {{PD}}. And please also mention on that page that you took it, if that's the case. For further information about these tags, check out WP:ICT. Thanks! kmccoy (talk) 05:28, 22 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! You're perky, aren't you? I always feel a little edgy when someone opens a conversation with a big smile and a kind word; such conversations usually end with "and that's why we have to let you go, I'm afraid" or "if you point that camera at my kid again, you're dead", that kind of thing.

It's a good photo, but not a great photo, because it doesn't have any meaning or resonance beyond being a technically impressive and digitally unaltered image of my face. If you knew what I looked like in real life you would be doubly impressed. However, the photograph doesn't encapsulate anything, say anything, express anything. It's like a Stanley Kubrick film, a lot of clever images but no substance.

As for releasing it under the GFDL, ah. I have uploaded images freely to Wikipedia, but this is different, because it is a picture of my face. It's not a picture of a monument, or a building, or an aeroplane; it's me. I don't like the idea of a picture of my face being freely available. The existence of a 'fair use' tag suggests strongly to me that Wikipedia tolerates 'fair use' images, and that is how I would prefer it to remain.

If this becomes a festing sore I can always replace the picture with the image I use on Everything2, which is a shot of a shack at the foot of Old Sarum. It's in a tiny triangle of land between a road and a footpath, but because it goes uphill it looks like a vast plain.-Ashley Pomeroy 09:37, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

(I don't recall ever being called perky before...) Well, you uploaded the file on December 4, 2004. The text on Special:Upload at that time said [2]:

By uploading a file to which you hold the copyright, you agree to licence it under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License

While I understand to some extent your reluctance to license this image with a free license, it goes contrary to the upload page agreement. Also, while there are some of us who care about these licenses, many people won't and if they want this image of your face, they'll take it without checking the license (many people assume that if it's an image on Wikipedia, it must be free anyway.) So I'm not sure that you are preventing any nefarious use, anyway.

Thanks for your time. kmccoy (talk) 10:13, 1 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your support

Hi Ashley, old chap! Thank you for supporting my recent RfA. I was surprised and humbled by the number of positives votes. I'll be monitoring RfA regularly from now on and will look for a chance to "pay it forward". Cheers, --MarkSweep 02:33, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Uninvolved observers should not take this as proof that there is an "Old boy's network" at play. I know Mark Sweep's name from reading it in some of Wikipedia's talk pages, but I don't know him as a person outside Wikipedia. In fact I have never communicated with a fellow Wikipedia user outside of Wikipedia at all, and I don't plan to start; it puts me off, when I read on these discussion pages about people communicating via IRC, the mailing list, telephone etc, because it's not public and seems underhand.-Ashley Pomeroy 22:56, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that purely in a "we've both edited the same controversial article in the past" kind of way. No sinister implications were intended. --MarkSweep 01:46, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Marmite/Parwill

That explanation is, in this America's opinion, WAY overkill ... "ma" and "pa" are very common US expressions. - DavidWBrooks 22:41, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is regarding the following pair of sentences which I added to the article on Vegemite: "the product was known from 1928 to 1935 as "Parwill", in a convoluted play on words; advertising slogans suggested that "Marmite not like the taste, but I'm sure Parwill", utilising the British Commonwealth use of "Ma" and "Pa" as synonyms for "Mother" and "Father" (or, in American usage, "Mom" and "Pop")". [3]

Whilst it may appear to be overkill - and I would rather kill something stone dead than let it rise again, and again - it accounts for the fact that many English speakers are neither British nor American.-Ashley Pomeroy 22:50, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops - I must have hit the wrong link; I meant to put this on the talk page of the Vegemite article. I would like to tone it down a bit, though - I'll do it, and see what you think. - DavidWBrooks 23:00, 10 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Skyring

Hey,

re the stalking debate. You might be interested to know that 6 of his sockpuppets targeted the talk page. 3 were caught and reverted. 3 are on it. So far he has run 14 sockpuppets on Wikipedia, most tonight! Cheerful, eh! And people think there isn't a stalking problem!!!FearÉIREANN\^(caint) 02:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Catch them all. The problem isn't stalking. It's the ponderous, glacial progress of Wikipedia's disciplinary procedures; and the lack of will on the part of its administrators to punish the wicked. -Ashley Pomeroy 10:27, 22 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I was being stalked a few months ago. It transpires that we had similar interests, and with the same items on our watchlists. Hence, we were both aware of changes, and may have made futher contributions at similar times. LoopZilla 12:50:12, 2005-08-22 (UTC)

Anschluss

Hi Ashley. I appreciate you attempts to clean up the anschluss example. Let me clarify it here, and then maybe you can transform it into better prose to avoid any future misunderstandings.

There is an English word, anschluss. That's how it's spelt. (Although I have seen one dictionary that actually allows Anschluss and anschluss). The notable thing is that the German spelling has gotten closer to the English one. But maybe that's too subtle a point and we should drop it after all. Clearly, the current entry is confusing. Arbor 13:07, 24 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And in 1648 there was an English lady called Anne Sluice. [4] -Ashley Pomeroy 00:59, 3 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness

Just wanted to say thank you for all your kind words in the FAC for BBC television drama. I was just particularly enthused by this piece as it's a subject that I'm very interested in, and I'm glad that others seem to like it. You raise a good point about some of the unqualified praise of shows included in the prose, but hopefully the individual articles on these shows do demonstrate why this is the case, at least mostly. If not, they're pages that will do eventually! Angmering 18:15, 7 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The contrast between most of the Featured Article Candidates and professionally-written books etc is oftentimes depressing; if these are really the best of the lot, Wikipedia is a menace to the future of humanity. Your article was of a professional standard. Wikipedia's free-for-all model is excellent for the kind of mechanical tasks undertaken by proofreaders, researchers, formatters and so forth - a legacy of its genesis in the world of computer programming - but as a means of creating well-written content it's inappropriate. I believe a model in which a single editor owns an article, and has approval on all subsequent edits, would be better. The editors would have to be chosen carefully, by a lot more than just a simple back-slapping vote of the kind at the top of this page; if Wikipedia is to be a serious endeavour it must hold itself to professional standards. -Ashley Pomeroy 21:39, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

please

stop stalking me.

and I'm sorry that I don't have a perfect memory which would alow me to quote people perfectly.

I believe that the wicked should be stalked. I count among the wicked those editors who are perhaps well-meaning, but incompetent; a hard-working, cretinous editor is as disruptive as a deliberate vandal. You're a very poor editor, and Wikipedia would be better off without you. -Ashley Pomeroy 21:39, 24 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BigDaddy777

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BigDaddy777 has been accepted. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/BigDaddy777/Evidence Fred Bauder 15:05, 3 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Song Notability Guidelines

from Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Don't Speak/archive1:

I remember this. The first single of 1997 to spend more than a week at the top of the charts in the UK. I think it knocked Orbital's Satan off the top spot. It would probably have been a monster hit if the record company had released it later on in the year, but they snuck it out in the January graveyard because the group was unknown. Still, though, I have to oppose. The article is fairly good as far as it goes, but it's just too short. And the reason the article is too short is because there isn't enough to write about Don't Speak without resorting to padding of the "in Denmark, the single entered the chart on (date) before climbing to (position) on (date) and dropping to (position) a week later before leaving the chart altogether on (date)" variety. There's not enough meat to make a meal out of it. Although far from non-notable, the song just isn't-notable-enough; very few pop songs are worth more than a bare summary of dates, chart positions and personnel, especially as the 1980s and 1990s and 2000s has seen pop music - actual pop music singles, individual songs, rather than the phenomenon of pop stars - become such a trivial, tangental part of popular culture. You could write a lengthy article about, say, Do They Know It's Christmas or We Didn't Start the Fire or possibly even Men at Work's Down Under, but not this. The song is not about anything more than a lost love, it didn't play any part in a big cultural movement. And it doesn't really encapsulate 1997 or the late 1990s in any way. Unlike, for example, In the Air Tonight by Phil Collins, you can't write about how it has come to be an aural metaphor for its time period, either through association with popular television or literally because the production techniques were widely imitated. The guitar solo is pleasant. I'm petering out.

You might be interested in the discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Music/Notability and Music Guidelines/Songs. --FuriousFreddy 04:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In this particular case I was opposing the nomination of Wikipedia's article on Don't Speak, a popular song by modern-day pop band No Doubt, as a featured article, rather than as an article per se. I know enough about Wikipedia to keep out of policy discussions, because it's just a waste of effort. I believe that if you want to effect real, meaningful change, you have to take up arms. Only violent force and the credible threat of terrible repercussions, however distant, can make people do what you want, or cower them into silence with the same result. Wikipedia is not a good vehicle for this kind of thing, because firstly most Wikipedia editors hide behind pseudonyms and secondly most of them are not in Britain, and thus I cannot feasibly threaten them.

My personal opinion is that time will solve the problem of Wikipedia being filled up with ephemera; a hundred years from now the article on No Doubt, if there is an article on No Doubt, will state that the band existed from this date to that date, had this many people in it and was particularly noteworthy for the popular standard Don't Speak. It will be two paragraphs long, and that will be the extent of Wikipedia's coverage of No Doubt.

If Wikipedia had existed in 1952 in Britain it would probably have been filled with article after article about Dan Dare, his spaceship, his companions, his clothes, his boots, his favourite brand of cigarette etc, but now there is just Dan Dare. A hundred years from now there won't be articles on Klingons or the things Captain Kirk said in some fan-written novel, there will be a short article on Star Trek, and that will be Wikipedia's coverage of that. All of Wikipedia's coverage of mobile phones, ringtones, "happy slapping" etc will be as forgotten, a hundred years from now, as the pranks which must have gone on when radio and morse code were new. If you want to make a persistent mark on Wikipedia, make some definitive edits to the articles on hydrogen or granite. -Ashley Pomeroy 02:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to butt in, but I have to say I'm not sure that'll quite be the case. While I certainly agree that there are such 'fads', as it were, I don't think those articles will shrink down or disappear – there's no reason for them to, really. They'll all still be there, unless server space starts to become a major issue (which in 100 years time probably it won't be – they'll all have the entirety of Wikipedia downloaded onto their digital watches by then) they simply won't be updated or added to much any more. That's my view on it, anyway. Angmering 21:31, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

John Henry

I don't think that the user you refer to is the same as LJS/John Henry. For one thing he seems to be pushing the opposite point of view. Also the list of articles edited shows little similarity to the ones edited by LJS which do include the Abramoff article but he tends to focus on one article for several days at a time, apparently whatever article is on the Rush Limbaugh show that day. It appears he only found the Abramoff scandal this week, his mission seems to be to bend every story to a pro-Abramoff POV which is something of a challenge given the fact that the guy is involved in a mob casino takeover deal and Bouils, the guy Abramoff is indicted for cheating out of $23 million was murdered. I don't see your user on the Blanco, Nagin, Able Danger etc articles being edited by your guy. So I think they are different. Unfortunately one of the consequences of having what amounts to a DoS attack against the articles by the likes of LJS is that in the course of the revert wars (12 or more times in a day was common) many other edits get lost.--Gorgonzilla 04:07, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]