User talk:Hadal/Archive3

This is an archive of correspondence spanning August 1–October 29, 2004. To leave me a message, please go to my current talk page: User talk:Hadal. I probably won't respond to a message left on this page.

User:203.121.0.16

(User:203.121.0.16 | talk | contributions)

Hi, I'm new to Wikipedia. I've tried to draw attention to this user who seems to spend their time radomly vandalism various articles on the Vandalism in Progress page but nothing seems to have been done about them. So, I thought I should draw attention to this person to a more experienced user. Thanks.

Re: John Kerry - are you kiding?

I have been dialoging for days, with a rotating group of mostly pro-Kerry POV'ers who simply clam up and refuse to answer when true facts they don't like are dropped in their lap. Now, all of a sudden, you re-protect Kerry? This is just like last time - you guys put what you wanted in and then locked the page What a farce!

PS: Tha butterfly image on your page is very nice, where did you get it? Rex071404 07:04, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Your protection of the John Kerry article was quite correct, for the reasons you stated. Nevertheless, we're left in the same unpromising situation that's plagued us for several days. I realize that you didn't volunteer to make a major effort to resolve the problem, but, while your attention is on the page, do you have any suggestion about how to proceed? A Request for Comment brought in a few new participants but no resolution. A Request for Mediation was declined (with some ensuing dispute about that statement; nothing on this article comes easily). I'm left feeling very frustrated, and I'm obviously not the only one. (That might be one of the few points on which Rex071404 and I agree.) JamesMLane 08:16, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your sincere response to my query. My current solution is that all United States citizens and permanent resident aliens will be barred from editing the page. We'll leave it to you foreigners to work out. :) JamesMLane 09:08, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have not refused mediation on John Kerry, rather the issue is not ripe for that yet as I am still trying to dialog

I am still 100% ready, willing and able to continue to engage in contructive dialog. Notice my discussion about the Ortgea section which occured immediately after last night's re-protect of Kerry. It is ovious on the face off it that I am willing to dialog and compromise. It is the others who will not. Rex071404 16:41, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Reverting My User Page

Thanks for reverting my userpage, but I ws right, CoolDude is back, and he vandalised my user page before as 216.186.33.4 so this isn't new.--Ryan B. (Talk, contributions) 09:36, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Chat

Come to chat. Mike H 02:04, Aug 6, 2004 (UTC)

Don't mind if I do. Though I'm having problems finding y'all. Don't know a nick to recognize ya' by. Methylsoy 04:33, Aug 09, 2004 (EST)

Re: "arbitration/Rex071404"

Please take note, yesterday, I posted my version of the facts on this issue as per the page's instructions: "If you disagree with some evidence you see here, please provide counter-evidence, or an explanation of why the evidence is misleading. Please do this under a seperate header, to seperate your response from the original evidence."

However, tonight, Neutrality has twice deleted my statement from that page and instead moved it to the "discussion" page.

I am trying my best to defuse the tense dynamic between Neutrality an myself, but I am at a loss as to what to do.

For example, Neutrality is again jumping all over my edits on John Kerry and deleted/reversed me me multiple times tonight wihtout discussion. I have left copious notes on that talk page explaining my edits, but Neutrality dos not dialog with me.

I really would appreciate some guidedance on getting Neutrality to give me some breathing room.

Also, please take note, although I am feeling very pressed againg by Neutrality, I am not reverting to my intial method of snide commentary.

Since Snowspinner chastized me several days ago with a 24hr ban, I have reconsidered and am avoiding harsh statements. That being the case, when can I expect Neutrality to be advised to leave me be and not be so agressive to me? Rex071404 02:19, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Message me

If you see this AT ALL today, message me ASAP. I'm leaving for Tampa tomorrow. Mike H 14:58, Aug 11, 2004 (UTC)

I found out that we are leaving on Friday after all, but still, IM me and email me when you get this. Get on chat if it's before 9:30 Central. Mike H 02:05, Aug 12, 2004 (UTC)

Vandals on the loose

Looks like the vandals got here before you did - both here and your userpage were hit. They've been reverted; check out the hist for details. -- Grunt (talk) 01:16, 2004 Aug 13 (UTC)

Thanks

I appreciate your quick response to vandalism of my userpage! - Ta bu shi da yu 10:07, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

More thanks

Thanks for coming to my aid when my Talk page got visited by Ghitis yesterday. I think I'll just ignore him, but if he comes back, I'll list him on Wikipedia:Requests for Comment. -- Heron 19:23, 14 Aug 2004 (UTC)

There Reverts

Thank you for protecting the page.

I'm starting to think it'd be a nice idea for levels of 'protection'... I'll outline my thoughts on the pump in a few mins. --TIB 20:38, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

Barnstar

I'm awarding you a barnstar for your repeated, and rapid, dealing with vandalism. . Rick K 06:42, Aug 16, 2004 (UTC)

Your vote needed at George_W._Bush

Please go here, ASAP and vote.

Rex071404 07:11, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Tampa

I am now in Tampa, but ethernet access is not available at my dorm yet. I hope to be up and running in two days at most. An email, hopefully, is forthcoming. If it does not arrive, please understand my predicament. 131.247.44.195 17:13, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)

please stop blocking me

For the second consecutive day, I've been blocked by you. As a sysop myself, I can unblock but iT's a nuisance to have to do so. I assume it's happening because my ISP uses dynamic addresses, so I don't know quite what the answer is. jimfbleak 05:34, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Hadal, You Need to Limit Your Policing Activities So That They Don't Detract from Wikipedia

I posted an external link to the Workers' Compensation article on Wikipedia. The link I posted, Workers' Compensation Claims,was well written, much more comprehensive than the Wikipedia article itself, and in general a much better resource. You deleted it. You did this on several other External links I added to various articles on legal subjects. Wikipedia's articles on legal issues are often inadequate, and to the extent that high quality external links can be added, it helps Wikipedia. Your contributions to Wikipedia are certainly valuable, but if you start flexing your muscles just for the sake of showing that you can or for whatever other reasons you may have, you'll be hurting Wikipedia. That external link should not have been removed. It's not worth fighting over, but in this instance and others, you have done Wikipedia a disservice.

Wikipedia is not merely a repository of external links, especially not commercial ones. What you were doing was simply spamming (you can deny an affiliation with ashcraftandgerel.com, but let's just say I'm skeptical). If the information provided in the link is so grand, why not import it into the Wikipedia articles (in your own words, if the text isn't yours to release under the GFDL)? External links aren't what I call contributions; more often than not they're just self-promotion. -- Hadal 17:31, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You might concern yourself with actually creating useful articles instead of attacking one of the best vandal-policing sysops we have on Wikipedia. Rick K 23:38, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

I see. So we have a little clique here, and that seems to be your primary concern, rather than making sure Wikipedia is not being dumbed down by the authoritarianism of an individual. The articles to which I linked were clearly superior to Wikipedia's articles, but what is equally clear is that had I simply substituted the entire articles, rather than simply linking to them, Hadal would have deleted the substituted articles, using as the reason that they were from a commercial site or some such other excuse. Now, Wikipedia is left with the inferior articles and no links. Way to go guys.

In reply to your blocking message

Your Message While it seems from the above objection and others that this is not the first time you have done a powerplay 'vandalism' reversal, I would say that the piece of information I added to the page you say I vandalized was a suggestion for improvement of the content of that page (a fairly benign one at that, not even mildly controversial), not vandalism - since that was my first attempt at wikipedia, needless to say this sours my impression of this apparently heavily 'moderated' (read censored) publication. Nice work Hadal! And may I say it is very handy that you don't have a way to contact you anywhere on the warning page! Then I could tell you offline what I really think instead of having to be polite here.

"Powerplay?" "Censored?" Who do you think you're fooling? How is an edit like this NOT vandalism? --Ardonik.talk()^* 18:09, Sep 20, 2004 (UTC)
Indeed. If you consider your edits to be "suggestion[s] for improvement", then I have only one thing to say: Wikipedia has no need for your brand of "suggestion". Good day. -- Hadal 18:14, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

- Hmm, well that's not my edit..would agree that that is vandalism - I may give you a second chance and sign up with a uid so I don't get your nasty messages to other people, unfortunately I don't remember which piece I edited but it was basically 'a link to such and such related concept would be nice here' because at the time I didn't know how to do that (have since gotten a demo from my friend on how to edit - so you can remove this whole paragraph at your leisure, though given the company I work at is highly ethical, I am disappointed to think someone else at this ip posted that. Nice responsiveness though, do you get notifications when a page changes?

Yes, creating an account is recommended if only to prevent misunderstandings like this (you also get other features not available to an anon editor; check that link to learn more). To answer your question, not exactly: all edits (however minor) are listed at Recent Changes. From there, users can check the differences (diffs) relatively easily and revert bad edits. With enough people watching, vandalism is usuually caught rather quickly.

I hope this hasn't soured your perception of Wikipedia. I was merely trying to do my part in fighting vandalism: the warning you received was obviously not meant for you. -- Hadal 18:31, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

- Since we go through a proxy server here that IP either belongs to us (fixed) or is a ISP IP block. I will find out from our sys admin whether that is our ip and if so he should be able to tell me who was responsible for that post (I hope a recent conference delegate and not one of our staff). If it was a staff member I am certain this will be dealt with swiftly.

- also, as a suggestion, including the edited snippet in the warning message when issuing warnings to IP addresses would help a user determine whether or not the warning is directed at them (as I made an edit about a week ago, I assumed it was mine).

Tomé José de Barros Queirós

Why did you redirect Tomé José de Barros Queirós to Wikipedia:How to edit a page? --Diberri | Talk 16:50, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

Silly me. At first I figured you had moved the page rather than redirecting it, but when I checked the source I saw #redirect [[Wikipedia:How to edit a page]] -- the #redirect in lowercase gave me the impression that this was a manual job. (I had previously thought that when moving a page, the software changes the old page to #REDIRECT [[...]], with all capital letters.) In any case, I was just curious :-) Thanks for the clarification. --Diberri | Talk 17:33, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

Template:Test

Hi Hadal -- just out of curiosity, what wasn't working? When I tried it it seemed to be fine. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 16:47, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Deleting Wikipedia Admin Hypocrisy article

I was told if there was a factual basis for writing an article (like the horrific GNAA article) that it should be rewritten. Now we have admins abusing their power to delete anything against them. This is precisely why people don't trust the admins or the site itself.

Rather than repeat myself, I'll just point you back to User talk:209.11.41.18 so you can re-read my comments carefully. Also, please realise that Wikipedia editors are generally brighter than the average bunch, so we won't be falling for your duplicity and cries of censorship. If you want to make a complaint against an administrator, there are proper channels available to do so; creating a rant article is not one of those channels. -- Hadal 17:02, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

"Infinate" Justice

I *reluctantly* unblocked this user. Policy calls for an initial block of 24 hours. His edits are annoying but fall short of outright vandalism. If even a 24 hour block is appropriate, it should be combined with trying to engage the user, as we've done with others. Later the block can be made longer if necessary. -- Cecropia | Talk 17:17, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You'll have to describe the image for me. I'm not picking up images from Wikipedia on my browsers. -- Cecropia | Talk 17:24, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

User:38.115.7.18

Hi Hadal, thanks for rolling back this annoying user's edits. I've blocked him after not heeding your warning. From the user's contributions, it was obvious that he was working from an alphabetic list (evidenced by the fact that arterial hypertension was vandalised, because hypertension is a disambig). This stuff happens on a daily basis on medical articles; I hope this editor stays away. JFW | T@lk 21:54, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Email

E-mail me. See my user page for update. Mike H 06:31, Aug 20, 2004 (UTC)

You're Welcome, re: Sancy

Thanks for noticing my edits to the Sancy article -- you're quite welcome. (Some fun research, too.) Happy to help wherever I can.... Catherine | talk 01:44, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia Dynamic IP Bug

Hi Hadal, In reference to User talk:195.93.34.9, I understand the need to police anonymous users but please be aware of this bug in Wikipedia. I regularly get new message notifications for random IP addresses even though my IP address is always correctly detected when I post or update. When this occurs, the resulting thread is always full of confused anonymous users shocked that they're being accused of something they did not do.--218.50.191.197 11:21, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Chat

I need to speak with you. Mike H 02:43, Aug 25, 2004 (UTC)

Again. Mike H 18:42, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)

Genocide Revert

I didn't see that only the maps were public domain from http://www.wesleyjohnston.com/, sorry.

Someone is fooling with 2004 again

Gidday! I see you gave someone the "first warning" (ie "go and play in the sandbox") message a few days ago. He or she was at it again with 2004 about 40 minutes ago. I might muck it up if I tried to fix it, but I hope you or some other experienced fixer can fix it. Robin Patterson 05:59, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

New look

Spiffy, chap. Spiffy. Mike H 19:09, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

I'm in chat now, too. Mike H 19:11, Aug 30, 2004 (UTC)

Chat. Mike H 02:32, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

Clitoris

You've just violated a rule by reverting *and* protecting a non-vandalized page in the same edit. Please kindly revert the page, or unprotect it. Otherwise be open to arbitration. Thanks! --Cantus 07:34, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

A sourceless image is a dangerous image to use in an article. Some choose to remove them until a source is given, and/or list them on Wikipedia:Copyright problems. I chose to remove your image, especially since you have a history of violating copyright. Also note that I can favour a version edited by the user(s) most closely following the three revert rule, which you were closest to violating. Have fun with the RfC. -- Hadal 08:05, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

He wasn't "closest to violating" this rule, he actually violated it several times, although on a different article (see the history of Siberia article). I can't take any action since it was me who was reverting his edits. The reverts are finally over (thanks to Mikkalai), but the violation should go on record. Seems like no one likes Cantus these days. Can't blame them, though.--Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 15:22, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

Policy on redirects for capitalization against style

Why redirect instead of delete? We don't normal maintain redirects when most people wouldn't think to capitalize the phrase. I was doing a good citizen deed by simply clicking on the red requested article link but after doing the first paragraphs realized the title shouldn't have been capitalized. Since I don't know how to edit a title, I made a new article. Why not kill the mistake, since it's not a phrase people would expect capitalized? Alteripse 03:05, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Vandal vs. userpage

Your userpage was hit (again). -- Grun t 🇪🇺 00:03, 2004 Sep 10 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Hadal, thanks for blocking the AOLbot. Antandrus 22:58, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I was Blocked

Hi Hadal, How are you? I know that your block of me,was unintentional and that it was directed at someone using an IP. How can we keep this from happening again? Just out of curiousity, what is an AOLVandalot? User:Marine 69-71

Thanks for answering my questions; you live and learn, right? User:Marine 69-71

Hey

Can you get on MSN? Mike H 02:19, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

MSN, huh? Mike H 13:40, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

Template:PD

Hello,

Can you temporarily unprotect Template:PD? I'd like to turn it into a pretty box like Template:Fairuse. -Cow 05:50, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Done. User:Cow 06:21, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

203.144.21.77

Can you please deal with 203.144.21.77? I don't block people any more. Rick K 03:48, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

Lazy sod. :-) Thanks, anyway. And you're right, since I stopped blocking people, my stress level is considerably lower, especially since I don't have to deal with Guanaco and Danny second guessing me and unblocking everybody I blocked. Rick K 19:00, Sep 13, 2004 (UTC)

Giant Isopod

I thought you article on giant isopods was cool, so I put your it in the Did you know... section of the front page :). Thue | talk 19:31, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Roy Suryo

I'm somewhat puzzled by your recent Roy Suryo reverts. Granted, it's never a good sign when a non-registered user blanks out large portions of a page, but it seems to me the version you're reverting to is just a diatribe against the guy written in broken English. Does such a thing really belong in an encyclopedia? Perhaps the page should be left as a stub until someone can write something objective (and grammatical) about him. dreish 20:36, 2004 Sep 13 (UTC)

Lance Armstrong

Hadal, you are being an asshole. Lance just like Paris Hilton can sue the tabloid magazines if what they print isn't true. Just because they are one of the few that print this type of information does not make it untrue. The quote I showed came from a reputable Womens magazine that ref'd the original tabloid. The point is that Lance didn't sue so it must be true as we well know that Lance can and will sue at the drop of the hat.

Why is so damn important to you to disinclude this fact which lends a lot of relevance to his moral and ethical choices and more than likely his preponderance to cheat?

Oh, and you're the very model of civility (I'd check that link out if I were you; further personal attacks may see your editing ability revoked). If what you're trying to push is true, you shouldn't have any trouble finding a source that isn't either a) a tabloid, or b) a "reputable Womens magazine" merely regurgitating a tabloid's filth to titillate readers. Please be advised that Wikipedia is not the place to take potshots at your most hated celebrity with unsubstantiated rumour. I suggest you look into one of the many Yahoo groups for that purpose; I'm sure they'd be glad to have you. However, if you're still interested in helping build an encyclopedia (not a tabloid) please take a look at our welcome page to learn how. -- Hadal 18:46, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Vandalism

Thanks. Hyacinth 18:51, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

S Jones is not a prominent evolutionary biologist

Hadal,

Apologies if I didn't explain my deletion of S Jones, but he is not prominent in evolutionary theory (compared to many others), and stands out like a sore thumb on the Evolution list. Putting him there would be like putting Paul Martin on the list of 20 most prominent world political leaders of the last two centuries (since you are Canadian). Also perhaps like putting Nabokov on the list of most prominent entomologists (since you have an interest in that field). Nabokov is prominent for his writing, but not for his entomology, although he did do some. This analogy is generous to Jones, since it is not clear whether his writing will or will not stand the test of time. His inclusion on that list appears to be more promotion than reality, even if one does greatly appreciate his writing.

Cheers,

EGenBio

Steve Jones is one of the pre-eminent British evolutionary biologist academics and populists. What article is in dispute here? [[User:Noisy|Noisy | Talk]] 08:24, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

The article in dispute is evolution; specifically this edit. I had thought the anon ("EGenBio") had perhaps removed the name because it originally led to a disambig page, which may have been confusing to a new editor; I restored the link and disambiguated it accordingly. From reading Jones' article, he does sound prominent enough to mention, but I won't pretend I'm very knowledgeable enough in the subject of evolutionary biology to judge. You (Noisy) apparently disagree with EGenBio, so I'm not about to delist the name either. I was just trying to fix an apparently (to me anyway) confused user's edit. -- Hadal 09:05, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Vandal catcher

You ARE fast, you even beat me in reverting my own user page :), good work! Hows the weather in Canada? Take care. -- Solitude 18:57, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Ditto, quick work sir. My hat is off to you. Mackensen 02:25, 24 Sep 2004 (UTC)

And another. kashasu

So? Is this NOT neutral enough for you? (911)

Half of New Yorkers Believe US Leaders Had Foreknowledge of Impending 9-11 Attacks and “Consciously Failed” To Act; 66% Call For New Probe of Unanswered Questions by Congress or New York’s Attorney General, New Zogby International Poll Reveals

On the eve of a Republican National Convention invoking 9/11 symbols, sound bytes and imagery, half (49.3%) of New York City residents and 41% of New York citizens overall say that some of our leaders "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act," according to the poll conducted by Zogby International. The poll of New York residents was conducted from Tuesday August 24 through Thursday August 26, 2004. Overall results have a margin of sampling error of +/-3.5.

The poll is the first of its kind conducted in America that surveys attitudes regarding US government complicity in the 9/11 tragedy. Despite the acute legal and political implications of this accusation, nearly 30% of registered Republicans and over 38% of those who described themselves as "very conservative" supported the claim.

The charge found very high support among adults under 30 (62.8%), African-Americans (62.5%), Hispanics (60.1%), Asians (59.4%), and "Born Again" Evangelical Christians (47.9%).

see http://www.zogby.com/search/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855

oh, and please refrain from calling me, and 60% of New Yorkers 'not helpful' when adding truthful facts to wikipedia!

Thank you!

Thanks for reverting my Userpage - I was away and didn't get back until today, so it's a good thing somebody was looking out for it. --Goobergunch 23:41, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Vampire suqid image reversion

Regarding the reversion of Image:Vampyroteuthis illustration.jpg to its previous version, if I did that it was indeed a mistake, but as far as I'm aware I haven't done anything witht hat image. Please revert it to the intended image.

--Martin Wisse 14:45, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for restoring links

I'd just finished rewriting the introduction to the War article when I noticed and deleted some apparent vandalism at the end. As a newcomer I didn't distinguish between the vandalism and the interlanguage links you restored, so I'm grateful for the assistance. I think user 221.197.20.66 placed those there. Can you advise as to procedure for reporting this?

--NathanHawking 19:38, 2004 Sep 27 (UTC)

Protection

Hi Hadal, I think your protecting General Mayhem is pretty uncontroversial. However, usually admins invovled with a page should get another uninvolved admin to protect. Just a reminder. Thanks. Fuzheado | Talk 05:09, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for reverting Gwen Araujo. Didn't have that one on my watchlist for some reason. Ambi 04:44, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hehe

I noticed you reverted my user page. I'm impressed anyone noticed that it had even changed! It was actually a change made by a co-worker. I was demonstrating to him that he could change any page on Wikipedia at will, which took him by surprise. It's only because of the dedication of people like yourself that such openness is possible. Keep up the good work!

(Peter bertok 13:52, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC))

Is there a revert template or something?

I notice that you and others leave edit comments in the exact form "reverted edits by {someone} to last version by {other person}". Is there some magical wiki code that lets you do that? I seem to be doing more and more reverts these days, can you impart some wisdom? --[[User:Sunborn|metta, The Sunborn ☸]] 17:14, 1 Oct 2004 (UTC)

MSN

Now, please. Mike H 04:27, Oct 2, 2004 (UTC)

Mistaken Identity?

Hi, I just registered because I had received a message stating that my ip was being watched for vandalism?

I got this message here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:198.133.246.27

That is not my ip address, and I have never used the 'edit' command here once until today to post this message here. Now I seriously respect the Wikipedia project and would never troll or vandalize here, because I enjoy the site so much.

Happy Birthday!

Happy birthday, Hadal! Whosyourjudas (talk) 01:04, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hear, hear! Mackensen 01:06, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion

See Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion. Anthony is challenging your right to make speedy deletions. And Happy Birthday! Rick K 01:16, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)

No I'm not. I'm only challenging a few speedy deletions which don't appear to fit the criteria for speedy deletions. anthony (see warning) 15:52, 5 Oct 2004 (UTC)

What's wrong?

Always when i surf to the english wikipedia, i receive a message, which tells me not to edit pages variously or "do it in the sandbox". i - don't - change - anything - here. I only work for rhe german wikipedia (Username: Roger Zenner) and know about the rules. So why, please, do i receive messages like this so often?

regards Roger

Watts, Los Angeles, CA

Regading your edit: I do believe it belongs there because that's what defines that neighborhood. It's not a place you'd want to drive into by mistake, but rather one to avoid at all costs.

ATTN HADAL

Is there a way you can get a hold of me again please? MetalMilitia 04:01, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Broken category link

Since it appears you may be online right now, I'm asking you. :-) Could you take a look at Megatsunami? One of the category links (forms of water) appears broken and I can't figure out why. I went to add the missing bracket but it was there already. I'm stumped. Thank you. SWAdair | Talk 06:18, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, on both accounts. SWAdair | Talk 07:04, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Anon vandal

Thanks for saving me the trouble. Very Verily 07:17, 8 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Another token of appreciation

Sir Hadal, I don't know HOW you did it, but you managed to sort through that huge mess of redirects and page moves. I myself couldn't even find WHERE anything actually ended up, much less how to put everything back in its right place. But then you come in, with your hotshot mojo and all, and you smoke the thing like it's 2nd grade math. You, my good man, continually prove yourself to be one of Wikipedia's most valuable assets. This day will henceforth forever be known as The Day That Hadal Saved Community Portal.

Thanks once again. blankfaze | (беседа!) 10:25, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Refrain from deleting my link.

Please refrain from deleting the link I posted in the Ken Bigley page. this is NOt a beheading video as you incorrectly presumed it to be, it was merely the original quality of the one you directed to on ogrish, except it was unaltered, unlike ogrish did, thereby reducing the quality of the video so they could include their website link on the video. For the present time, I have not altered the link that you continually revert back to, as the three revert rule was broken forty moves ago.

Message To Hadal Re: Your Phil Collins Deletion

To Hadal: don't revert other people's edits. Someone obviously put a lot of hard work into the second mini-article that was present on this page. It contains information that is as valuable as whatever's in the longer article. Someone should merge the two of them together, but I did not restore the original content so that some bits of information could overshadow some others.

Please, someone with the time and the interest in reading about Phil Collins, merge this information in with the rest of the article:

<snipped text dump from Talk:Phil Collins>

The content was originally on the talk page, so I didn't really remove anything; it was only placed to the article from the talk page (where it was originally) because User:Ground (whom you recently chastised) didn't know how to do a proper revert. You reverted to D6's version before the deletions and pasted the talk page material on top of it. You then said in your edit summary that the article was a mess; a mess you had a part in. If you couldn't be bothered to merge the text, you should have left it on the talk page.

Also, please do not edit other users' userpages as you did to Ground's (not only is this impolite, but the user won't get the "You have new messages" notice this way). I moved your message to him from his userpage to his talk page for you. -- Hadal 05:17, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Update: It looks like you're actually banned user Mr. Treason, so it's just as well that I reverted you. Nice try with switching your static IP though. -- Hadal 05:38, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

<Fifth grade insults from Mr. Treason deleted; see [1] for an example>

I am unclear on the reason for your comment to me

"Do you plan to add schema-root.org links to every topic conceivable? Please be aware that Wikipedia is not merely a collection of external links, nor is it a vehicle for self-promotion. I would suggest you stop while you're ahead; mass spamming will be reverted, and you may be blocked from editing if you continue. -- Hadal 04:28, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)"

Hadal,

I don't understand the basis for your comment to me. The schema-root.org links I am adding to pages add significantly to the value of the Wikipedia pages, in that they carry current news feeds about each precise Wikipedia topic in question.

Schema-root.org calls itself an encyclopedia of current events, and the name suits it. Nearly 2,000 schema-root.org pages have links to whichever Wikipedia pages they may be related to.

My effort has been to connect information sources in a meaningful way, so that a user may most readily research their topic.

The "stop while you're ahead" comment is most perplexing. If you believe that the links to schema-root.org pages detract from the Wikipedia pages that they are on, why wouldn't that be enough reason to simply remove them?

If, on the other hand, they add to the value of the pages, why call them spamming or self-promotion?

Wherever schema-root.org links contribute to Wikipedia pages, why would you wish to ration them? John Tinker 16:40, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for getting that speedy

Could you keep an eye on this user for me - he has been vandalising Christopher Reed and some geography. Thanks, Intrigue 19:08, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

My nomination for adminship

Thank you for supporting my nomination for adminship. I will do my best to serve Wikipedia. --Slowking Man 00:09, Oct 13, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for the revert

Hi Hadal, yes, it was indeed vandalism... ip2location.com says it was from KAIST. Strange. I don't recall annoying anyone from there lately. Anyway, thanks again. You rock! Regards, Wile E. Heresiarch 12:37, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Penis

Your revert sadly makes no sense. If you wish to include the statement that male circumcision is controversial you need to place it in some sort of context, no? Controversial for whom? Who these people who find circumcision controversial, is it as a result of religious or tribal rivalries or maybe where activist organisations are involved (speaking louder than the sum of their membership or followers) You make such a statement you need to place it in context. Sometimes a simple sentence can indeed be loaded. But perhaps you know that, eh? - Robert the Bruce 03:58, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You responded as follows on my talk page:

That article is not the place to be debating the issue. It's about the penis itself, not  
circumcision. Context is always good, but your edit wasn't what I'd call constructive; you 
simply discredit the (otherwise unspoken) opinion of those opposed to circumcision as a small, 
loud group of "psycho sexually motivated" internet users. Belittling views contrary to your 
own is usually an ineffective way of currying favour for your views, eh? As for your "compromise,"
I must say you could do better; now you're blaming "anti-circumcision activists" of "stoking
controversy", as if everything would be just fine if it weren't for the radical subversives. 
Do you really believe every person opposed to circumcision is—by default—an eristic rabble-rouser?  
-- Hadal 04:15, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You failed to address my issue about context. Why? Anyway I have edited the applicable passage again so as to address your concerns. BTW please show me where you have reverted some of the more off the wall comment by our resident "anti circumcision activists"? - Robert the Bruce 05:22, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

John Lott

User:38.118.12.78 has broken the three-revert rule now on John Lott. When would it be appropriate to list this on Vandalism in Progress? -- Antaeus Feldspar 05:52, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, I can't claim to be an expert on John Lott, but I know that 38.118.12.78 is removing true and important information on the man, namely that by his own admission he has used at least one false identity (that of "Mary Rosh") as a sockpuppet to praise himself and denigrate his critics. That's information the man himself has admitted to; to omit it from the article when it's almost what he's most famous for is definitely not kosher. -- Antaeus Feldspar 06:11, 20 Oct 2004 (UTC)

hi! I'm at a public computer at mcgill university, montreal, and I got a link on a page about geosynchronous orbits, saying I have new messages, leading here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:205.188.116.201

that's not even close to the ip i'm on.. maybe its a bug in your software?

toodles!

Abortion Link

I wanted to know you opinion on a link in the Abortion entry.

It was placed after very brief breast cancer paragraph by 128.118.56.62. The website is run by Dr. Brind who is pro-life, but he is not ideological; his research and rationale are pretty solid regarding the Abortion-Breast Cancer link. So perhaps it is indeed a suitable ying to the establishments yang.

I'm aware of that because I spent several months researching the Abortion Breast-Cancer (ABC) controversy as an aspiring writer/journalist. Even though that career path has yet to progress I did end up writing and re-writing about 1/2 dozen times a long (and I consider) excellent article on the subject.

Anyhow if you feel the link is ultimately inappropriate I think I have an alternative ying. It was written by an investigative journalist noting pro-choice hypocrisy and lack of criticism in the scientific community for studies "disproving" the ABC link.

Also I wanted to add a few paragraphs on the ABC issue history, explanation, perspective, answer the question in the discussion section, and add more balance to the one paragraph referring to one meta-analysis, which isn't immune to bias.

But I want to do it in collaboration with someone who knows what they are doing so I don't run the risk of additions being edited out. And this goes beyond what to write... but how it should be implemented. I could easily write enough to warrant a separate entry for the ABC issue or I could do something short to fit in Abortion.

Soooooo um, help! :') Should I be working with you, or someone else? I live in Dundas, Ontario... I'm pro-choice and pro-science. So the fact I saw science being distorted by the ABC issue got me motivated to write the article, which I could e-mail to you if you're interested.

Thanks for your time, and your wiki efforts.

Question: The Abortion entry has been vandalized so many times shouldn't they lock it out from new users? Is that possible?

I've replied (at length) at User talk:RoyBoy. -- Hadal 04:47, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Abortion Cont'd

Thanks for the tilde advice. I hope I can convince you to get more involved in this. The ABC debate is complicated, but it is hardly a matter of one pro-life doctor on a crusade. Consider this... is his isolation merely a matter of him being wrong, or is it a reflection of pro-choice bias in the scientific community? Which punishes researchers for publishing studies indicating a ABC link by scrutinizing then heaping critiques on their work. Now this should be par for the course in peer reviewed studies, right? However the problem is there is a double standard in the level of scrutiny studies undergo depending on their results.

Pro-choice researchers such as Dr. Daling, a professor of epidemiology at Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Centre in Seattle, found statistically significant results supporting the ABC link. (she did two studies) I called her and she essentially refused to talk to me about it because of the trouble her studies had caused her in the scientific community and the media (even the book What Liberal Bias?, which competently refutes right-wing caricatures of the media as being liberal, conceded the pro-choice bias in the media). Daling was simply tired of talking about it and getting nowhere, but she stood by her results.

Anyway http://www.iol.ie/~hlii/beforeyouchoose.html is the website by the investigative journalist who works for Accuracy in Media.

"The National Cancer Institute also disproves such a connection."

No they didn't. (you should be very careful when using the word proof/prove in scientific matters) They had a meeting which was skewed. Keep in mind here the context of this conference. They were fighting a conservative take over of their webpage, but as I see so often in the ABC debate... they overcompensated and science/dialogue fell by the wayside. It was a pissing match... not a scientific review. Notice Dr. Daling wasn't asked to present her ABC findings. http://www.bcpinstitute.org/abc_nci.htm

This is a microcosm of the ABC "debate". The big picture is the scientific community is fighting what they perceive to be purely an ideological assault on science by pro-lifers using the ABC issue as a scare tactic. This was true in decades past with anecdotal evidence at best. However ever since Russo and Russo (1980) showed an ABC link in rats (and confirmed the finding in 1987); there has been a reasonable basis to suspect an ABC link. And most informed scientists and doctors know this... however there is a consensus (among them), that the potential link is too small and would overly frighten women from abortion. (which is true if the ABC link isn't explained correctly, since getting an abortion very early in the pregnancy, or taking a "morning after" pill carry little to no ABC risk)

Now it is my opinion that ever since the Melbye study in 1997 (ironically a large record based study which apparently "proved" no link); that a link was actually established by that study if you look at their data. And once you understand how and why they adjusted their data to reach a conclusion of exactly 0% risk increase... you will understand how I could make such a ludicrous statement. It is also a prime example of the double standard of scrutiny scientific studies receive based on their conclusions.

The problem is as the science has improved there is more (not less) evidence to show a link. However the political battle lines were drawn long ago and the side are entrenched with myths (mostly on the pro-life side, but it was the myths on the pro-choice side that made me realize Dr. Brind did actually know what he was talking about, since I too had initially labeled him as damaged goods when doing my research), and with the media safely pro-choice... it isn't exactly a level playing field.

Hence it is hardly surprising: "I've never heard of a reliable, objective study which proves such a connection."

Here are record based studies doing just that:

Howe et al (1989) Int J Epidemiol 18(2):300-4
Melbye et al (1997) N Engl J Med 336:81-5 (prior to statistical adjustment)

(The Howe study is discussed by the AIM journalist in the The "Swedish Data Massage". Note: I do recognize he misinterprets the relative risk numbers for the Swedish study, which were 0.58 and 1.09. Meaning there was a decreased risk of 42% and an increased risk of 9%. However the initial criticism of there being no well defined control group is accurate... making the statistics, and indeed the findings of the study meaningless.)

Interview based studies (there are many more... but the same "recall bias" argument is leveled on them all, without substantiation):

Daling et al (1994) JNCI 86:1584-92
Daling et al (1996) Am J Epidemiol 144:373-80

Rats:

Russo & Russo (1980) Am J Pathol 100:506
Russo & Russo (1987) Lab Invest. Aug;57(2):112-37

It should be noted Dr. Brind did a meta analysis that got a lot of flack. He worked with some pro-choice scientists on it... but moreover the critique of his work (and meta analysis in general) can be applied to the Lancet meta analysis; which Dr. Brind discusses here.

This subject is intricate, and is not remotely getting a fair hearing on wiki. The contention that one meta analysis settles the issue is not only laughable… but simply unscientific. (because any scientist will tell you shouldn’t base an opinion on one study… meta analysis helps by looking at many studies, but they can be manipulated either way) At the very least Brind's critique of the Lancet meta analysis should be included. However to do that would require disarming the knee jerk response of liberals not much unlike ourselves. In order to do that; requires information in context.

Indeed I can make a article without Brind, that would be safest, but he is the leading intellectual on the subject (willing to talk about it)... whether we like his politics or not. Actually it is because of his politics he doesn't mind being on the 'outside' of his peers. This is not the case for scientist like Dr. Daling just trying to do their work.

"I have three sisters with breast cancer and I resent people messing with the scientific data to further their own agenda, be they pro-choice or pro-life. I would have loved to have found no association between breast cancer and abortion, but our research is rock solid and our data is accurate." - Dr. Daling http://www.abortionbreastcancer.com/coverup3.htm

for the full LA article.

I hope I have piqued your interest... and demonstrated to you I've gone through Google far more thoroughly than most in regards to the ABC issue, and Dr. Brind in particular. It is a little cumbersome doing this through wiki... since it can be slow and sometimes temperamental. Hopefully you can take me up on my invitation to send me an e-mail to royboy2019 (at) cogeco.ca... if for no other reason to provide further suggestions on how a first time editor such as myself doesn't get pigeonholed by breaking wiki rules, and valuable info goes by the wayside.

Man this is long... sorry. :'D

PS: Keep in mind I have come across all of the critiques of Daling, Howe and comparing rats to humans... and they haven't been very convincing once you do the research. I even inadvertently made a feminist website edit their ABC page after hinting their comments about Dr. Daling were "out of date" (translation: false). RoyBoy 16:15, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Wow, super fast

Congrats on the fast reverts. Once again, I found myself stumbling through the history, only to see things fixed already. :) Krupo 04:11, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)

Hadal, How am I causing valdalism? Have you not read the newspaper today? The republicans are leading a fascist change, working to actively block people at the polls.

Additionally, your information about Taiwan is WRONG.

It is an apartheid state, the same way that South Africal was.

I am a professor here at my university. Shall I pass along my credentials?

And if you really want to block me, I believe that you can. However, since it is a dynamic IP port, you will need to block all of my university to do this.

If you want, I will show you the articles and the research. Is this a fair deal?

All I want is for document that people to read to be accurate. - 18.252.6.202

I don't care if you're the dean; I'll block your university if it means putting an end to your deleterious edits. Before you go any further with your talk of truth and accuracy, please take the time to read our neutrality policy and our "three revert rule" policy. Thanks. -- Hadal 06:13, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have read your policy. So, here is a question.

Sorry,

I had not read your policy before.

Here is the question then.

If tomorrow (after 24 hours), I write a fair and convincing piece, about why Taiwan is actually an apartheid state (backed up with reviews from the literature), will you allow it to be included as an EXTRA piece to the page (in addition to what already exists there, without altering anything that currently exists)?

You're asking the wrong person. Personally, I don't think such a view has much currency here; what you're proposing sounds like original research expressly meant to bolster your own point of view. I'm not going to approve or disapprove of anything you're planning; but don't submit anything if you don't want it to be edited mercilessly or removed altogether (not necessarily by me). Every editor has the same "authority" over an article; administrators such as myself just have a few extra tools that make dealing with troublemakers a bit less taxing (such as the ability to block a user). Do what you may, but don't expect other users to abide by your agenda. Take special care to abide by our policies, and try to edit objectively at all times. -- Hadal 06:25, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

And how. Wikipedia is not the place to advance a thesis, no matter how valid.

—Methylsoy 04:12, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

that stuff about tony blair was true!

that stuff about tony blair was true! you can't argue with a factually correct statement

Village Dump

I posted a question regarding the title of the ABC article, do you have any suggestions?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_%28miscellaneous%29#Abortion-Breast_Cancer_.28Issue.3F_Debate.3F_Link.3F.29_Article

Please tell VioletRiga to stop deleting/editing my comments at Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks

~~Also, I acknowledge receipt of your message, yet am choosing to delete it from the talk page assigned to my IP address. 216.153.214.94 19:36, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)~~

My apologies about the 216.153.214.94 IP talk page. I did not know that I ought not to "blank" it. I presumed that my use of that IP linked me to that page and gave me the right to edit it as I see fit. I stand corrected. Also, what are you going to say to Violet? She started this you know. how dare she delete my Talk:September 11, 2001 attacks comments? She has no right to do that. What followed was a tit-for-tat retaliation. 216.153.214.94 19:44, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)