User talk:Wyss/a2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[edit] Merge

Hey Wyss. Did you know that when you vote Condense, merge and Delete (Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Autobiography promotion and publicity), it has to be interpreted as a vote to merge, and not delete? dbenbenn | talk 02:17, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

That's close enough to my intention... saying, "condense then merge content into main article and then delete this title (which I didn't think was necessary to index). I guess I should have said... Condense, merge content then delete this title...? Wyss 11:51, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:Votes for deletion#Merge and Delete. dbenbenn | talk 17:35, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

As it says, I guess redirects are cheap :) Wyss 04:12, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Psilenus...

Hi,

This is Greg Lang, the lead vox of the band Psilenus, and I was just writing to say thanks for taking a mild interest in my band, even if it was to delete the page I posted in Wikipedia. I was unaware that fame was required before posting a music group in wikipedia, but now I know. Anyway, your user page says you are interested in new music. If you like, when we get some new music recorded, I can send you some mp3s of our sound. We are a very unique group, and strive to take rock music in new and interesting directions. I just wanted you to know, no hard feelings.

Greg L.

of Psilenus, Lawrence KS.

PS - if you'd like to contact me, my personal e-mail address is syrinxzx@hotmail.com.

You may have misunderstood. Fame is not required for a band to have an article in Wikipedia. Some consistant regional activity (live shows, for example) and a body of original recordings is usually enough. Wyss 14:32, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] ManetherinBlade

Ok, I'm quite a noobie to this site and was enchanted by the concept, which I had come across in HG2G, but had forgotten. My "Six by Nine" Article, which probably should be deleted, was written merely as a filler for an empty link. People should at least know that they're linking to an article that actually exists before they do. I merely thought I was doing a good deed, cleaning up after them. Thanks for your imput, and I just wanted to explain myself. Its a fault I have ;->

                   -Manetherin Blade

--The leopard watches in satisfaction. 04:21, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The only issue was duplication of content :) Wyss 09:12, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sometimes...

...I feel like you and I are the only ones paying attention! Katefan0 20:38, Feb 16, 2005 (UTC)

That's 'cause we're both cat-cuddlers, I guess ;) Wyss 20:56, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Thanks for correcting my mistake re Hitler's mother's death. Paul August ☎ 19:02, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Oh and by the way good job on that article. Paul August ☎ 19:04, Feb 17, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks :) Wyss 21:39, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Hitler article

Thanks. The references really need to be cleaned up there too; footnotes might be better. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:19, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't mind the references too much, but looking at them, yeah, they could be cleaner. Wyss 18:41, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

You made many improvements in the Hitler article. Your shorter introduction is good, too. ben 06:09, Feb 19, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks ben. Wyss 18:40, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I know - many Americans do mispronounce it. But it's hideously ugly, and most people who would mispronounce it don't know IPA, anyway. john k 16:51, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

All true! (er, I think IPA symbols look cool, but then, I understand why some might find them ugly and distracting, and learning how to read them is a pain) Wyss 18:36, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Scheiße

Wow, looks like the article is staying. They did a good job cleaning my slop up. I didn't mean any harm or anything personal with my posts. So no hard feelings all right? Cooter08865

None! :)

Why didn't you sign your name to that little post above? Was it really you?Cooter08865

According to this revision, it was. Just an oversight. JRM 19:13, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC)

What are you Wyss's secretary? Cooter08865

Since Wyss is on a break and has asked me to keep watch, I guess I am. Pleasure doing business. JRM 23:42, 2005 Mar 29 (UTC)

Ha! You have a sense of humor unlike so many people on wikipedia. People like us won't die of heart attacks at 40 Cooter08865

So it got moved....not bat at all Skeeter08865

[edit] Requested Moves

Wikipedia talk:Requested moves - help save Requested Moves, bring friends. I'd hope you vote to keep voting at RM instead of running away to cabal at distant talk pages. —ExplorerCDT 19:08, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rotten.com

please put back the link - extenal links dont have to be neutral, u have here links to terrorist groups, so what's bad in Rotten.com ?--Haham hanuka 16:21, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We think it's in poor taste, and probably would think so about terrorist links or neo-nazi sympathizer's websites being linked under external links. —ExplorerCDT 18:52, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Another way to look at it is that the rotton.com bio is not a terrorist's site. Further, I'm not entirely sure the author of that bio even knows the info in it is wrong. For example, if someone doesn't know much about AH and subsequently clicks on that link, they might believe some of the details. Turning AH into the characture of a "cartoonish perv monster" is unhelpful. Why? If people don't realize that some of the most dangerous sociopath politicians have come in seemingly attractive packages (i.e., charasmatic people who don't let slip they're quite willing to see tens of millions die and hundreds of millions suffer for whatever reason), how might they be prepared to spot one in the field? Wyss 22:56, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
- ok, u r right. my mistake. --Haham hanuka 18:02, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Schools on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion

As of March 4, 2005, the following (7) articles are currently listed for deletion under the POV suggestion that schools are not notable (even though this is invalid reasoning as per the Wikipedia deletion policy. Whether you agree or disagree, please be aware that the following schools are actively being voted on:

Thank you for your time. --GRider\^talk

[edit] Making redirects

I see you've already taken care of it. --iMb~Mw 23:42, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sgt. Pepper

Very nice job integrating the various statements on drugs in a NPOV and concise way. Perhaps you can take a shot at doing something similar in the song article for Lucy in the Sky with Diamonds? Jgm 11:59, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A Surrealist Protests (Thread closed)

I'm not saying I disagree with any of your VfD votes; my point is simply that you repeatedly use the word "hoax" to apply to articles without even asserting any evidence whatsoever that they are hoaxes. If you are going to describe articles or their subjects as hoaxes in future, it would be helpful if you would give your rationale. --Daniel C. Boyer 21:12, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Codswallop. I've explained these votes thoroughly at VfD and you know it. Please stop spamming WP. Thanks. Wyss 21:26, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is not this I am asking you to explain. While I might take issue with the truth of some of your characterizations, I see the explanation below as adequate to express your viewpoint. What I'm asking you to explain, now and in future, is when you describe (an article? the subject of an article?) as a "hoax," to provide your reasons for so doing. --Daniel C. Boyer 14:04, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have already done. Most of the "Surrealist groups" that have come up on VfD don't seem to exist. Moreover, they appear to be part of a wider attempt to spam WP with bios and mentions of surrealist artists in some sort of promotional scheme. I did vote a keep for the Chicago group because it appears to have some shred of existence and encyclopedic interest. I think you know all this and are trying badger me. Please stop that. Wyss 15:06, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Here is a copy of my vote on the Honolulu Surrealist Group, posted almost twenty hours before the above message arrived on my talk page (put here because Daniel C. Boyer has implied I'm not giving reasons for my votes and so on...) Wyss 06:03, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Delete, part of a wider, sometimes stealthy spam attack on WP. Once they have these toeholds, the plan is to slip in links, bios, promos... at this point, these can probably be speedied as vandalism. I would add that one of the hallmarks of classic surrealist activity is self-promotion. However, WP is a reflection of cultural impact, not a vehicle for creating it. Wyss 02:00, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)Wyss 01:58, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Your description of some surrealist activity (when surrealism has had an uninterrupted history from the beginning to the present day) as classic, if you are using it in the sense of a certain period, is a novel POV. --Daniel C. Boyer 20:55, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Daniel C. Boyer, I was referring to neither the "classical" ancient historical period, nor the "classical", post-renaissance periods in painting or music, nor to any classic period of surrealism. I'd say you already knew I was using the term classic within the context of all surrealism as a genre, as a synonym for standard or typical, as in one of the hallmarks of typical surrealist activity is self-promotion. Plainly, you took the trouble to ask when there was no need to, which begs the question, why? Wyss 23:03, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, there might be certain objections brought against this description, one of which is that if you are taking Dali as a model he separated himself from surrealism and was not a surrealist for about the last sixty years of his career. And "surrealism as a genre"? What on earth are you talking about? --Daniel C. Boyer 19:10, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Daniel C. Boyer, you are attempting to badger and bait this converstion away from an exchange about several articles (on non-existent surrealist groups and related subjects) which have recently come up on VfD. You've strayed too far from that topic, this thread is closed. If you have any questions, please RTFM. Wyss 19:37, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Translation: I don't have a leg to stand on. --Daniel C. Boyer 19:40, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wyss, you need to see this, scroll down five posts to the one made by ewbragg, friend of Daniel C.Boyer (he runs that "surrealcoconut" website that Daniel keeps referencing) and read how ewbragg (surrealist Eric W.Bragg) back in 2004 (6/10/04 at 11.58 am), describes how to promote surrealism online to the other surrealists. Go here, and scroll down five posts,

http://p217.ezboard.com/fsurrealismfrm2.showMessage?topicID=51.topic

"no need to rely on Wikipedia then." Classicjupiter2 06:15, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Gasping (grin). I mean... rely? Wyss 06:29, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wyss, this needs to be shown to everyone. I posted the URL on the undeletion section for Cantabria. Wyss, note: on the homepage of Surrealcoconut.com Daniel C.Boyer is an active contributor and participator along with his friends in surrealist activites on that site. Wikipedia is being used as a promotion machine by Daniel and he needs to explain all of this. He needs to explian to us, his "rationale". Notice he takes offense to the word "hoax".Classicjupiter2 06:39, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Truth be told, I think most everyone voting on these VfDs sees that (have there been any keeps on some of these?)... so far as the word hoax goes, I've noticed that some users get their hackles up about some of the jargon terms we use in VfD. There are hoaxes, and then there are hoaxes. It's not like anyone's accusing him or his friends of a crime... it's just cleanup stuff, WP policy and so on but yeah, they've def'nitely been trying to use WP for self-promotion. Wyss 06:49, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Who is Schluegenkopf?

Wyss, on the Schluegenkopf article you called it slander. I would appreciate you explaining how it is remotely slander. Eddyrichards 01:25, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC).

I quote from the article,

Benetta and her children fled to America in 1895. Little is known on the matter, other than Ignacio was accused by the State of attempting to commit a racial elimination, known now as genocide, and fraud.

Here we have an anecdotal, unsubstantiated accusation or inference of genocide in 1895 in a non-encyclopedic, quasi genealogical article about people who aren't public figures, the only hits on google for Schluegenkopf are on Wikipedia and the article also mentions some sort of new church or religion. I voted:

Speedy Delete as vandalism, possible slander. Wyss 03:58, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is not one keep vote for the article except yours (and I presume you're the author of the WP article). The vote after mine reads,

Delete. Patent nosense. And a warning to the poster not to try to create more hoax articles like this. RickK 00:18, Mar 13, 2005 (UTC)

I think the votes are explained rather plainly on the article's VfD page. Wyss 04:51, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] AH

I'd prefer a clumsily verbose "better known as" than an improperly placed set of parentheses anyday. —ExplorerCDT 05:43, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

They're properly placed. Wyss 05:47, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think the AP Style Manual, and a few dozen others would disagree with you. —ExplorerCDT 05:49, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hmm... I you think might want to reread the AP Style Manual more carefully. Anyway I told you before I don't care about how the parenthesis are applied (maybe you didn't notice the message I left on your talk page). Wyss 06:02, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Three-revert rule

Please avoid breaking this rule again in the future. -- BRIAN0918 01:03, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Comment: I am aware of the rule, and don't think I broke it. IMHO this admin has apparently misinterpreted a page history, or been misled by someone making a complaint to mask their own policy-evading/breaking behavior. Wyss 11:28, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Looking more deeply into this, I've found that this admin injected himself directly into unilaterally editing the article, ignoring any attempt to discuss or reach consensus on the talk page first. Since the topic of the article is so "hot" however, I've decided to defer and no longer participate in editing it. Wyss 12:10, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This user was just responding to the discussion at #wikipedia among 3 other users who were all commenting on Hitler's talk page about how the then current version was lacking, and heeded their suggestions to modify that version. -- BRIAN0918 15:45, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't lacking, Brain0918, and your persistence and arrogance in this matter pushed away a good editor and contributor from working on the article. Shame on you for being so power-mad. Wyss, please reconsider. I bet he'll only be a temporary nuisance and will go away quickly. Even if he is an admin. He'll probably go back to imposing his will through force on American Civil War articles. —ExplorerCDT 16:10, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, ExplorerCDT :) Wyss 16:34, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Not sure where all this rage is coming from, but it's fine by me. :) (I'd consider it lacking for one to leave out that he was the founder of the Third Reich) BRIAN0918 18:09, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Re: "I believe brian0918™'s edits are historically incomplete to the point of being misleading and unhelpful." Can you please clarify which of my changes you are talking about? Thanks. -- BRIAN0918 18:42, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

By attempting to summarize and evaluate too much in the opening two paragraphs, your edits separate AH from the socio-political context he exploited. Plainly put, he had lots of help. He got that help through his oratory skills, quick mind, charisma, understanding of human nature and willingness to kill. He was not the "Great Dictator" depicted by Charlie Chaplin. Lots of people thought he was a clear-headed nationalist saving the world by saving Germany... until they found out too late he was something else again (something along the lines of an inept lunatic and so on). Wyss 19:14, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Isn't it better to put in a summary the most notable things about the person? Sure he might have started out seemingly nice, but his most notable events occurred later. -- BRIAN0918 19:20, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

One of the most notable things about this person is that he was rather attractive to millions of people for years. A Russian once said to me, "At least Hitler thought he was saving the world. Stalin had no such illusion." By the way, after the war Chaplin said he regretted making that movie, because it trivialized AH. IMO your edits go a long way towards depicting AH as the cartoon character most people are familiar with and that's not helpful or instructive. Wyss 19:30, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Can you be specific? -- BRIAN0918 20:18, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The removal of the brief mention about his perceived economic influence utterly distorts reality. Germans not only thought he was saving Germany, they thought he'd improve their quality of life (although living standards was the wonted term back then, I believe). They supported him because they thought he'd helped turn the economy around (in the 1920s, people carted wheelbarrows filled with nearly worthless paper currency to buy groceries- at the worst of it, people sold pianos for sausages), never mind this happened as a result of many complex factors including massive spending of borrowed money on military re-development.
- Germans may have perceived him as ending the economic crisis, as you state, but it is not necessarily factual. Your version didn't make that distinction ("The military-industrial complex he fostered pulled Germany out of the post-World War I economic crisis..."). See my statements on the talk page about this. -- BRIAN0918 22:04, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

A charismatic orator, Hitler is widely regarded as one of the most significant and reviled leaders in world history.
- Sure he's reviled. However, for the alert reader, words like beloved or reviled in the opening paras of a bio reveal bias, and bring the accuracy and "spin" (if you will) of the remaining content into some question. The use of such terms should be carefully qualified, as is the use of the word reviled at the end of the article, where it should be (now repeated, not at all a clean thing to do). Also, there is a moral issue with human revilement/hatred (as AH's politics themselves demonstrated), never mind when it's extended beyond a personal scope as in an encyclopedia article. Finally, from reviled it's not too far to "strutting dictator with a funny little mustache." The people who allowed him to gain power and consolidate it didn't see him that way. The article should reflect that, it's one of the reasons why the horror happened.
  - As supported on WP:NPOV and reiterated a few times on Hitler's talk page, phrases like "widely regarded as reviled" are facts about well-documented opinions. From WP:NPOV: "assert facts, including facts about opinions — but don't assert opinions themselves". It is not biased, as is stated on the talk page.
  - Also, I see no problem with the same word being used twice in the article and think you're pulling at strings with that specific argument. Introductions and conclusions often involve repetition. In this case, the intro is supposed to be a summary, whereas the end is about his "Legacy", so it belongs in both sections for different reasons (although now I'm pulling at strings :)).
  - As for your statement: "Finally, from reviled it's not too far to 'strutting dictator with a funny little mustache.'" I really don't know how to respond to that, it seems like a truly odd line of reasoning. Maybe if I had used "villainous" I could understand, but reviled simply means "assailed with contemptuous language" which is a well-documented fact. -- BRIAN0918 22:04, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

He implemented the racial policies of Nazi Germany and instituted the genocidal Holocaust of millions of Jews, Gypsies and Slavs.
- First, the term Holocaust really only applies to the genocide of European Jews during that period (although I imagine some might argue that point, it's easier just to apply it to the crimes against Jews).
  - From the first line of Holocaust: "The Holocaust refers to Nazi Germany's systematic genocide of various ethnic, religious, national, and secular groups during World War II starting in 1941 and continuing through to 1945." If it had said "Final Solution" then I might suggest changing it, as the Solution only applied to Jews. In any case, the genocide of the Jews is the most notable. -- BRIAN0918 22:04, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- He enabled those racial policies, but this wording gives him credit for inventing them. Truth is, he spent his twenties reading (not writing) virulently anti-semetic magazines that would make an iman blush. Have you ever seen the cartoons? Germany, especially Barvaria, was ripe for genocide by the end of the Great War. AH had the political saavy to grok and run with it. There's another tricky problem and perhaps it's only one of form because we all know he was behind the authorizations for industrial scale slaughter in the camps but there's no paper trail (it was obviously either avoided or burned in the spring of 1945). We know the Holocaust happened, we know for sure he wanted, enabled and encouraged it but we don't know exactly how, except that for the most part, planning and execution were handled by others (Himmler and Heydrich, for example). The Holocaust section of the article is accurate by the way, and links to the larger main article on that topic.
- It is more accurate to say, He enabled (or encouraged) the racial policies of Nazi Germany which culminated in the genocide of millions of Jews along with gypsies, slavs and other ethnic groups. Wyss 21:11, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)
  - I'm against "encouraged" for the reasons mentioned on the talk page, and even "enabled" sounds very passive. As he was on top, "enforced" might be better, it's passive in that it doesn't suggest he originated everything (although most agree he did), but it suggests he went out of his way to answer the "Jewish question", thus his Final Solution (something which I still think should be added to the intro). Right now, though, I'd suggest leaving it as is. More people support not using "encouraged" than using it. -- BRIAN0918 22:04, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Please continue this on his talk page, where I've copied this, so others can comment. Thanks. -- BRIAN0918 22:05, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Comment

Note: Please make all further comments about this on the RFC page (click on the heading above to go there - This thread is closed - Thanks Wyss 23:49, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

With regards the RFC on The Number, I'll gladly back up anything you need to say; but it has to be in the correct format, viz [1] -Ashley Pomeroy 12:39, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

So you'll exert no critical acumen? just blind obedience? Well that sure gives people confidence The Number 22:48, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Ashley Pomeroy, I've put it into correct format. Wyss 13:27, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Also note that after reading more output from mr. Number, I see little reason in pursuing the course of action I mentioned to you earlier. An RfC might be the most expedient way to get to the bottom of this. JRM 13:39, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

Thus speaks the person who asked me to post on his own page - and then completely ignored what I wrote The Number 18:27, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I didn't. I read it. And saw no opportunity to reply in any constructive way. I'm not ignoring you, I just don't see any way of getting the discussion away from the he-said-she-said dreariness it has been mired in for the past months. You believe Wyss had wronged you, fine. That's your prerogative. Rehashing it over and over to the point of being disruptive is not. JRM 18:39, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

It would have been helpful if you'd posted on my Talk Page "I have read your comments". Your complete lack of response of course made me think you hadn't read it The Number 19:35, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

My bad. JRM 20:08, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

I do not understand your last comment... The Number 22:05, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"My bad" is U.S. English slang for "my mistake, my fault, mea culpa". JRM 22:31, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

Ah, thanks...I thought you'd missed out some words. The Number 22:48, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Amendment: I actually think "DFTT" is the most expedient way of getting to the bottom of this, but I understand that's not an option. :-) JRM 13:43, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

:) Wyss 16:42, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't know what prompted you to start this RfC, but it's something we probably should have done a long time ago. I've signed on and added some information. Gamaliel 16:12, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thus speaks the 'impartial' administrator who refused point blank my serious question about Editing conflict and posted (I quote): "I'm not your fucking monkey". Now, what's Wyss on about 'civility'? The Number 18:27, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. He started up again, interspersing baiting remarks among unrelated discussions on my talk page, also in the page history comments. Wyss 16:42, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I've added some comments that might be considered criticism on your behavior at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/The Number. I like to stress that this only deals with behavior, not with you personally, and that I think The Number is not a Wikipedian in good standing, while you are. JRM 17:08, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

And good standing includes constantly ignoring 'civility' and abusing me. Fine - it's to be expected. The Number 18:27, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No, you're right. That particular behavior is not good. Overall, however, Wyss has done more for this encyclopedia content-wise than you have. And that is ultimately what a contributor's standing depends on—for me, at least. JRM 18:39, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

I agree with that point of view EXCEPT...let me explain. If a Member of good standing (and thus carrying clout) ritualistically abuses a newcomer then BECAUSE that contributor has standing their deviance from normal behaviour is far more serious than the behaviour of a newcomer. When that deviation then becomes an obsession so that she then 'reports' to RFC etc then that is far worse behaviour than, for example, my own. Let me put an analogy to you. A priest goes shoplifting. A tramp goes shoplifting. Who do you think would get the greater prison sentence? The Number 19:35, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Ritualistically abuses"? A trifle melodramatic, don't you think? And filing an RfC is not bad behaviour in any sense—merely an acknowledgement that whatever conflict has been raging is out of the participants' control to resolve peacefully among themselves, an appraisal I do not find completely out of touch with reality. But why are you saying all this here? You should be responding at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/The_Number, not this talk page. JRM 20:08, 2005 Mar 20 (UTC)

I am responding to your comment - it's polite after all. Wyss usually deletes my comments on he rpage anyway so we won't be having this dialogue for long but FWIW I agree with your comment about ritualistic'...The Number 22:05, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I was baited, I learned. The Number's user contribution history speaks for itself. Wyss 18:49, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You learned to be more subtle - which is why in your 'remarks' you continue to refer to me as Ennis. It's just been one long petty campaign by you Wyss. Your own Talk page shows how you fall out with other people. You just like to get your own way all the time - the bully-girl of the internet! You tried to bait me, in uncivil behaviour, and look how you've dragged in a whole host of other people - we have the Administrator who has resorted to saying to me: "I am not your fucking monkey! when I simpl asked for guidance over editorial conflict; we have the typist from Salisbury who, when I go for a drink in a pub near him he seems to think I am in Florida...the list of those you have wilfully corrupted, goes on. The Number 19:35, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More schools on Wikipedia:Votes for deletion

As of March 25, 2005, there are an additional (6) articles listed for deletion under the POV notion that schools are non-notable (even though this is invalid reasoning as per the Wikipedia deletion policy). Please be aware that the following schools are actively being discussed and voted upon:

In response to this cyclical ordeal, a Schoolwatch programme has been initiated in order to indentify school-related articles which may need improvement and to help foster and encourage continued organic growth. Your comments are welcome and I thank you again for your time. --GRider\^talk

[edit] User:The Number, User:Sollogfan RfAr

Hi Wyss, after a recent round of shenanigans perpretrated by these fans of Sollog, I've filed an arbitration request against The Number and Sollogfan. Please consider if you want to add yourself as a plaintiff, or comment on the case if it gets accepted. Cheers, --MarkSweep 09:44, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm surprised that user hasn't been banned. Wyss 21:40, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi Wyss (welcome back?). They've both been banned as trolls. As a result the RfAr appears to be moot. --MarkSweep 23:53, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

:) Wyss 23:00, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Welcome back, Wyss! -- Hoary 03:18, 2005 May 22 (UTC)

[edit] Polite and scholarly

I replied @ User_talk:Sam_Spade#AH. Cheers, Sam Spade 13:37, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

and one more User_talk:Sam_Spade#AH. Cheers, Sam Spade 19:41, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/y/s/User_talk%7EWyss_a2_97da.html"