User talk:Karmafist/Archive6: Difference between revisions

Hi Karmafist - me again - so what's this about adding a Political Compass to your user page? I'd like one! CPMCE 04:43, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Did it - and added it to my user page! Ta!

And now it's time for bed - check the time! I'm an official Wiki-anorak! CPMCE 05:22, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting little project. And I've added myself into your table. =p __earth 08:05, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? I fail to understand? Electionworld 14:36, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I did the test. I consider myself a liberal in the British meaning of the word, somewhere in the centre but focussing on individual liberty. I put the compass result at my user page. Electionworld 19:10, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Karmafirst. I've been keeping an eye on Pigsonthewing's page for a while, because I've had trouble with him myself in the past. I very, very much appreciate you dealing with him, but can I humbly suggest you change your language with regard to him? Saying "this looks like the end for you" or calling him "Pigs" repeatedly I think undermines your case. Don't tell him he's a jerk, or sound happy about his impending ArbCom difficulties; just let his behavior stand on its own—it's obvious to everyone, believe me. -- SCZenz 20:13, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Karmafist, thanks for your comments. As I've made clear (and told Phrozaic), I didn't block him for his 3RR violations, but rather for his personal attacks. I think it's pretty obvious that repeatedly calling various editors "POV bots" and a "POV bot gang" is a violation of WP:NPA. I warned him beforehand, and subsequently announced the block on WP:AN/I#Zen-master blocked for personal attacks. Notably, no-one there objected to the block. As for meditation, I'm not sure how much good it would do, considering the previous RfAr regarding Zen-master - this seems to be a repeat of that behaviour. Regards, Jayjg ^(talk) 02:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

When someone passionately believes something in opposition to every other editor on the page, and insists on continually either promoting his view, or sticking a POV tag on the page, for months upon months, then the edits move from the realm of "good faith" into "disruptive", and that's ignoring the personal attacks. Jayjg ^(talk) 18:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just dropping in to say 'Hi'. You seem to be fulfilling your admin qualities quite nicely, and have an awesome collection of Userboxes that I could only hope to have. For your contributions to the community, and the Userbox-mongering, I award you this Zocchihedron of +7 Userbox Abilities and +9 Community Service. --RPharazon 04:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the Bear. I'll feed him every day and give him fresh userboxes. ;) And yes, you may use my PC scores. I've been looking for something useful to do with them. --RPharazon 05:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

A brickbat is pretty much a criticism. :-p Thanks for the whole barn, and the support, of course. Johnleemk | Talk 10:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure what User template:KNH is supposed to be but it is in a fictitious namespace. I have moved it to User:Karmafist/KNH from whence it can be used as a template if you wish: User:Karmafist/KNH. -- RHaworth 20:22, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am begging you to stop archiving the information of Template talk:Did you know, and place them into a holding cell. I plan to overwrite all the content in anything numbered with Wikipedia:Recent additions #. Further archiving and additions just keep preventing me from fully fixing the archives. Furthermore, it is apparent that the archive process has gone astray ever since the bot went offline. This means that there are missing items in the archive that I don't know about, and at 10 days running trying to check over the archives, I don't care anymore. Furthermore, to add to my frustration, people keep changing the archive making it difficult for me to finalize and process all the text in the format it should be. --AllyUnion (talk) 00:35, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Extend an olive branch to Jayjg or anyone else you have a dispute with: You don't need to apologize or what have you, but saying "Even though we might disagree, I'll still respect you if you respect me" will go a long way.

I accept that I disagree with Jayjg, Slim, Tom and others over the content of an article, I do respect them and I am not in any way demanding that the article must have my version of the content, however, what I have been pretty much demanding is when disagreements arise it is generally standard (and neutral) practice to signify the existence of a dispute by adding the {npov} template to the disputed article, which, for some out of the ordinary reason, is not done in the conspiracy theory article's case. When any dispute exists the article generally must reflect that fact, that is basic NPOV policy, but I will forgo following through on that demand for now since some progress has been made with the conspiracy theory article and I will continue the discussion on the talk page. However, the inconsistent application and enforcement of wikipedia policies is increasingly suspicious and tainting.

Don't try to be a robot: This is just my opinion, but I think 100% NPOV is impossible, even on Wikipedia, unless you basically are not a human being. Humans have desires and fears and all sorts of things that tint our perspectives on subjects. I try to aim for the 90-99% NPOV range, and don't always get there IMO, but the goal itself is a noble enough endeavor and is the heart of WP:NPOV. Then again, if you are actually a robot, I apologize for what I just said and I'll suggest you stay away from any magnets or electromagnetic pulses.

I agree article content may never get to 100% perfection, however, censoring the existence of neutrality dispute is a far different, separate and much more serious concern.

Try to steer clear of any subject that might be discussed on the X-Files or a Sunday morning talk show: You don't have to if you don't want to, but from looking at this and the rfar, that seems to be where you're having the bulk of your problems. I disagree with all the baloney about Cabals and such, because a true Wikipedian must try to work with, respect and seek the opinions of other Wikipedians, in both the positive and negative. Next time you're in a case like you were at with conspiracy theory, ask others on the outside for advice and comments on what they think, and if a tag or an edit is put back and forth, instead of continuing with it, ask the person who disagrees with you why they do and try to figure out some middle ground -- the English Language is wonderful at doing this.

Controversial subjects and articles are precisely the places where the NPOV policy is at the utmost of importance and signifying the existence of a presentation disagreement is a key part of NPOV policy. Your advice doesn't make sense to me otherwise, you seem to be saying "steer clear of politically sensitive articles because I/we know better", if that is your argument then please consider this message a formal rejection of it.

Follow one of the most important rules i've found regarding others on Wikipedia: There are three types of people out there -- the ones that disagree with you, the ones that agree with you, and the ones that are indifferent to your opinion(the third being the vast majority). If you're nice to people, both directly and reputation-wise, those indifferent people are more likely to say "yeah sure, what you're saying sounds fine to me." karmafist 13:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There are more than three types of "people" apparently, a fourth type seems to be those that would censor and/or deny the existence of a dispute and not generally debate in good faith on the talk page. zen master T 01:12, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to express my thanks to all the people who took part in my (failed) RfA voting. I was both surprised and delighted about the amount of support votes and all the kind words! I was also surprised by the amount of people who stated clearly that they do care, be it by voting in for or against my candidacy. That's what Wiki community is about and I'm really pleased to see that it works.
As my RfA voting failed with 71% support, I don't plan to reapply for adminship any more. However, I hope I might still be of some help to the community. Cheers! Halibutt 05:10, 29 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again! Halibutt 12:12, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've been doing some work on this article. As you can imagine, there have been a lot of POV warriors who parrot Fox News in the article. It actually wasn't terrible, since at least the various disparaging topics about Churchill were attributed; but certainly there's a balance problem. But actually, that's not even the main problem the page had; it just wasn't structured very well. Just quote after quote, and allegation after allegation, were sort of randomly thrown at the page without any narrative flow or sense of order. So I spent a bunch of work trying to get it cleaned up today... mostly leaving in all the negative comments, but at least organizing them into a more logical structure.

Unfortunately, an editor, Keetoowah, came along and rolled back the whole thing to something a bunch of edits back, then inserted a bunch more POV stuff. This hasn't yet become an edit war or anything, just a few bad changes and insulting edit comments. But if this is an article I could tempt your interest in, I'm sure your contributions would be salutary. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Karmafist: I wonder if I could get your email address for some off-line comments. If that's OK, send me a note at the email address listed on my user page. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 07:30, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

- A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:24, 30 November 2005 (UTC) I am not a crook! Rawr![reply]

I'll redirect them in the morning ok? Kim told me all about it, you're new so it's ok, we'll straighten this out. However, putting a little notice or something would help. karmafist
Thanks. Here is a list of accounts that I made that should be redirected (make sure #Redirect [[User:EddieSegoura]] is at the top of the user homepages:

• User:Mr. Transit
• User:Lets Go Yankees
• User:Sundaydriver33
• User:Third Rail
• User:No Whammies

I appreciate Your efforts. -- Eddie 09:36, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in. Looks intimidating! Good luck with Claremont. - DavidWBrooks 11:16, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you wanted to "close" the SFD nomination, then you should have actually closed it: just removing the tag and taking no further action is neither fish nor foul. That's even assuming "keep as is" is a viable option -- which it isn't, as it's not what was "voted" for. I've already stated precisely what I'd do in this case, I just don't wish to do so myself, as nominator, especially as it'll be . Feel free to poke any other of the SFD regulars, or indeed any other admin, if you don't want to do it yourself. Alai 12:45, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's dealt with that part of the backlog, I suppose, at least in a manner of speaking. Not in correspondance with naming conventions, or indeed to the votes, but never mind. Just have to renominate 'em later, I guess. I don't see why you think the closing policy is unclear. The discussion period is closed after 7 days. (Perhaps more honoured in the breach...) It still requires someone to act on them, though, which is what was not happening in this case. What do you suggest is missing or unclear? I don't see what you think justifies your "stub bureaucracy cruft" comment. If anything, you seem to be arguing for more bureaucracy, though of course, why let that get in the way of a little freeform incivility? And of course nominating SFD for deletion would be a prank. To call it WP:POINT would be being too kind. That you've also deleted your comment along with the discussion will probably spare you much immediate furore, though. On this comment: "the reason why I said that is most likely the reason you put closing the discussion in hyphens" -- I simply don't follow that, can you rephrase? Alai 19:05, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, feeling a bit tired and grumpy myself today. You're certainly right about the "regulars" on many a community/process page, and I'm sure SFD is guilty of that to some degree. Though if there were a larger "bloc vote" of hard-core stub renamers, and a larger number of more active admins there, cases like this wouldn't be so apt to get bogged down by a disenting minority, or linger so long unresolved after their nominal closing time. I don't see any particular pattern to the admittedly huge delay in this case, other than the vote itself being a bit of a mess, and no-one seeming eager to close it: perhaps because of said mess, perhaps in the hopes of vote-breaking consensus. Alai 01:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Keetoowah, you are simply deleting material with which you disagree. Your bias on this page is transparent. Please take a moment to reflect on you actions, and the spirit in which Wikipedia is supposed to be edited. How does the reader benefit from you enforcing a particular POV on this page?--Cberlet 02:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Cberlet: What I did was quite simple. I returned the changes concerning the ethnicity issues to state that they were in before Lulu came along. For example, Lulu charges on this page (See below.) that I am misquoting the Keetoowah band. That is quite clearly untrue. I quoted the Keetoowah directly from their Web site. Please review the Keetoowah's Web site yourself. Please don't jump to conclusion because you have some kind of bias toward wanting to defend Churchill for whatever reason. Clearly Lulu has a personal bias also. Go to the Keetoowah's Web site and move all the way down to very end of the various statements. The original statement of the Keetoowah is the one that I am quoting. It is the official position of the tribe. I personally know the Keetoowah and I know that they do not know you and I can't be sure of this but I would be more than willing to bet that they don't know Lulu. I would also be willing to bet that Lulu is not very aware of the issues between Churchill and the tribe because his edits give him away that he just does not know the topic. He is allowing his bias to guide him, not a knowledge of the topic. If was fully aware of the topic then he would know that I have had this discussion--concerning the proper quoting of the tribe--with other Wikipedian editors and I have guided them to the proper quote before. If Lulu and you were aware of the discussion that took place on the Churchill Talk Page then you would be aware of the proper quote. Please Cberlet and Lulu do your research first before you make wholesale changes to the document. That due diligence would include reviewing the all the comments on the article's talk page.--Keetoowah 17:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... I spent quite a bit of work today trying to get this page improved. I didn't take out much of the various criticisms of Churchill, but I tried to get them into an actual narrative flow, rather than just reading like a bunch of random quotes thrown at the page. I did also try to put in a bit of stuff for balance, like the quote from CU President Betsy Hoffman expressing concern about academic freedom.

And the art stuff is notable too... I admit I know some of it from personal acquaintaince (I've seen his work in galleries, and own the drawing I included as an example); but it's not exactly a secret that Churchill is an artist. In fact, all the silly allegations of plagerizing art don't even make any sense if he isn't an artist. Someone's not going to suddenly make a plagerized lithograph without knowing how to make a lithograph in the first place! Certainly if there is any real question, we can dig up some citations to gallery reviews or the like.

While it's understandable given the national attention, this article is quite unbalanced as a bio. Some right wing national press decided to make an example of Churchill, and so we have these endlessly recycled half-sensible sound bytes about it filling most of the article. But in fact, Churchill was a pretty well known scholar ten years before any of this ever happened. Sure, minus Fox News, his article would be quite a bit shorter; but his fifteen books are well read in philosophy, political science, and several other departments courses (like ethnic studies, where they are taught). Churchill isn't uniquely important in that regard, but he's up there with the top dozen or two notable critics of US foreign policy in academia, quite apart from the recent scapegoating and hysteria. This article would be a lot better if it gave a better sense that Churchill was not suddenly generated as a chthonic golem in 2004. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 02:59, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I recently changed the quote about Churchill's membership in the Keetoowah Band to say what the source URL actually says. I had not looked through the edit history, but it turns out that the bogus quote was inserted by User:Keetoowah way back in July. Several users back then had put in the correct quote, but our vandal user managed to sneak in the misquote after a bunch of reversions. I guess it shows vigilance is always necessary. I just started working on this article, but it sure make me wince to think the fabrication was there that long. Oh well, once it is unprotected, let's watch this to make sure the quote stays authentic. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 05:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Lulu: You are absolutely wrong when you state that I am vandalizing the page and that I am putting bogus quotes on the page. This is perfect example of how you and Cberlet do not know what you talking about. Please review the coments above of mine. Please review the previous discussion of this issue on the Churchill talk page (in the archives ) and Please review the Keetoowah's Web site at the bottom of the Web site. You are clearly mistaken and this out and out lies that you making about me and what I did shows your bias and your lack of understanding of the topic. Please do your research before you make wholesale changes to the article. Unfortunately, for you and for Cberlet you both have shown your ignorance of the topic and your bias. Please correct your mistakes immediately.--Keetoowah 17:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure account home pages such as Lets Go Yankees and Third Rail redirect to My home page (protect the redirect pages if You have to). I once again had to revert them after User Dmcdevit reverted them to contain the "sock" note. I never met this user before but He might be a "sock" Himself. Please make Him stop. -- Eddie 10:24 PM, November 31, 2005 (EST)

I suggest You protect the pages so they always will redirect and are not reverted again. (User:Third_Rail, User:Lets Go Yankees, User:Mr. Transit. Thank You. -- Eddie 03:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, Dmcdevit is an administrator, so he can override the protection. Titoxd^{(?!? - did you read this?)} 03:41, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That's beside the point. The pages are supposed to "redirect" to My main page and He is vandalising them. I hope User:Karmafist gets to this user fast. -- Eddie 03:56, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Eddie -- chill out. Titoxd -- yeah, I just contacted him and now I gotta contact Woohookitty since he's involved in this now apparently. karmafist 03:58, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll wait. I hope they understand that we'd like them to be "redirect" pages. I really don't know why Dmvdevit did this to begin with. -- Eddie 11:03 PM, November 31, 2005 (EST)

I'm completely confused. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 04:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you check the logs, you'll see that I blocked the sockpuppets before you did. :) But the reason was that he was using them abusively. After he admitted sockpuppetry to Kim, he continued to pretend to be a different person on WP:RFPP. He originally used them for edit warring. Then he edit warred, (using anon sockpuppets I might add) to revert the sockpuppet tags. After I warned him both on RFPP and in edit summaries. He called my actions vandalism, and, look above, hope you get to me fast, (whatever that means). All bad faith. I think not blocking originally for creating many abusive sockpuppets was a show of AGF. But he continued. I think the (slight) 3 hour block was certainly in order, and was intended to show him the seriousness of his actions, not as punishment. I do have an open mind, but await a real behavior change. Dmcdevit·t 04:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ah good, and block evasion using an IP on this very page. I'm really optimistic here... Dmcdevit·t 04:14, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

About Jason: check your userpage history. I just reverted an edit he made. It may have been misguided or malicious, but I thought it was better to just ignore him, unless he reverted back or anything. Wasn't worth a tiff over. Dmcdevit·t 04:24, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

For your work in helping us to solve the thing with Eddie, I, NSLE, award you, Karmafist, with this barnstar.

Yeah Eddie needs to learn somehow that sockpuppets are not ok. Apparently he hasn't figured that out yet. I mean we ban people for being sockpuppets every day. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 04:25, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dmcdevit, I certainly didn't create those to be mean or harass people or mess up Wikipedia. I certainly didn't intend for those names to be "abusive" as You stated. I also wasn't aware of a "one account per person" policy on Wikipedia at the time I created the accounts. Especially for the fact I had account only for a few days.

I don't mind those usernames being blocked. All You had to do is leave those redirect pages alone and the warring would have never happened. But You persisted on having the dirty "sock" notes. Couldn't You see that Karmafist is trying to help? It was being taken care of and You didn't have to do anything at all. -- Eddie 09:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Karmafist - thanks for your note. Sure, you can use that data. Being the contrary fellow I am, I am pleased to see I am nowhere near anyone else! - ElectricRay 12:22, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't mock Boothy. Despite his voting patterns, which may or may not be odd, he's still a valued member of the community who's done a lot of good work for Wikipedia. Ral315 (talk) 17:54, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My point still stands, however, that you shouldn't make fun of anyone because of their voting patterns, or anything else. I understand your intent, and that it wasn't meant as an insult, but it just looks bad when users (especially admins) mock other users. Ral315 (talk) 18:04, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Do you use Wiki Email? Boo boo 19:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I can see where you come from now. You take the high ground postion in disputes and are very proactive. I guess I'm more passive, which is why I stuggled to see your standpoint. I now understand and can appreciate your dispute resolution actions, thanks for the explanation. By the way, what were referring to exactly when you said "Also, I see above that you understand slightly what i'm talking about"? I couldn't quite work that one out.--Commander Keane 19:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see: User:Pigsonthewing! I didn't even realise that was the same user that I used in my Arbcom example.--Commander Keane 20:52, 1 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Karmafist, query for you at Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Ward Churchill. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 03:32, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I noticed you reverted the removal of the contested link on the Debra Lafave article -- might I inquire as to your reasoning on that? The link is not scholarly and does not otherwise contribute to understanding of the topic or the article. --Improv 04:41, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

He actually just left the link in but reverted to a previous rendition of it. So no harm, no foul; you got to it and that's all that matters, heh. Locke Cole 04:44, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the link Debra Lafave newsgroup is quite scholarly since it contains virtually every pertinent article on her case. It also includes photos & video links, as well. No other site has as much info and all for free. MagnaVox 14:20, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I like your welcome page. I think I'm going to create a similar page to keep up with the new users I welcome. It would be interesting to see how many of them continue to contribute. One day, I might even be the first to welcome a future administrator! --TantalumTelluride 05:38, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for co-nomming, I definitely accept! NSLE _{(讨论+extra)} 07:31, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why did you remove my comment from the request for adminship? I have the right to comment. I ask that it be put back. It is factual.--219.93.174.106 08:10, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I was a registered user with about 800 non vandal edits but can't log in or even register from here (Malaysia) for some reason perhaps because it's a shared ip at university. I doubt I get much respect here after seeing that talk page but ip's can comment on rfa's I have seen it before when I voted. I have the right to comment and it should not have been removed. I ask again kindly that it be put back. Thank you the welcome however.

The comment is back and I didn't do that and your user name is gone off history, the you have new messages thing keeps showing up but there,s no new messages and no I am not tipsy or high on anything. Maybe I was wrong when I saw the history. By the by is the vandal fighter still available? Thank you.--219.93.174.106 08:52, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The only reason we can even have the image on our servers at all is that we're using it under the provisions of Fair use. The owner of the copyright has all rights regarding it; however, we are permitted to use it for nonprofit educational purposes only. Posting it on the RFA is not for educational purposes, therefore fair use doesn't apply, and it's an outright copyright violation. While there are other arguments, Wikipedia's general policy is that pictures not released under the GFDL or other comparable licenses can only be used in the Article namespace (and possibly the Template, depending on its usage), and that they can only be used in articles about that subject. A copyrighted picture of George W. Bush, for example, would only be permissible for use in articles about George W. Bush, and possibly some about his administration. Ral315 (talk) 17:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because I'm an idiot :) I know I should have; sorry I didn't do so. Ral315 (talk) 17:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, you can self-block; it's just not suggested. Just use your self control (or, edit your hosts file, as I've been forced to do before :P) Ral315 (talk) 18:19, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've participated in yet another one of your brilliant user subpages: /Wikipedians' Political Perspectives. I'm the most collectivistic Wikipedian so far! --TantalumTelluride 21:57, 2 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The irony is I'm very flexible in writing style! I guess a lot of the sources from which I wrote those articles were turn of the century local histoy books - as a result a certain staid sentimental variety of prose was rolling round my mind as I wrote them. Had Mabbett come onto my user page and said "hey pal you could make these articles more encyclopedic and contempory like this ...", I would be have been all for it - instead he refused to explain himself then harrassed me for a period of 3 months!!! Thanks for all your efforts with the RFar, I hope to return to the Leonig Mig moniker some time soon :) Leonig Mig 17:42, 3 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above is a mixture of lies and personal attacks.Andy Mabbett 10:47, 5 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Karmafist; I've answered your question to me on my Arbitration Committee candidacy. If you want me to go into more detail, please just let me know. Cheers, Talrias (t | e | c) 01:48, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

If you'd like my unvarnished opinion, you need to go the Everyking/Snowspinner route here. Your head is poking up out of the trenches a bit too much right now, you don't want to make yourself a target. So...

Put this user on your mental <plonk> list. Ignore their comments, and not just in the general way that people ignore ranting users, I mean totally fnord it. It's not even there, if you're commenting on the same thing don't even indent the extra level because, hey, there's nothing there. This is, of course, easier said than done. But with practice, it becomes almost second nature and is a skill that will save you tons of heartache in the long run.

We've got quite a few destructive pairings happening right now, I'm sure that looking over WP:ANI will show you a few. Until not to long ago I was in one, so this advice does spring from experiance. There are over 600 adinistrators and a MFT of good editors, so problems will get dealt with, even if it takes a bit of extra time. But we're all in this for the long run, right?

brenneman^(t)(c) 14:35, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]