User talk:Kim Bruning/Archive 1

Hello, welcome to Wikipedia. Here are some useful links in case you haven't already found them:

• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style

If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you feel like it, you may leave a note at the new user log too.

Tip: you can sign your name with ~~~~

Dori | Talk 15:04, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)

---

I see, in that case I'll point you to another page that might be of interest to you in case you want your anonymous contributions associated with your username: Wikipedia:Changing attribution for an edit. Have fun, Dori | Talk 15:13, Mar 5, 2004 (UTC)

---

Just to warn you, User:WHEELER seems very hostile and angry -- if he gives you trouble, please let me know and I will do what I can to help. I've instructed him not to be rude to you, but I am worried my words will have had little effect. On a happier note, you've done well here, and seem to have a real good attitude and positive Wiki-spirit, which is always appreciated, especially by those of us who are starting to feel wearied by the vandalism, etc. Thanks for your contributions, and I hope you continue to add to the work here! Jwrosenzweig 23:01, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Very little. The best approach is simply to continue to insist on talking things over in the talk page. If he makes huge changes several times without discussing them in the talk page, despite your polite insistence that he do so, you can ask an admin to protect the page against an edit war. Usually that drives off troublemakers and sobers up the few who will become good contributors. I am talking with him right now on Talk:Fascism, where frankly he has digressed into being almost incomprehensible to me. I don't know whether he'll be around much longer. If he is, I advise the utmost patience and civility (which you have done exceedingly well thus far!), as this will in the end either win him over, drive him off, or act as your defense if he should become an angry vandal -- insulting him or responding in kind to irrationality might get you both tarred with the same brush. You are doing very well: keep it up. Should you become frustrated, leave me a note and I'll see what I can do. For now, insist on discussion on the talk pages, and when you must cut his material, cut a little at a time, and justify all edits immediately before or after making them with a reasonable explanation on the talk page. This almost never backfires. Jwrosenzweig 19:23, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Do take a look at Fascism's talk page if you want to understand who we're dealing with. WHEELER has revealed his political beliefs and I think it verifies that compromise will not occur at any time. <sigh> :-) Jwrosenzweig 20:11, 23 Mar 2004 (UTC)

political war

Nazism, socialism, communism, and anarchism are all extremely contentious subjects on the wikipedia. Any mention of any of them causes people to go insane, particularly if what you say is accurate. I would appreciate any input/assistance/edits, you seem reasonable :) Sam Spade 04:02, 27 Mar 2004 (UTC)

About 255 0 0

The use of 255 0 0 as the RGB coordinates of red answers the 2 following questions:

1. 1. Why do red and green make yellow on the computer??

1. 2. Why do equal amounts of red and blue make fuschia instead of purple??

There is a URL called http://www.gamecheetz.com/Rant.html that you should read and scroll down to the part that talks about colors.

Look at the afterimage page. It says that red will become green, which is 0 255 128, when the afterimage appears. However, 255 0 0 will become aqua, or 0 255 255, not green. 66.245.19.132 19:06, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Who should you tell this??

Don't blame me. Blame the owner of the web site that I showed you. That is the site I got that from. The kind of primary colors it is talking about are called the "psychological primary collors". Please note that, contrary to what people are saying in the Discuss this page at Color, the psychological primary colors were not invented by any Wikipedian; they are mentioned at http://dictionary.reference.com at the entry primary color and mentioned at a few Internet sites. 66.32.147.231 20:30, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Okay, your IP moves around a bit, I put some text at : User talk:66.245.19.132, and some examples at User:66.245.19.132/sandbox I'll check out the links you gave me Kim Bruning 20:39, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

In fact, since your IP moves around so much, it might be a good idea for you to create a user account. They only ask for a nick or name and the password you'd like to use, so you're just as anonymous as you are now. Click on log in to create your account. I'll move my replies to your user account if/when you tell me what it is. Thank you very much! Kim Bruning 20:43, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Go to the same sandbox mentioned above and here is another question. Now you told me that 255 0 128 is crimson, but how about 0 255 128?? 66.32.146.89 22:45, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm off to bed now. You can test this yourself, just read the texts I left for you. Learn to fish ;-) If you can't work it out, come back in the morning. :-) Do please make a user account, jumpy IP addresses are hard to talk to, sorry about that. Thank you in advance. :-) Kim Bruning 23:05, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• When you wake up tomorrow morning, don't forget to answer! 66.32.146.89 23:07, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I posted half the answer for you there already. Just use the edit page and read the page source very carefully, you should be able to figure things out for yourself. If you read hex triplet and hexadecimal and you might even manage by youself entirely. Remember, it's a sandbox page, so you're free to edit it however you like, unlike other wikipedia pages. Do tell me how things went! :-) Alright, off to bed I go. G'night! Kim Bruning 23:11, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

• Good news: I finally got it and it said "spring green". Can we call this color "spreen" which is just a blend of the words?? 66.32.146.89 23:32, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

How did you get it? What is the "it" in it said "spring green"? And no, we're an encyclopedia, we can't make up words. Now let me just do what I thought you were supposed to do at the sandbox page. Kim Bruning 07:49, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It would probably make most sense to create a new article Fascism and socialism and merge the two existing articles thereAndyL 23:14, 3 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

Hey. The City of Brussels must not be a redirect page to Brussels (Exactly like The City of London should not be a redirect to London). I'll explain more about it. Edcolins 10:40, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

No worries. Honestly, I wonder about users like Darrien -- after 2 weeks here, no way did I know about the arcana of policy and disputes (and I certainly wouldn't have started yelling for arbitration, even if it had existed then). Makes me suspect this may be yet another of our old banned friends returning in a reincarnation. I'm hoping to be wrong, though, and if so, I have hopes that he'll respond well to rational discussion. You did quite well I thought, and I certainly know how hard it is to remain calm when faced with someone who you feel is being unreasonable and perhaps rude. Let's see how things go. Don't worry about asking for my help -- I'm glad to oblige. :-) Jwrosenzweig 18:21, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You make an excellent point. I can usually stay calm but WHEELER has pushed me a lot -- he keeps making assertions to paint me in the worst possible light, and I'm getting tired of him. Your patience with WHEELER is exemplary. I will take your excellent advice and step away for a number of hours to enjoy the sunshine. Thanks for your note: Jwrosenzweig 21:04, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, I have been trying to contact people that know some people in Italy to do some research for over there. I don't trust nobody these days. I've been burned to many times by "authority" but when you look at original documents it refutes the "authorities". How do I trust people? you can not.

The reference librarian at the Hoover institute just e-mailed me, that her earlier contention is wrong. I don't believe that Mussolini wrote Century of the Right and put quotations <<>> around it as Andy L has done. Maybe it is good idea to bring Italian wikipedia people onboard. But I want an original Enciclopaedia Italiana of l932 not 34 and a reprinted version. I want an original. If I had the money to fly to Italy I would.WHEELER 13:55, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Lie-to-children

...Is a specific term that is found in a number of books that try to explain modern philosophy of science to the layman. I started the page and intend to maintain it and make it clearer. See the references. OK - I didnt doubt this - I just suspected that the article was the product of an originally non-English term, which was never or rarely used in English. English is so international now that its quite proper to include even colloquial term definitions here though. Is it a common tactic to yell "VFD" to see if anyone will scramble to fix an article? ;-) Well anyway, I improved it. Yes, it is, actually. Sad to say, but heaven forbid you lose your internet or go on vacation for a few days - things get wiped by consensus, even though we may feel 100% behind them. :) Sorry to do it to you, though - I know I dont like it, but after a while, we develop a sense of what people accept, etc. Also, with a strong case made on VFD can overpower overwhelming casual opposition - people will often turn down something casually (think Roman spectators making the "thumbs-down" gesture) but upon any substantive challenge will change their position. This is not the best system - I am actually one of the founding Inclusionists, which came about after I saw that deletionism ran rampant. Eventually User:Cimon Avaro and I and User:Angela, started Wikipedia:Cleanup as an alternative to VFD. I should have put yours there. But even if a page is deleted, a sysop can bring it back... ;) -Stevertigo 18:13, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Yes, and others Arete (paideia), Effeminacy, Golden Mean and Kalos Kagathos WHEELER 14:36, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

---

Reminder -- put welcome comments on a user's talk page. :-) I've moved them and cleared the user's userpage. No big deal, but I thought I'd mention. And I'm afraid I've had to object to your Paideia nomination at present -- hope you don't take offense. There's just work that needs to be done at Paideia first -- the mistake on pedagogy suggests to me there may be other mistakes in areas I know less well. My experience with WHEELER convinces me he's very bright, but that he is sometimes too quick to make assumptions (as he did with pedagogy) and present them as fact. The article needs plenty more peer review and tinkering, I think, though certainly WHEELER did a good job putting together the heart of it. Thanks for your hard work here, welcoming new users and helping them acclimate. :-) Jwrosenzweig 21:08, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I completely understand. :-) Whenever I see someone edit someone else's user page, I investigate -- I promise you're not "being watched". :-) Have a good day, Jwrosenzweig 21:17, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have completed Greek Philosophies on Republic please check it ALL before you go in and revert it all. And maybe this can replace the Republic site.WHEELER 13:55, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I'm confused. I just put facts on the page. Andy is setting up the argument that Nazism is rightist on the article itself. I can't let that stand. Or do you want me to just forget that area. I'm confused...sometimes I am a little slow to catch on. WHEELER 17:51, 22 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I have a reference from an book saying that the founding fathers are reactionary. I bet if I was at a University library, I can find twenty more quotes just like that. Andy reverts with no quotes. I have another book that says the original party of monarchists in France was called the "Reactionary" Party. But Andy reverts that also. Why isn't this guy reigned in. See, if things don't pass Andy's POV and inspection he revert it out AND NEEDS NO QUOTES OR SOURCES TO DO SO. NO thanks. I see Andy had free reign here. If he reverts, He must provide quotes and sources. SITE YOUR SOURCES is WIKIPEDIAN POLICY but that is not happening. WHEELER 14:19, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You know what my problem is: I never spent any amount of time in the American colleges and Universities who are filled with socialist, liberal and communist professors intent on propagandizing. I was never educated that way. That is why I am different. Mortimer Adler, Thomas Sowell, and Ayn Rand have all heavily critized American higher education as practically worthless. Is this why I am having a hard time here?WHEELER 14:19, 23 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Does the word "Why" mean anything to you David? Why was he reactionary??? What did he oppose? Have you read any thing of Herbert Hoover? NO because this contradicts YOUR opinion which is based on NOTHING. I read "The Challenge to Liberty". I understand. WHY did his enemies call him a reactionary? Explain that one.

I am getting pretty sick and tired of being questioned by you people. I have to pass the guantlet to put anything on this website. David, John, Slrubenstein, Jrwronsigweig, can all put things up without being questioned. But I have to be run thru the ringer.

Your hypocrisy grows. Jrwosewieg deletes my whole article on Defintion of Republic. I have to prove with 32 footnotes. Yet his site of Republic has not one quote. I put up three quotes on the reactionary side. They get all deleted and their information has NO quotes. They are free yet I am questioned about mine. They deleted Herbert Hoover but now I can repost because I have a quote. Proved them wrong in their opinions. Why was he called a reactionary????????????? I am getting sick and tired of this behavior. Now David has deleted my quote of WHY Hoover was a reactionary.

They have all deleted the REASONS of reactionary.

What was the White Russians fighting against???

What was Hoover reacting against??

What was FR. Coughlin fighting against???

What was the Catholic Church and the monarchists fighting against????

What am I fighting against????

The Bolsheviks

FDR and his Socialist NEw Deal

FDR, New Deal and the socialism and communism among the Jews

Jacobism and Democracy

Obsurantism censorship.

Obscurantism is clear on that page of "Reactionary". The WHY is never presented. REACT means to REACT against something.WHEELER 14:54, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I am getting pretty sick and tired of being deleted by people who have never read the material. They never read anything and then they go around and delete me. Ask David did he read anything of Herbert Hoover??? What is the basis for his deletion? NONE.WHEELER 14:54, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I am relaxed and have taken my medication. Thanks for your note. In the things they edited it out. I quoted directly from The Birth of Fascist Ideology by Zeev Sternhell with Mario Sznajder and Maia Asheri, Princeton University Press, l989. Mr. Sternhell is a Leon Blum Professor of Political Science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.

Can you believe this?. What I am forced to do now, is quote direct texts into the article and come back and put it into better form. These people do not read at all. How hard is it to walk down an aisle of a college library and read the books there?WHEELER 15:45, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Note I want you to check out the article on James Gregor. This is a hit piece from hell. Ayn Rand was extremely hateful of Christians and Christian influences. I enjoy reading her and quote from her often. So what if she hated Christians. She had something to say.

Nothing is so disagreeable than AndyL hit piece on Mr. Gregor. I find it disgusting and stupid.WHEELER 18:36, 29 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Note Quote from Prof. Sternhell's book: "(Fascism) was not a reactionary or an antirevolutionary movement in the Maurrassian sense of the term. Fascism presented itself as a revolution of another kind, a revolution that sought to destroy the existing political order and to uproot its theoretical and moral foundations." pg 7.

I put this in the article, It was deleted by AndyL.

I quote from the Doctrine of Fascism: "It is not reactionary but revolutionary." AndyL knows more about Fascism than does Gentile and Mussolini.

Quote from Prof. Sternhell's book: "Futurism, thanks to Marinetti, became a political force in the strict sense of the term." pg 234 "Marinetti the Bergsonian futurist" pg239 Prof Sternhell writes: "To this combination of revoltuonary revisionism and integral nationalism was added, in about, l910, a third element, Futurism. pg 28. Marinetti wrote a Futurist Manifesto. pg 28. Lagardelle, writes of a new culture. pg 27

Andyl deletes my lines of futurism in the Fascist article.

I quote from the Doctrine of Fascism: "Activism: that is to say nationalism, futurism, fascism". Futurism is tied to Fascism.

I am sorry. but I cannot believe AndyL who doesn't know anything about Gentile, Lagardelle, Sorel, Peguy, Marinetti, D'Annunzio, Bergson, or Proudhon, and reverts edits that are found in the Doctrine of Fascism is qualified to do anything and has come to be the so-called "Fascist" and "Nazi" expert and Comissar of reverts on these sites is laughable. WHEELER 15:32, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

Its getting funny to watch that Prof Sternhell agrees with Mussolini and Andy agrees with none!WHEELER 15:34, 6 May 2004 (UTC)

---

Please see my recent comment at Talk:Socialism. No big, but since it's about your edit, I thought I'd call your attention. -- Jmabel 20:01, 9 May 2004 (UTC)

Thank You

I just wanted to point out that I continue to appreciate your civility and etiquette. It really shouldn't be something rare enough to warrant praise, but on political pages of the wiki... it is ;) Sam Spade 08:38, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Stephenson's Rocket

With reference to your edit to Stephenson's Rocket - I don't see that one has to decide whether it's evolutionary OR revolutionary, especially since the evolutionary comment is a qualified one ("in some ways"). It's entirely possible for it to be both evolutionary AND revolutionary, which Rocket was. However I didn't like the original wording, so I'm letting your change stand till I think of a better ... —Morven 14:37, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Nomination?

Kim, I have long been impressed with your attitude and approach here, especially your desire to minimize conflict. May I nominate you for adminship? With almost 4 months experience and (by my count) 999 edits at present, you are qualified by virtually everyone's standards here. Please let me know if you would allow me to nominate you, and of course if you have any questions about being an administrator before deciding, I'm happy to offer what I can. Thanks for the great work you do. Jwrosenzweig 23:13, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Kim, I certainly understand your position, and thank you nevertheless for your hard work here. I will note that accepting the rank of administrator does not bring with it any quota one must fill in terms of pages deleted, protected, etc. If your only objection is that you feel you would do very little as an administrator with your additional powers, I would suggest to you that many administrators hold their powers in reserve and use them very infrequently, and therefore encourage you to reconsider. But I do not want anyone forced into being an admin unwillingly, and I admit, of course, that it would be difficult to have new powers and not feel a sense of responsibility to use them where appropriate. I say only this in conclusion -- whenever you're ready to be nominated, just leave me a note on my talk page letting me know. I have seen enough of your work to know that I will enthusiastically nominate you at any time, be it tomorrow, August, or 2 years from now. Thanks for your reply, and keep up the fine work - Jwrosenzweig 17:40, 14 Jun 2004 (UTC)

• I applaud your nomination.
• To the answer of source of which dutch constitution, you will have to read cf. Chester V. Easum, 'Prince Henry of Prussia, Brother of Frederick the Great (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1942), pg 339."
• I just quoted from the book, Liberty or Equality, pg 317

• Oh and by the way I finished unpacking my books and got squared away and finished settling in. I found a modern scholary book with the right definition of a republic. I put the book and its reference in the Miscellania section of Classic definition of Republic.WHEELER 14:29, 12 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I would like to write encyclopediac articles on like Parallels between Socrates and Hermann Rauschning and Parallels between Nikos Katzanzakis and Goebbels. Is this possible? Or is it possible withing an article like a Miscellania section? WHEELER 17:25, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Need help. I found out how to do "simple tabulation". But I don't like the Blue border around it. I also found "How to make tables" I don't want to do tables. Is there another way of making columns that I don't have a border around it. I'm lost in the muddle. Is there another html code between the simple and the table?WHEELER 17:25, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Barnstar

Kim, I was just cleaning up some page and came across your discussions with Serps on talk:Search engine optimization. I'm sincerely impressed by the way you handled yourself (and, more generally, keeping that page spam free). I thought you deserved a barnstar. →Raul654 04:46, Jun 20, 2004 (UTC)

Need help. I made an article strictly called National Socialism. Andy L converged the article into Nazism. I want the article of National Socialism to stand by itself. It has a seperate history. Adolf Hitler did not coin the term nor the idealogy. This needs to stand alone. I want the article returned to its former self. Please, I need your help in this matter.WHEELER 14:19, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I solved the problem by putting it as a Proposed article on the talk page of Nazism. I figured it out that this will lead to less problems and once it gets filled out, it should have no problem of being moved to being a full article.WHEELER 21:02, 21 Jun 2004 (UTC)

jwrosenweig deleted my article on the Real Definiton of a republic a long time ago. I was an idiot. You called out to other wikipedians to "delete mercilessly". You call the original wikipedian article on a republic good or academic? Why is that, because American academia lie and obfuscate. Later, much later, I found a book with the right definition in it. I prooved the fact before I had the "One modern source" and that modern source prooved me right. What's to say that this will not happen again?

AndyL along with his educational establishment all want to make Nazis the end all of national socialism and that there was no socialism involved at all in Nazism. That is not the case at all. Is there censorship here also? Because Andy here is pushing his weight around. I had to swim upstream once against you people, I will do so again I guess. The article Classic definition of a republic is a stinging indictment and rebuke of American education. It is not new research, It's just that they want to cover up and obscure truth so that they can keep on promoting lies.WHEELER 14:49, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Tell me Kim Bruning where does a discussion of Maurice Barres belong where he is the first coiner of the term? Does it belong in the Nazi article? Or does this belong in the general article of "National Socialism"? What is common sense here? WHEELER 15:02, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Andy L deleted an article without vote. I will now ask that this article be reposted on undelete. Free-Open Content encyclopedia. What happened to voting any article off or on? What happened to etiguette and rules. WHEELER 15:22, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

At least give me credit, I am calm and collected this time around. The Nazi article is too long already. *National Socialism* is not a creation nor an idea of Hitler. It existed before hitler and an article about it needs to show the history of it and where it all existed. Real definition of Republic was deleted. I managed to get it put back. Then its name changed to Greek Philosopies on Republic. It took me three months to work on it. Then its name changed to Classic Definition of Republic. It took six months to get it like that. The same needs to happen with Talk:Nazism/Seperate-National Socialism.WHEELER 17:58, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

My bust it was slrubenstein that first deleted the article. I am sorry for the confussion.WHEELER 18:56, 24 Jun 2004 (UTC)

First I am accused by doing original research but then, AndyL take 3/4 of the article and place it in the Nazi article. Which is it? If AndyL took the material and put it into the Nazi article then it must not be *original* research then is it?

All I am doing is putting two books together, Zeev Sternhell and Prof Schapiro's knowledge. I have a lot of respect for these two people. I am impressed by Schapiro's insight and All I am doing is following his lead. He promotes liberalism, which I don't, but his insight is valuable and great. This book is overlooked but I enjoy it. Prof Sternhell, backs him up. This is not original research.WHEELER 14:27, 25 Jun 2004 (UTC)

WHEELER

The pleasure of your company is requested at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_comment/User:WHEELER AndyL12:44, 5 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Checks and balances

I do want to point out that I do have an ideological ax to grind with respect to Chinese politics. There is a tendency for Americans to believe that their government is based on self-evident universal principles that everyone should obviously accept, and one things that gets missing is the fact that there is more than one way of creating a democratic government. It's my position (which you obviously disagree with) that checks and balances is one of the principles that Americans think is more universal than it actually is.

Anyway it was obvious to me that we weren't going to resolve the issue by ourselves. Part of the reason that I'd like other input is that there is the very real possibility that you are completely right and I am completely wrong, and there really is going to be no way for me to see this without a lot of other people pointing it out to me. More likely its the case that we are feeling different parts of a big elephant, and some more perspectives are necessary to describe the elephant.

Cheers......

Roadrunner 22:11, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I don't know if it would useful to discuss this over e-mail, since our positions are

different enough that I don't see how consensus could be reached without external input. I'd like to make some changes to the separation of powers article that don't touch on the universality of the issue. Since even if your main point is correct there are some errors in the details of the UK politics sections.

Roadrunner 04:03, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)

There. I fixed it.

People on Wikipedia Who I Just Adore :) :) :)

I think you'll like this much better. StoptheBus18 23:30, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Vandal with a changing IP address

Kim - I think we've got a vandal on our hand. This person doesn't use a user name they just use a number of different IP addresses. They have a decidedly right wing agenda (which in itself is not the bad part) but they are editing and deleting things from articles at their own will so that the articles reflect their own opinions. This includes deleting whole sections from Dick Cheney with no discussion. Simply put this person is a vandal.

Here are a list of the IP adresses this person has used:

• User:216.36.117.73
• User:68.77.23.91
• User:67.124.237.155
• User:67.42.128.231

This person has gotta be stopped, they add nothing to articles. They are only intent on vandalising them. Thanks alot, StoptheBus18 20:24, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wait, Kim, you deleted my "personal attacks" but you let his comments that I was an angry person and neglected by my parents stay, what the hell is that? I thought you were supposed to be rational. But you don't seem to be seeing the reality behind this situation. This person, with no user name, is changing things with no regard for the NPOV nature of Wikipedia. StoptheBus18 21:14, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

trolling/fun

One of the reasons I don't like the concept of internet troll is that the definition isn't too far away from an attempt to have fun. There is no stopping people from trying to have fun, its a given. What I do think we can do is insist they obey certain guidelines and meet certain standards and do a "good enough" job in the work they do here. I feel comfortable saying that mr.busstops #1 goal is to have fun. That’s not necessarily a bad thing, but it does mean that he needs a closer eye and a consistent emphasis on policy and the project goals. Anyways I share your mission of working hard to make some of our more "fun-loving" or "interesting" wiki's stay within the minimum parameters of policy. Sam [Spade] 22:04, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Barnstar

I have witnessed your consistant kindness, thoughtfulness, and effective personality at work here on the wiki for some time now, and feel you have more than deserved some token of community respect. Heres the best compliment I could think to give you. Feel free to do w it as you will, delete it, move it, whatever you wish. Cheers, Sam [Spade] 22:04, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Putting me in my place

Thanks for moving my talk. I wouldn't want StopTheBus to think I was "riding" him ;-) about his comments... --Uncle Ed 13:42, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

updating the counters

I honestly don't understand the counters on Wikipedia:Trolling poll. What does (37 / 27 (21+12-6) ) mean? Why subtract 6? I am lost :S Sam [Spade] 21:56, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

ah, ok, thanx! :D Sam [Spade] 22:11, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

help me out?

StoptheBus18 is quickly building a reputation as a mean-spirited shit, isn't he? He loves to throw around the race card and personally attack (in extreme terms) anyone he disagrees with. He even uses defamatory slanderous infactual language against his perceived enemies on his user page. What a loser. -- Stevietheman 16:05, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

So Kim what's the deal with that? Calling me a shit, doesn't that count as an insult or something??? StoptheBus18 16:53, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

RE: Who holds the power on wikipedia

Your quite right, and Jimbo is an extremely nice guy, quite the spokesman for benevolent dictatorship ;) I've made the joke more than once "think how much better the world would be today if Stalin and/or Hitler had been built of the same stuff as Laird Jimbo I". The truth is there is a big democratic component to the wiki, and TINC or no tinc, there are people who vote in blocks, and others who don't vote at all or don't care about every last little issue. The result is that at the low end, certain admins do lord it over the little folks. WHEELER is a "little man" here on the wiki, and no matter how long he stays I doubt he'll rise very high on the totem pole of hierarchy, good edits or no. We may be meritocratic when it comes to developers, but not when it comes to Wikipedia:Cite your sources and Wikipedia:Verifiability (wheelers strongpoints) nor when it comes to Wikipedia:Civility, NPOV and Wikipedia:factual accuracy (things which a good wiki meritocracy should be grounded on, and things which I try hard to make my strong points here ;) Sam [Spade] 21:25, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanks

And yes, it was just in the last hour or two. :-) I'm still hoping, btw, you'll reconsider about my nomination for adminship (not to pressure you too much! :-). Anyway, it's nice to be back (just in time, too, since I've been planning on running for AC when it opened up, and apparently it just did), and I'll be around, although perhaps not editing as much as before....at least for a little while. Hope to see you around, Jwrosenzweig 18:17, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thank you. :-) I consider it a privilege to nominate you. Look for it in the next 30 minutes or so. Good luck. Jwrosenzweig 19:25, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Done. :-) Please accept or reject the nomination formally at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship in the next 7 days. Some users do this immediately upon nomination, while others wait to gauge a response before making a final decision. I leave that choice in your wise hands. :-) Jwrosenzweig 19:41, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Glad to help. I found it amusing that James would mistake your gender, given that he's had more interaction with you than I have. But then I realized that in speaking with (or more correctly, writing to) you directly, he'd only use the non-gender-specific pronoun you, and never get an opportunity to have the assumption corrected. --Michael Snow 21:37, 28 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Drs

Thanks! I didn't know that (thought it was a typo)! Learned something! Antandrus 23:28, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I guess it's close to what we call a "doctoral candidate" here in the US (after passing the first round of exams, but before the dissertation is in... you get the Ph.D. after that's all approved and defended with the oral exam... though it may differ from school to school). Interesting. Antandrus 23:38, 31 Jul 2004 (UTC)

adminship

Personally, I really like to work transparently without any backdoor dealings. Even though it sometimes offers a surprise. GeneralPatton 15:59, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Sysop

Congratulations! You are now an administrator. You should read the relevant policies and other pages linked to from the administrators' reading list before carrying out tasks like deletion, protection, banning users, and editing protected pages such as the Main Page. Most of what you do is easily reversible by other sysops, apart from page history merges and image deletion, so please be especially careful with those. You might find the administrators' how-to guide helpful. Good luck. Angela. 19:54, Aug 4, 2004 (UTC)

I second Angela's congratulations -- keep up the good work! :-) One tip I'd add -- the best thing to do, when first exercising an admin privilege you haven't been too familiar with, is to ask the advice of an admin who has. Angela is a great resource for this, of course, and I'd offer my services also. Have fun, Jwrosenzweig 20:05, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Edits

Hiya. Fortunately, no, I have no older edits - so I'm saved from RfA for now :-) —Kate | Talk 12:27, 2004 Aug 9 (UTC)

Neutrality

Why did you revert Neutrality's removal of his nomination from Wikipedia:Requests for adminship? I think it's generally accepted that you can remove your own candidacy if it's not going to succeed, and this is not viewed as a problem the way your subsequent comment would indicate. Continued discussion there will only generate, as you note, even more heat and less light. --Michael Snow 21:19, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I have the right to withdraw my candidacy at any time I choose. Your inappropriate revert, if left standing, would have caused discontent and bad feelings. Please do not restore the nomination again. Thank you. Neutrality 21:27, 17 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Windows XP starter edition

Hi Kim,

I figure the best way of finding out whether we continue with the Linux comparison of XP Starter Edition is to take a straw poll. I've started one on Talk:Windows XP. Would you be willing to cast your vote? This might make things a bit clearer, and maybe help stop a revert war! :-)

Ta bu shi da yu 14:09, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

PolishPoliticians

Please discuss what he is doing with him, either here and by email and see what you can do. If he would come around a bit I'm sure we would all moderate our views too. Mainly we want him to quit calling people names.

Especially for the smaller towns and villages it is very useful to have both names mentioned as it increases the usefulness of the encyclopedia. Everyone knows Gdansk is Danzig; who knows Cebrikove was Hoffnungstal?Fred Bauder 18:43, Aug 21, 2004 (UTC)

Faces mixed up

Wiktionary would be GerardM. I was sitting between you and Jimbo when we still were at the Oude Gracht. Erik Zachte 13:37, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

AndyL

I have just about had it with this character. He has erased a major section of the Weimar Timeline then took the erased stuff and created a new article with my material which could have all stayed in the Weimar timeline. I am furious. The Weimar Timeline can put it all in perspective. The man did no work no research no time except to steal the work. I resent this. And his supposedly "authority" to erase stuff in the Weimar timeline for what reason? There is no reason for this Early Nazi Timeline. He just copied all my work when it can all been included in the Weimar timeline and this new timeline is connected to nothing! What's this man afraid of? WHEELER 00:09, 31 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Windows XP listed on featured article candidates

Hi Kim,

Would you like to vote on it at Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates#Windows_XP? I know you worked hard on the article.

Ta bu shi da yu 15:02, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Edit attribution

Hi Kim. The edits from your IP have now been reattributed to your username. Regards. — Kate Turner | Talk 04:22, 2004 Sep 5 (UTC)

Good to meet you!

Have a great day! ---Rednblu 21:12, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)