User talk:TheoClarke/Archive 005

Back to Theo's Archive Contents and Index

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 25 Jul 2005 and 5 Nov 2005.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)

Scrupulosity/Both Kinds

• I did explain.

(1) It is absurd to deny that scrupulosity was a major factor. There came a time when few people received the Eucharist in either form, consecrated bread or wine.

(2) The question of whether one ought to receive Communion under one or both kinds is irrelevant to the article. What is relevant is the fact that the chalice was denied to the people. That fact, in turn, meant that baptized infants had no proper means to receive the Eucharist. Perhaps that would be a good idea for another article...

(3) The idea of restricting the Eucharist contrary to the Gospel is the problem. "Suffer the little children to come unto me..." Christ did not say Suffer the big children to come unto me... Nor did He say Suffer the smart children to come unto me...
Unsigned at 02:47, 26 July 2005 by User:Sophroniscus

These things happen... --Sophroniscus 14:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your messages, Theo. I spend most of my Wikipedia time at the Terri Schiavo talk page, so words like "absurd" roll off my back, anyway! I see from your user page that you've studied with Open University. So have I. Cheers. Ann Heneghan 22:14, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Absurd?

You may be right. I know I sometimes say absurd things. One runs that risk whenever one opens one's mouth... --Sophroniscus 14:26, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I have my wife to remind me... --Sophroniscus 15:08, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hello.

I would just like to say tusen takk for copyediting the kammerlader article - you caught a lot of stuff that flew right under my radar. Again, thanks. WegianWarrior 06:10, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

In responce to your question... I got no username there (yet). But just tell me which article it is, and I'll be more than happy to return the favour. WegianWarrior 10:00, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Filiocht?

Hi Theo. Have you seen Filiocht's page? I was a bit shocked when I saw it today. Can you shed any light on why he might have decided to leave? If there is anything I can do to help I would very much like to. I've emailed him, hopefully he'll respond. I was enjoying quite a bit working with you and him on the Dante list. I'd be very sad if he has left the project permanently. Regards, Paul August ☎ 14:48, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

InShaneee's request at TINMC

I've tried to mediate between InShanee and Angie Y. but am completely unable to get any response out of her. Therefore Inshaneee is currently considering an RfC against her and he mentioned you had also had troubles with this user. Since I am primarily a mediator, I hate to have to take the next step, but seeing as Angie completely avoids any kind of interaction with me, I fear that might be the only way. Look here and here for conversations between me and Inshaneee. See here for my requests to Angie with no replies.

If you wish to discuss this issue, please leave a message on my talk page, and I'd like all discussion about this issue there. If you aren't interested, feel free to ignore me. :) Inter\^Echo 09:58, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for your offer of assistance. I've started posting diffs on the subpage in question, as she continues to make mountains of edits that need editing/outright reversion. They are more subtble than her fanfic posts, but they still need a lot of work, and she refuses to discuss anything. I fear I may have to go ahead with the RFC (despite your misgivings), as I am quite tired of all the work I have been putting into this conflict, and it's really starting to seem like I have no other choice (all optimism aside). --InShaneee 18:32, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Don't know if you've got that subpage watched, but if not, I've added a few more references, just to let you know. Despite the fact that things are continuing unabated, I do appreciate your help, as she does seem to be responding to you somewhat (a small start, I suppose), and this is taking some of the workload off of my tired shoulders. --InShaneee 02:51, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Added a few more problems. For my money, things aren't getting any better, she's just doing the same things in different places now. --InShaneee 03:01, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• • • 'sigh'. I know, I know. I need to watch what I'm saying. I apologize. I certainly do watch what I'm saying to Angie, don't get me wrong...and I am trying to keep a cool head about things. It's just, as I'm sure you can understand, incredibly frustrating. I shall try harder in the future though. And once again, I cannot thank you enough for your assistance. --InShaneee 16:47, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

• • • • Now just a moment. That 'revert vandalism' wasn't written without thought or merit. First of all, if you take a look at the 'vandalism in progress' page, Angie made a note about Dvirgueza herself (innapropriatly placed though it is), and has also reverted several of his changes herself, indicating quite clearly that she HAS been following this debate. Second of all, the image doesn't belong there, since it's been established this user is clearly using copyrighted images, in general the people dealing with him are trying not to use any of them until the current investigation into their status can be concluded. --InShaneee 15:57, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• • • • • Wow....that's a nice table there! You know...I know you agreed to help with this whole situation, but I'm finding myself surprised on a daily basis how dedicated you've been to helping out. This obviously isn't at an end yet, but I feel compelled to thank you once more for your continuing assistance. It's been a major load off of my shoulders. --InShaneee 16:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

• • • • • • My hat's off to you again. A little elbow grease, and we now have edit summaries. This should make finding issues a breeze for the both of us. Heck, I may have to look into this 'monobook.js' thingee myself, I had just thought it was something the Javascript Vandal played with. Either way, thank you once again. --InShaneee 01:47, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
            • Hello again. Haven't heard from you in about a week, so I just wanted to check and see if you were taking a bit of a sabatical from this whole ordeal, or if I needed to take up the slack on my own again. --InShaneee 15:57, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Deguire

Hey Theo! Seeing as you're an admin, would you mind taking a look at Deguire and speedying it if you agree with me? It should have been deleted in May, but some crafty vandalism saved it. I just stumbled across it by chance a few minutes ago. All the best! --Scimitar ^parley 21:18, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

For the prompt service. . .

. . . as well as your excellent, ongoing contribution to Wikipedia, I, Lord Scimitar, occasional master of my user page, defender of not much actually, and King of my cubicle, grant you this barnstar. If you don't have one yet, you certainly deserve it.

"Virgil" to "Vergil"?

Hi Theo, User:Derek Ross has moved Virgil to Vergil and is changing to that speliing in lots of articles. In my experience "Virgil" is the much more common spelling. What is your experience? I've posted a comment on this at Talk:Vergil. If you have any thoughts on the matter you might want to join the discussion there. Thanks. Paul August ☎ 17:49, July 28, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Theo for joining the "Virgil" discussion, and making all those edits. And a special thanks for my shiny new ... er rusty old barnstar, I will display it proudly! Paul August ☎ 13:39, July 29, 2005 (UTC)

Getting sucked back in

Hi there, after a period of about two weeks absence I have come back to wikipedia to find my username mentioned with accusations and personal attacks. The temptation was too strong, but I've decided not to respond to it any further. All i'm going to say is that when the RFC comes make sure it's done properly, he doesn't wiggle out of it and the outcome is worthwhile. I'll certainly sign it (along with about 25 other users) but I don't have the energy to contribute anything else. Keep up the good work. Jim Leonig Mig 14:51, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

I think the problem is, the articles I most want to edit (Barnt Green, Lickey etc) are policed by him. If I make an edit on them, he always either revert it, or some other destrtuctive alteration a few hours later. It's horrible. The only reason I registered here was to make those articles, and I have a great deal of material to add to them. He knows this from discussion pages etc. I can't add it because it turns what should be a pleasurable activity into conflict. All I want now is to be left alone. Leonig Mig 10:15, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

References

Hi Theo, thanks for the comments... please see User_talk:Anubis1975#References --Anubis1975 06:38, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

---

Although I haven't been actively involved in editing the Ward Churchill article of late, I have been following the discussions on the talk page. You should consider either opening another RfC on Keetoowah or taking the matter directly to Arbitration. Personally, I don't believe a individual who displays such incivility to fellow contributors belongs in this project. See Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Keetoowah, from earlier this year. -- Viajero | Talk 21:43, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Wake me up...

Thanks I am encouraged to be more thorough in my edit summaries. lots of issues | leave me a message 07:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

References and Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory

It's not a big issue, so I won't change it again, if you do. However, my changes were based on general use. IMDB is *very* often used as a source of facts in the article AND listed on "External links", not "References". Rarely are items double-listed. I think there's a "tendancy" to use "References" more as a type of academic/research backup for the "so included" reader. I understand your system of reasoning, but if applied universally, a massive number of articles (especially for celebs) would have to be changed.

Another issue: "External links" is valuable in warning the user, what's obvious to you or me, that the items are in fact external. If you only have one of the two, "External links" is best, since it is so obvious in terms of meaning. As a rule, any external links outside of the "External links" section, should be looked at with extra scrutiny. But, as I said, if you're just changing this article, it's no biggie to me. --rob 08:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

I so …

File:Bonifacio-VIII.jpg

Boniface VIII, the first conehead

… want to add this image and caption to the Dante list. Please restrain me. Paul August ☎ 20:49, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Regarding .Keetoowah at Ward Churchill

Theo, I happened to notice your exchanges with User:Keetoowah at the Ward Churchill article. This user, User:Keetoowah, has been one of the most agressively obnoxious editors I've yet to encounter on Wikipedia. He's made this a personal campaign and if you check earlier versions of the article, you'll see how it has devolved into the current state. He's on a mission to do anything he can to keep the article as negative and POV against Churchill as possible. Several other editors have just pretty much given up on it. Anyway, I thought your points were well made and fair, but User:Keetoowah is just impossible to deal with. I'm suprised he's still lurking around and doing what he does without some action being taken, but there it is. Anyway, I've long since given up editing on that article largely becuase of him. I'm not suggesting you do, but the article is "his" and that's how it's going to be. Maybe in 10 years, assuming Wikipedia is still around, the article can be made into something more appropriate to the project. Good luck, Calicocat 06:14, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

INC Comments

Thanks, Theo. I'm trying to ignore Ironbrew's initial comments but I just couldn't pass on it the second time he did it--but still, I apologize for the sarcastic comment. Ealva 16:39, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Theo, the Pasugo article "Felix Y. Manalo and the Iglesia ni Cristo" is written by Isabelo T. Crisotomo in the May-June 1986 issue, Manalo's centennial. You can find the article in on of the reference in the Iglesia ni Cristo wiki article (an INC member's site)[1] If you really need a scanned excerpt of the magazine, I could supply upon request. Ipso-Facto 08:55, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the "medicine"

But I've taken the liberty of changing your prescription a bit. Paul August ☎ 17:02, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

Glad to have met you

Hi Theo, it was great talking to you on the way back from Wikimania ;-) Hope we'll see each other again at one of the planned meetups in London. Cheers, IulianU 21:23, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Chrisopher Rose

Who requested the deletion of this article? I'm technically the "author" so I'm curious about why you deleted it. Did the subject request that it be deleted? If so, is that really a criteria for deleting an article? --malathion ^talk 02:33, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Ted Radcliffe

Hi, thanks for your message. There was one more 'Double Duty' reference in the Intro which I changed so I'm now in support of the FAC for this guy. I've already updated my vote. Lisiate 21:04, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

ASIN comment

My apologies for misrepresenting your view by moving the comment - I personally don't see the distinction between deleting ASINs and replacing them with something else, since replacement implies deletion of the original. However, maybe I should have stated this reasoning explicitly, as I did with Kaldari's comment. Perhaps you could reinsert your comment in the "neutral" section, with an explanation of why you consider this to be distinct from deletion - as I asked Kaldari, do you consider the ASINs a useful intermediate step for researching their replacements? Or is there some other reason you think deleting them without simultaneous replacement would be a bad thing? Again, sorry for any offence I caused by not making my reasoning more explicit. - IMSoP 23:56, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Func's RfA :)

Theo, thank you for your support on my RfA! :)

Please never hesitate to let me know if you have concerns with any administrative action I may make.

Func( t, c, e,  ) 18:30, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

footnote tags

I am restoring the affected page now.

The page in question is one of over 100 that had links to a survey website that has been blacklisted, and in my haste to update them all I made a mistake. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 23:32, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Me again!

Hey, Theo, me again! If you have a minute, would you take a quick look at Jason Po-Tiger for me? I marked it to be speedied this morning (you'll see why if you read it), and it's been around since April, so I don't see why it needs to stay any longer. Thanks in advance. --Scimitar ^parley 22:04, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

• Just for you, I have returned my original baboon portrait to my user page, from which point it can maintain a constant vigil over this project. --Scimitar ^parley 14:07, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Escape from Cluster Prime article expansion

Can you create an article for Escape from Cluster Prime? I've only seen it once. --User:Angie Y.

Didn't realize... thanks!

Hi, I just wanted to thank you for correcting my error. I actually am new here, and the creation of the Push, Nevada page was my very first edit/creation (I really owe it to the extensive help guide for being such an excellent teacher). As for the lyrics, I had no idea that it was considered a breach of copyright to post them--I saw an incorrect version posted on Mike Teavee's page, so I thought I'd update it for the sake of accuracy. Well, learn something new everyday... again--thanks. Surprise of the Century 11:35, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Suggested apology

Hi Tony: Given User:Curps view that it was absurd of me to suggest that you apologise for blocking the inappropriate username, I wish to emphasise that I saw the blocking as an inappropriately hasty action but not as a malicious one. I think that you made a minor error: one of timing. Because it is now apparent that the user was malicious I believe that the suggested apology would not have been effective. And, I believe that the occasional error does not diminish the good work that you do. —Theo (Talk) 22:56, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for contacting me personally. It gives me a chance to set your mind at reat.

I didn't mind that you suggested an apology and I took the suggestion in good faith.

To me it was apparent that the username was very inappropriate and the user had been politely warned (perhaps too politely). The clock was ticking and the edit history was filling up with suggestions that a man physically attack a woman. In my judgement that is not acceptable. We're here to build an encyclopedia and things that impede that aren't welcome.

I know there are other ways of interpreting the situation, and that it could possibly be true that nobody would feel alienated from Wikipedia by the presence of usernames like that. However my final opinion was that the editor must know that the username was offensive, and must have known this when he created the username. He was welcome to continue editing but not to continue using an offensive username.

I don't think it's fair to expect Wikipedia editors to watch a television program on a particular US network--we come from all over the place and most of us haven't been exposed to that particular show, nor would most of us know how to go about watching an episode, so there is no common basis of culture to appeal to so as to mitigate the shock value of that username.

The finding that it was actually (apparently--I don't know the details) some hitherto well known troll doesn't have any bearing on this case. We didn't know, and couldn't know, the identity of the editor in question, and there was no doubt in my mind that the editor did mean to contribute in good faith. But I felt that it was right to block that username because it wouldn't stop him choosing a more appropriate name and continuing to edit. Well it turns out we were wrong on that but even so I think it's best to stop offensive usernames while inviting the editor in question to continue editing with a different name. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 23:43, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

POTW

I think its about time a RFC was started against Pigsonthewing, see this his recent ploy of removing any slight criticism pretending it is a "personal atack" is IMO completely unnaceptable. I think a RFC is long long overdue. What do you think. G-Man 21:23, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

For your patience, fairness and diplomacy

This barnstar of Diligence is presented to TheoClarke for his patience, fairness, diplomacy and outstanding work in improving Iglesia ni Cristo related articles. Presented by LBMixPro and Emico on 15:39, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

RE: Retaining Source

Thank you for pointing out my edit on that article. I apologize for the mistake, as I very rarely deal with sources on Wikipedia, and I guess I learned it the hard way. Thanks again, and I will make sure not to remove sources again. --Evanwohrman 10:51, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Sad

Hi Theo. Have you seen this: User talk:Filiocht#Why I won't be back any time soon? Paul August ☎ 16:32, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Ok now you've made me buy music!

I happened to be looking at your user page, and one thing led to another, and now I'm listening to "Sweets for my Sweet" after having just purchased and downloaded The Very Best of … The Searchers from iTMS. Paul August ☎ 21:22, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Your comment on my userpage

Hello, Theo. I have responded to your comment on my userpage. I have no desire nor intent to create any animosity or discord at Wikipedia, but it becomes challenging to maintain my behaviour and composure when I'm surrounded by such nasty accusations and incivility. --Ironbrew 01:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

Just checking!

Thanks for the confirmation. I was just a little concerned that I had more words in links than not :) Telsa 18:23, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Politeness

Contrary to what you wrote at User talk:Keetoowah, we are rewuired to be polite. Here is the policy that says this: Wikipedia:Civility. Keetooah is currently the subject of a request for arbitration over his incivility. —Theo (Talk) 21:15, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh yes, I see :-) Thanks for the info. —kooo 08:33, August 21, 2005 (UTC)

Sourcing requests/Dylan albums

Was there only the one I responded to, or are there others? I didn't notice the one I responded to before this week? Monicasdude 22:26, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Irritating behaviour by POTW

What do you think. I think the sort of stuff i'm adding to the wikipedia is of reasonable quality. Leonig Mig 18:22, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree that his behaviour is inappropriate. I suggest that you help prepare User:G-Man/POTW RFC. It needs a list of diffs showing Andy reverting aggressively. —Theo (Talk) 18:38, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

My RfA

Thanks, Theo. Really, really, really, thanks. I appreciate the thoughts a lot, and just hope I'll be able to live up to what you say I already am ;). It's people like you who make Wikipedia worthwhile, and not just for saying nice things about me, either ;).--Scimitar ^parley 14:14, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

• No, I just wanted to be unique, and I haven't seen anyone else use "parley". Not the best choice, perhaps, but the simplest and miost straightforward choice ("talk") was already taken, and being a baboon wasn't unique enough (I'm sure Terry Pratchett's orangutan is around here somewhere).

Journalsit

Im really sorry, I had no idea that the image would affect anything. You'll be glad to know that Ive taken it out. If you still have any concerns, feel free to let me know.

Journalist ^C.| ^{Holla @ me!}

Barnstar

Thank you! The Uninvited Co., Inc. 22:25, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

And thanks from me to! Valiantis 13:23, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Please reconsider

Hello Theo. Would you please reconsider your support for Monicasdude in the RfC against him? Our paths haven't crossed, but I can see you are a top-notch contributor and I hope you would agree, were you to look over my contributions, that my first concern, like yours, is the excellence of the encyclopedia. The RfC does not seek extreme punishment of Mdude, as indeed he has done nothing to warrant such punishment. It will at the most attempt to block him from using the revert capability on the Dylan article for a few days so that I and other editors can get it into the condition it would have been in had Mdude not exerted a dictatorial control over it the last few months through excessive reverts. Your existing comments on the RfC make it clear you're aware of Mdude's unfortunate truculence, but his actions, I'm afraid, have gone beyond mere truculence or anything else having solely to do with attitude. If you were to carefully survey what has happened on the Dylan article you would see that his primary anti-wiki actions occurred back in early June when he took it upon himself to do a major, all-at-once, undiscussed overhaul to this article that had long been cited for excellence. I believe that sort of radical reworking, with no Talk activity, should never be done on a FA. I challenged him on this and asked him to work in a stepwise fashion that would satisfy all editors. He flat-out refused, using insulting language and making totally unfounded allegations of "personal abuse". Since then he has kept an iron-grip on the article which, as you have seen, has led other editors to sharply complain. Your support will only assist him in propping up the radical overhaul he never should have made and I sincerely ask you to either retract your support or re-word it so that the Arbitrators get a clear idea that even those sympathetic to Mdude concur he has at times gone over the line. Thank you. JDG 16:25, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

RfC on Monicasdude description

I suspect that I ultimately will not agree with some of your (mostly favorable) characterization of Monicasdude's editing behavior. But I do not mean for my own description to be unnecessarily off-putting.

I see the phrase "since he began editing on WP (under the user account in question)" as a veiled assertion that he is not new here (a suggestion, in effect, that he has lied).

In regard specifically to this comment, I do not mean to suggest any deceit by Monicasdude. No part of my complaint alleges any deceit. I do not know, one way or the other, whether he has edited under other accounts and/or anonymously; nor do I think that matters. I merely mean that the only contribution history I am able to examine is for the account "Monicasdude." If you can suggest a way of phrasing this within any negative suggestion, I will modify my description. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 23:02, 2005 August 29 (UTC)

Theo, please see LotLE's talk page for more on this issue. JDG 00:04, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi Theo, since I removed the description that you thought was a "veiled assertion" of something negative, would you mind removing the complaint about it from your outside comment? I respect, even if disagree with, your basic characterization; but I don't want to have other readers get caught up in a minor issue that is now moot. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 17:05, 2005 August 30 (UTC)

Disinterested involvement

Getting involved in a controversial topic in which one has no stake is a important duty for Wikipedians, but often an unpleasant one. I appreciate your involvement in the CARM matter. The articles in this topic are certainly controversial, although most of the controversy seems to derive from a small number of users. I originally participated in a re-write of CARM as a result of "a call to help", but I increasingly have stepped back into the position of a (would-be) referee/moderator/editor. My overall impression of this dispute is that it is between two sets of individuals who already know each other and who have already used these arguments. Whether some are sock puppets or meatpuppets is hardly worth discerning since the effects have been the same. In general, some of the same sourcing-issues come up with other controversial websites. Very few webforums get meaningful coverage even in the web-based news sources, much less in print. Our existing guidelines call for treating other webforums as source very carefully, which makes it almost impossible to balance articles on webforums with differing perspectives. (there's a natural exemption of using a webforum a source about itself). That's a long term problem which I hope Wikipedia will somedy solve. In the short term, for this topic, do you think there's a way to arrive at consensus drafts with the engaged editors? Your thoughts are welcome. Cheers, -Willmcw 23:10, August 29, 2005 (UTC)

Tossers?!

I called them losers, not tossers ... but the point is well made. I still don't always remember that people may take less than serious comments entirely seriously. I have changed it to 'crazies'! ;)

Also, does POTW have a history of going round reverting edits by people who have dared to contradict him? It's getting a little disconcerting now. Proto t c 15:29, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, yes, he does have such a history. See User:G-Man/POTW RFC. —Theo (Talk) 15:37, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Your comments

Just wanted to let you know that I have responded to your comments on Wikipedia:Requests for bureaucratship/Andrevan2. Andre (talk) 00:55, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

POTW user page

Hi Theo, I have decided to suspend contributing to the project as I cannot seem to play nicely, and have great respect for the project. However I will not have the misrepresentative public comment left on POTW's user page. Please advise. Leonig Mig 19:55, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

[2] Is this abuse? He's got the front page locked. Have you got an email address? Ta. Leonig Mig 18:04, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

By the way, Theo, you might want to comment on this on WP:ANI[3]. --Phroziac ^(talk) 19:29, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

I think Emico's back

Check my comments at Talk:Iglesia_ni_Cristo#Deletion_of_the_Blog--Ironbrew 22:11, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Theo, you may want to check out the userpage and contribs for BrewCoffee (talk · contribs). I think he created another sockpuppet acct. --LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)} 09:54, September 3, 2005 (UTC)

Bureaucratship

Hi, TheoClarke. I just wanted to thank you for taking the time to vote on my bureaucratship. Even though it didn't pass, I appreciate your feedback and I will try my best to keep your criticisms and suggestions in mind in the future. Andre (talk) 05:37, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Emico's at it again.

He's already posted under that pseudonym on the Talk:Eduardo_V._Manalo#Proof_Needed section and he's using it again to edit and circumvent rules. Judging by his use of "CoffeeBrew", I think he is trying to make fun of my name as well as Coffeemaker's. Now here he goes again with "Starbucks" further outlaying his supposed fetish with coffee-related names.--Ironbrew 08:27, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Starbucks

If this is him again (which is highly likely due to the similar writing style and similar POV), is it possible for you to extend the ban on Emico's main username until one year from the date of the Starbucks edit? I think he deserves at least that much for trying to circumvent the ban.

I've put a sockpuppet template to Starbucks (talk · contribs) userpage. But It's up to theo to do the rest. --LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)} 22:48, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Theo:
Thanks for support in my recent RFB nomination. I'm now WP's newest bureaucrat. :) Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 19:16, September 6, 2005 (UTC)

Meetup

Heya,

Just a quick note to remind you of the London Meetup this coming Sunday (the 11th of September) that you signed up for (as 'probable', so hopefully it's just a small push to get you to 'definite' ;-)). It's at the Archery Tavern, just next to Lancaster Gate tube station, from 13:00 (BST) onwards.

Looking forward to seeing you there.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 14:00, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Mediation

You're pretty knowledgable about the whole LM v POTW affair, do you think, if both Leonig Mig and POTW would agree, that mediation would actually be able to help? -- Joolz 18:36, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Admin support

I read your comments about the Mabbet/Mig dispute. If you want support from an admin, contact me. Help is here anytime you need it (well, except most weekends ;)). --Scimitar ^parley 23:25, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Emico or not Emico

Special:Contributions/160.36.8.109 The user at this IP address has tried pushing through blatant advocacy/POV of one man towards the INC, and deleted the criticism section earlier today. I think this user needs to be banned from this article.--Ironbrew 17:44, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Kammerlader

Hi. I applogies for 'spamming' your talkpage like this, but some time ago you was helpfull with comments on one of 'my' other articles on old Norwegian rifles and I wondered if you might be interested in helping out peer reviewing the article on the Kammerlader. Thank you for your time. WegianWarrior 11:42, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

If you have a moment

I've recorded some of my thoughts and ideas about problems within Wikipedia, and some possible solutions here. I'd like your thoughts, and whether or not you think I'm crazy. Thanks, Theo.--Scimitar ^parley 17:37, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

The devil made me do it

Hi Theo. Fil's parting shot has "caused" me to get more involved in the sorry Ed Poor affair than I wanted. My pursuit of "justice" has lead to this and now this. I was hoping you might be able to provide some perhaps much needed perspective. Am I being a ninny in all this? Paul August ☎ 18:31, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

P.S And by the way, before you take issue with my the devil made me do it excuse above, and start another rant about "taking responsibility for your own life … how nobody can make you do anything with speech or text … how establishing autonomy is a first step to self-actualisation …" I have to say, that not only did you make me buy music, you also made me buy Mirsky's Dante, Eros & Kabbalah — you devil!.

T h e e e e o ? … T h e e e e o? (where the heck is he? Is he lost? I hope he's just on vacation somewhere. But I have to admit I'm starting to worry …) Paul August ☎ 13:56, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I've heard from someone who claims to be Theo, so I'm am now a little less worried. However I would like to see a valid ID, and some sign that he hasn't been kidnapped, and isn't now communicating under duress.

Mig/POTW

I was hoping to try and organise a mediation attempt between them, but I'm not going to be able to have the time to persue that idea, hopefully someone other than yourself might like to pick it up to give yourself a break from dealing with what's been a very long drawn out and complicated problem. Regards, Joolz 01:00, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

The Independent

Gosh - fame! (You have to subscribe to see the rest of the article, but it looks like a copy of this.)

It is not entirely clear whether they are counting you as one of the "bespectacled missionaries" or as being merely "among" them; given that you are "preaching", presumably the former :) -- ALoan (Talk) 11:26, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

The rumors of my death...

(The following was copied from my talk page. Paul August ☎ 15:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC))

Thank you for your concern. I was sucked away by the demands of paid work and The Ashes, successively. I then realised that I felt brighter without the daily dip into wikiconflict so I stayed away again. I am impressed with your contributions to the Ed Poor debate but I am not surprised that you felt them to be wasted. The realisation that such processes are time-consuming and ineffective is part of my disaffection with the project. I am now determined to focus on the rewarding aspects. —Theo (Talk) 21:11, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Glad to find that you are still among the living. And Fil is back too! I am still optimistic about our little wikicommunity. But when I retreat to just editing articles It is always a breath of fresh air. I've been enjoying thinking about Dante again. I recommend it. Oh and Fil is offering to make a nice cup of hot tea for anyone who drops by. Keep in touch. Paul August ☎ 01:19, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh and how do I know you aren't Theo's shade, communicating from beyond the grave? Paul August ☎ 15:01, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Hey Theo, I can sympathise. However, I have decided to give it one more try. Filiocht | The kettle's on 10:28, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

You too?

I know, I'm sick of all the garbage associated with this project, and I wonder if I have the neccessary patience to deal with some of the imbeciles who contribute here. . . and this is after I've been gone for a week. Anyways, if you need a hand with anything, let me know, although I'm not going to be here as often either. Those of us who actually act in good faith and have something to contribute need to stick together.--Scimitar ^parley 16:22, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Amen. Paul August ☎ 17:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Or, ya know, '"Right on'", whichever. Paul August ☎ 17:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

What are we going to do with these anon IPs emico(sic) are using?

Theo, I would like to call your attention to this talk page. It appears Emico, or someone who is acting on Emico's behalf is starting trouble between the Wikipedia community. I'm not comfortable with this, and I'm calling for your help. --LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)} 03:20, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

At this point, I really don't know what anybody can do to help this situation. I've sent that message out in frustration, as I'm getting very close to giving up on the INC article alltogether. As I said earlier in my talk page, I tried to be very lenient by editing Emico's posts instead of blatantly reverting them as I should, and all I get in return is a baseless sockpuppet accusation, which would make User:Marine_69-71 (a sysop who isn't involved with the INC article) seem like a sockpuppet of mine as well. I wish I could get the articles locked for a while. Also, to be fair to both sides of the issue, people are starting to round up evidence of Ironbrew being a sockpuppet of Onlytofind. Could you (have someone) look into that. I would like to get back to searching for sources for the article we have, instead of trying to end an edit-war between Ironbrew/Onlytofind(?) and Emico's sockpuppets. You may want to check out the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:User:Emico and the Iglesia ni Cristo article. --LBMixPro^{(Speak on it!)} 09:44, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

potw

He's an asshole, screwing up everyone, so much I've deleted most of my work so as not to give him the pleasure of reverts and deletions. All he seems to do is revert and delete, That is his contribution. What a dickhead. Scott 02:52, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

User:Ironbrew and User:IMNOTEMICO

Hi, I see that you have been talking to or dealing with these users. I recently temporarily rv'd the sock puppet notices they posted on each others userpages and left a comment on ANI about it. It definately looks as though IMNOTEMICO is a sock of Emico, and they both basically edited that one INC article extensively. I would prefer it if an established user, and one that hasn't been in an edit war with them, post the sock puppet notice. I am not saying that Ironbrew is a bad user, but they have little edit history and mainly only on the same article. They were accused of being a sock of Onlytofind. Both users started editing after their accused socks stopped editing, within a short amount of time. If you have a chance, can you look further in to this. Thanks. ∞Who?¿? 21:14, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Keetoowah Arbitration case

Hello,

The Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Keetoowah. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Keetoowah/Evidence.

Yours,

James F. (talk) 19:24, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

POTW RFC

You probably want to see this: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Pigsonthewing. --Phroziac^(talk) 04:09, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikimedia UK meeting

Hi Theo, there will probably be a meeting for the purpose of discussing Wikimedia UK this Sunday, which you might like to attend. You could add your name there if so. Cormaggio ^@ 23:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Wikibreak

Enjoy your break, Theo. Few deserve it more.--Scimitar ^parley 15:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Final decision

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Keetoowah case. →Raul654 02:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)