User talk:Hu/Archive4

Archives
	1: 2005-11-10;; 2: 2006-02-08;; 3: 2006-11-15;; 4: 2006-12-23;; 5: 2007-12-02;; 6: User talk:Hu.

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		I award you The Original Barnstar for your numerous article creations and your countless useful edits. Keep up the good work! Happy editing, Dar-Ape 23:11, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the barnstar. Hu 23:13, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nagel Middle School

Thank you for working on the vandalism issue on that page. I am a concerned student and I thank you. Noha307 20:13, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nedra Pickler

You removed my Nedra Pickler article way too soon. It was up for about 20 minutes, way too little time for me to address any issues or even take part in a discussion. You ignored my hang-on, by the way. I was just getting started on the article, and it was duly sourced and referenced. I cited three articles from well-known political publications. You claim that I was writing an "attack page." Nedra Pickler is notorious primarily for a perceived and well-documented bias in her reporting for the Associated Press on the White House. I'm not inventing that, merely presenting the facts. There are "Write Like Nedra Pickler Days." Wbroun 07:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are ways to handle "articles in progress", including tags that can be put on it before editing it. But the best way, when creating articles, is to edit it offline in a text editor. Then when it is close, paste it into an edit window and use the "Show preview" button to successively refine it until ready. Then when you "Save page", it will not be in some incomplete state that looks like it fails Wikipedia criteria.

The speedy delete was completely justified. The wording of the page was only negative. At the very least it failed WP:NPOV. It didn't include any ordinary biographical information. I didn't see any source on it, though that might be my oversight, but in any case that wasn't the reason it was deleted. It was deleted because it met the No Attacks criteria for speedy deletion. Hu 07:41, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The deletion was totally unjustified, I'm afraid. You did almost nothing Wiki asks to follow the speedy deletion process. You ignored my hang on, you offered no justification in the discussion, you did not give me a chance to respond to any comment, and you failed to see THREE strong references in a very short article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wbroun (talk • contribs) 17:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I did not delete it. Get your facts straight. And learn the basics including signing posts on talk pages with four tildes: ~~~~. Hu 18:11, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe you can enlighten me to the "facts," since you seem so well acquainted with them. Wbroun 22:12, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You could have found this: [1] Hu 22:15, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mordecai Richler

Perhaps prior to uttering hostile and paternalistic comments, you should fully read the "discussion" page. There appears to be a consensus that the politically motivated attacks against Richler be removed; even by those hostile to him.--Lance ^talk 03:04, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did read the discussion page. Ultimatums, threats and hostage-making demands are not the way here. Hu 03:46, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NETZ

User:Shub iitkgp wants to write about this. Give him 48 hours to see the answr to his helpme Rich Farmbrough, 21:29 13 November 2006 (GMT).

He or you should use the {{inuse}} tag on the NETZ article if this is seriously the intention. Hu 21:33, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

look at the census picture

Take another look, cowboy. -RatSkrew 03:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks, please. If you want to claim a citation for your edit, you will have to be very specific. Hu 04:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My good sir, there was a day, not too many years ago, when basic information from other Wikipedia articles was accepted on good faith. Since then, some Johnny-Come-Latelies to this fine WIkipedia project want to participate, but aw shucks, the project is almost finished. So the citation cabal has changed the culture of this place so that every edit now has to come with a footnote. I do hope, my good Mr. Hu, that you consider yourself part of the Alte Schule and not the Citation Cabal. Yours truly, -RatSkrew 04:18, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia has matured, but it is only beginning and is far from finished. Requiring citations is an excellent principle, but I agree that it is sometimes taken to excess and made too fine-grained a requirement. It is just "Hu", not "Mr. Hu". Hu 04:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, Hu. -RatSkrew 04:31, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please, census ethnic categories are self-reported. -RatSkrew 04:48, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That self-reporting is constrained by categories provided, and though one may "write-in" other categories, the categorization is embedded in a culture that overwhelmingly does not make distinctions between groups of Chinese to the same degree it makes distinctions between groups of Europeans. Hu 05:02, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that would be because Chinese people believe themselves to be one, whereas distinctions between Europeans are massive. Danes and Germans may look similar, but their behavior in World War II was on opposite ends of the spectrum. -RatSkrew 05:04, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That view is one external to China and Asia. Hukka and Wiegurs may look similar but their behavior since World War II has been rather different. Hu 05:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

paddy vieira

he did use to put vicks vapour rub on his shirt to help him breathe. please read these links: http://www.soccerpulse.com/forum/lofiversion/index.php/t75840.html http://football.guardian.co.uk/news/matchreport/0,,793724,00.html —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fui fui moi moi3 (talk • contribs) 20:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

If you don't want to be reverted, then don't vandalize Wikipedia, ever. That is not rocket science. Hu 20:49, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Kenyan anti-communists

Hello, I changed your PROD into a WP:CFD as PROD does not deal with categories due to special handling concerns. 132.205.93.19 02:39, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll bear that in mind in the future. Hu 02:40, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanxs!

Thank you for reverting all the vandalism on the Kim Possible page! Keep catching those vandals. ^_^ Jumping cheese ^Cont@ct 06:36, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome! Hu 09:13, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No problem!

He seems to have taken offense at vandalism warnings about International School of Kuala Lumpur; I just reverted some more stuff there, possibly libelous, definitely original research, about a specific teacher. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 03:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he is pasting back in stuff I reverted earlier. Run of the mill juvenile vandal that plague Wikipedia so much. Some articles have one useful edit in a hundred. I do wish there was a mechanism that edits could be on probation somehow. Hu 03:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's a lot to be said for requiring registration for editing...but I suspect that will never happen. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 03:31, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Speedy Delete tags

Regarding this edit:

Just so you know, you don't have to be an admin to remove speedy deletion tags, you just shouldn't do it if you are the author of the article in question. As speedy tags say, "If this page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice, but do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself." Timrem 04:30, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Subtle, important point. Thanks. The Big Bish article is nonsense, all the same, and should have been deleted long ago to avoid this ringamarole. I think the Calgary anon IP is the same user as the registered editor, or a closely allied confederate at best. Note the Calgary connection in the so-called "article". It is nonsense, either vanity nonsense or attack nonsense. Hu 04:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dude

Yes I know about how its language and peoples were influenced by invasions around it like by Norwegians French or Romans, and its language is a fusion of German and French, but that's like saying Japanese arent pure because thousands of years ago it was made by Chinese people on boats who landed their etc., i'm saying British culture as it is today, and british people (not counting 1000000000 years ago though) are their own distinctive culture not from every other culture in the world, and are their own distinctive ethnicity. Because you are counting millions of years back, the greek influences and any turkish similarities are because Roman language are influenced by that, and that was thousands of thousands of years ago, and Roman languages influenced British languages. That is rediculous that would mean EVERY nation is multicultural. Because we all started from Africa right?? Also the picts angles and celts ETC as you listed above are PART of the British Isles! so i'm saying Britain is not a multicultural country and is its own distinctive ethnicity, correct?? Correct? And the russian thing was just an example for sarcasm, showing what you were saying about Britain, I'm gonna say about Russia becasue to me it makes that much sense and has that much truth in it... none. And also you seem to be confusing inheritance of culture with inheritance of genes. RyanRP 06:20, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Dude yourself. Actually, you are the one who confuses culture with genes because you are the one who keeps raising the issue of race all over the place in your edits and your discussions. Hu 06:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Go Player

Hu, thanks for fixing the "Neuron" page. The 2nd sentence gave away vividly that it was vandalism and I was working on a plan: updating note in Talk, putting a warning on the article at the top (pointing to Discussion and History pages), then studying the History page; but while updating the warning you made the fix :-) I was alerted by the conflicing-edits warning. Very fast, very cool. Incidentally, I play Go on KGS also. I'm "Yoof" (3k). Next I'll have to figure out how we leave messages for each other here; just editting user talk pages? Peter H. St.John, M.S. 14:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome! Hu 14:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Serializing vandals

Sorry bout that. Seems like more of them are making small edits that don't always hit the filters with Lupins's tool. I'll go patrol newpages for a while. --Elar a girl^Talk|Count 15:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok. It's the rush hour when kids in the US hit the schools and kids in Europe get out. Hu 15:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POP|Popups

While I am sure it was not your intention, the talk message [2] you left at popups could be construed as being uncivil. Fighting vandals is frustrating, under appreciated work, however the creative use of bolded words, plus-sized text, and repeated verbage in your message may offend some. Just a friendly heads-up from a fellow oft-frustrated vandal fighter. --Kralizec! (talk) 03:10, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your note, but I disagree, though out of respect to you, I have edited it to tone it down. It was not uncivil. It is debatable whether it could even be judged "petty incivility", at worst, by the standards of the page you cite, and it is clearly not serious incivility. I didn't call anybody names or insult them. I don't often use bolded text but I did there for emphasis, which was not excessive. It was carefully reasoned. I can understand if some would find bolded text and a single plus-sized word ineffective, but "offended"? I think that if they are "offended" by such innocuous stuff, would they have a heart attack if somebody called them names? How about addressing the substance? Much easier to accuse me of being uncivil than to address the substance, I think. The tool's edit summaries really do need to point to the vandal. Hu 03:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jefferson

No problem. -- Vary | Talk 17:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see the both of you are wrong.63.152.9.217 02:03, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

Please make sure you familiarise yourself with the Wikipedia:Three Revert Rule. It would be better if you didn't break it. Thank you. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, of course. It would help if you were a bit more specific about which article(s) you are monitoring. Also, I note that the 3RR does not apply to vandalism, and it does not apply to reverting a blocked user or their sock puppets. Hu 18:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would have reverted that edit myself. It was sloppy, with several typos, grammatical errors, and broken wikilinks. And the relevant points were already covered in the sections before and after that edit. It was, to be kind, not a constructive addition to the article. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 17:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

82.110.38.249

I'd just keep an eye on them for now. I've dropped a note to them referring to WP:NPOV and WP:NOR just for the record. --khaosworks (talk • contribs) 16:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Severin / whilst

I hadn't realised just how fond I am of the word "whilst"! I do hope you left one or two in the text. ;) LessHeard vanU 21:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a friendly comment (truly!);I note that you have been substituting while and other words for whilst in a fair few articles. Whereas the repetition of any word may unbalance an article it should be noted that "whilst" is a legitimate word in British English, and it is Wiki policy that an article should be written in the language of the subject matter and/or the originating author. The Beatles are certainly of British origin and the majority of the members of WikiProject The Beatles are British - moreover the use of British English has been adopted as project policy. When I edit US based articles I endeavour to use American spellings, grammar and idioms - I ask you to respect the conventions of British English in articles written in same. LessHeard vanU 21:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC) (I feel you were justified re Severin, there were far too many. I have to censor my desire to use whereupon, thereafter and gadzooks all the time!)[reply]

You make a valid point about the Wikipedia policy of leaving British versus American usages appropriate to the subject, one that I respect and have upheld, for example in the case of The Who in this edit: [3]. The word "whilst" is legitimate in the sense that archaic words are legitimate. That doesn't make them very good most of the time. "whilst" gets 85 million Google hits and "while" gets 1300 million Google hits. I am not replacing the word because it is British or American or Jamaican, I am replacing the word because it is deprecated by style guides on both sides of the Atlantic:

Times Online Style Guide: [4]: "while (not whilst)"
Guardian Style Guide: [5]: "while not whilst"
Hansard: [6] PDF, the Canadian Parliament record.

Also, many times, even when it is replaced with "while", it is still inappropriate. Often it is used as a weak conjuctive, which is a use deprecated in Fowler's Modern English Usage, for example.

Hu 21:34, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was taught to use it instead of while when speaking/writing in the past tense, but then I was taught about pounds (and ounces), shillings and pence - and yards, chains, furlongs and acres (along with metric, I should add). Of course, any encyclopedia exists to inform succinctly and coherently and not to preserve vocabulary. In short, your reasons are valid (and your references impeccable).LessHeard vanU 21:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good chatting with you, and good luck with the Beatles Wikipedia project. Hu 22:08, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Asher Heimermann

You make a valid point, Hu. My apologies for the inference. My aim was to try and get Asher on side in an attempt to encourage him to take advice. Often the good cop/bad cop routine can work in such situations. Rockpocket 17:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It was not really a problem, I was just trying to be a bit clearer than I had been. No apologies necessary, but I do accept those you have tendered. There was no interference. Once again, thanks for adopting the user. Hu 17:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Gnr8675

Gnr8675 (talk • contribs • logs • block user • block log)

Thank you for blocking User:Gnr8675 contribs (talk). However, this user is a vandalism only account. If you don't block it indefinitely, we or somebody else will have to clean up and ultimately block it indefinitely. Hu 17:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A fair point; on closer inspection, I see that all of their edits occurred today and that they are all disruptive in one way or another, so I have increased the block to indefinite. Regards, (aeropagitica) 18:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is your problem

First of all, why are you monitoring me, for everything I do? Second of all, BritanoPhiliac is not a word, and implies that I want to have sex with something called Britano, which doesn't exist. Basically, you are being very rude intrusive ignorant and insulting, and making broad assumptions. I would like to ask you to stop this, and please think things over logically. How did anything that I edited in the "Madagascar Plan" have anything to do with Britain or British people? It didn't. Screw you. Ya, now you're going to say "don't use rude words" or "assume good faith" but what did you just do? You are being very unproffesional. RyanRP 09:52, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Brittanophiliac" is not a dirty word. Look up hemophiliac for a similar construct. Hu 09:57, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SIGH. Again, you being an absolute idiot are not reading or getting any sort of POINT from what I am saying to YOU. I don't care what that word means, I am NOT ONE OF THOSE. I do not feel any inclination to defend Britain, I am not from Great Britain I am Canadian, and I am merely getting rid of something that had NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT IT. How does that make me obsessed with Britain? You are quite the Jerk, and I would like to see you do such very rude things to my face. You never would. Please think things over responsibly and logically before doing such rude and abrupt things. RyanRP 10:01, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You say such abstract and irrelevant things, and constantly try to make me feel like shit. You're going to burn in hell, buddy. Also, STOP MONITORING EVERYTHING I DO. You Hispanopheliac. RyanRP 10:02, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hereby declare

that you are a hispanopheliac. You are a hispanopheliac, sorry but it's true.RyanRP 10:09, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So? Hu 11:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RyanRP

RyanRP made a number of deletions ([7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], [13], and [14]) on his Talk page removing Level 2 and Level 3 warnings about Wikipedia:No Personal Attacks, as well as a number of my replies to his statements and edits on various articles and talk pages. Technically he has that privilege so I am making a note here. He has also made a number of other problematic edits (a few: deleted others' comments, rewritten history, self-delete) in addition to pushing certain PoVs, especially on White Canadian. In addition to the warnings on his talk page he has been warned elsewhere [15]. -- Hu 11:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RyanRP was warned about sockpuppetry and I accepted his explanation that it was an oversight when he used an anonymous IP address and that he would never do it again. Apparently his word didn't last very long. RyanRP sockpuppet IP addresses (Hu 17:32, 5 December 2006 (UTC)):[reply]

RyanRP (talk • contribs • logs • block log)
66.183.219.95 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)
66.183.218.171 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)
207.6.166.141 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

207.216.142.213 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

A Very Touchy Guy

I just wanted to let you know that I appreciated how you continually delete worthy articles and ban worthy members. You are truly a boon to Wikipedia. I won't put down any details but I noticed that several of your changes (including an article written by me) were reverted by more-competent Wikipedians - after you said it was "vandal crap". --12.109.193.99 14:59, 3 December 2006 (UTC),[16] later user signed as --Thenterthenation 15:04, 3 December 2006 (UTC),[17] and then 07:07, 3 December 2006 Wizzzow attempted to delete it.[18][reply]

I stand by my edits. There is no way to discuss an edit that the complainer refuses to identify. I make thousands of carefully considered edits, packing more into most of them than the great majority of editors, but even so, I fully expect that occasionally I will make a mistake or another editor will have another opinion. I am not an Administrator, so I ban nobody. Hu 15:08, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the issue in question is the consensus deletion of The Eclectic Chauvinist, which then the admins were forced to protect against recreation. Hu 15:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Due to a continuing series of false claims on RyanRP's talk page by this user, I'm (Hu 14:05, 6 December 2006 (UTC)) adding here the sockpuppets she or he has employed:[reply]

Wizzzow (talk • contribs • logs • block log)
12.109.193.99 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)
Thenterthenation (talk • contribs • logs • block log)
Jackson Carver2 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)
Samuel Higginson (talk • contribs • logs • block log)
Rockrock (talk • contribs • logs • block log)
UserSevenSeven (talk • contribs • logs • block log)
Imity (talk • contribs • logs • block log)
Hirokimoko Tachiri (talk • contribs • logs • block log)
Hu Is it (talk • contribs • logs • block log)
Qwirdle77 (talk • contribs • logs • block log)

Good job

I just wanted you to thank you for your edits and reversions when dealing with User:RyanRP. -- Jeff3000 15:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind words and support. It is very timely, as it turns out! Hu 15:29, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Science fiction template

Hi, I've just made a new science fiction template {{Science fiction}}, modelled from the {{Fantasy}}. I'd appreciate it if you could look over it and check the links to see if there are any more appropriate links, or indeed, any more links that could be added. I've not used it extensively yet because I'd like to get some sort of approval from science fiction editors. - Malkinann 23:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the notice. I looked at it and I'll move the thread to your Talk page (User talk:Malkinann). Hu 00:19, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

8 way Template

Why did you remove the Ethiopian template, people can better understand geography if they can see who is next door. -- Halaqah 13:53, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have deleted the 8 way template because it is a waste of space that does not accomplish the goal of showing geographic relationship. People should be given a map of Africa or East Africa next to the Arabian peninsula. Substituting lists of words and flags for a visual representation of geographic relationships is not a good technique. Even you use the word "see" and not "read". The template is going to be deleted for excellent reasons, including hideous ugliness: Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Geographic_Location_.288-way.29. -- Hu 14:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well it was ugly, i agree there, but sometimes maps dont show the boundaries properly--Halaqah 15:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then correct the map. Hu 15:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page

Hi, Hu. I didn't mean to bring disorder to your user page. You write that it is kind of yours and make it sound as if I did something wrong. I think to some extend your user page is yours, though the opinions differ on that and I am not talking about me only. There are many people who reject that anything on wikipedia, as the project, where you can edit the pages, should be proprietary. Let me repeat, I certainly didn't mean to interfere with you and you noticed, my edit was commented and well-meant. It seems to be rather common among wikipedians if you observe it, that if you want to improve you just do it even if it's a user page. I thought it sounded better to say "Your article has been mentioned" instead of "an entry from article by user has been mentioned." It was an attempt at improving and you didn't like it and undid it, that's all as far as I am concerned. As for my user page, thanks for your scrutiny, I changed it before, but somehow it didn't save. Ben ^T/_C 23:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok. I note, however, that your edit was "The article ... appeared", not "article has been mentioned", as you write above. Details, precision and accuracy count. The wording you actually used would be incorrect, and the wording you think you used would be better, but I'm going to leave my page the way it is for the time being. Hu 23:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken about "has been mentioned." Thanks. Ben ^T/_C 14:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hyper-gyp

er, i'm not really sure how to use wikipedia for editing but I think if I'm right you did something on a page about chav stuff called Hyper-Gyp? you asked if it was real. i have heard it used alot where I live in scotland (edinburgh) and I know it was an online thing. my mate heard it once on newsnight on some talk about chavs. they said speed-pyke tho not hyper-gyp. I dunno if this helps? -doug —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Hurlish (talk • contribs) 15:57, 7 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks. Hu 15:58, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ad Hominem by proxy

Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you.

You have ignored my warning about ad hominem attacks by replacing them in the article. Regardless of the original source, you are essentially commiting ad hominem yourself by replacing the statements.

Please stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you.

You have done so twice despite being told that they are ad hominem and should be removed.

You also seem to be approaching a 3RR violation again.

-- Fourdee 21:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

00) Fourdee has laid his adverserial remarks on my Talk page without providing any context. The context is the Emergence article and its talk page.

0a) Fourdee deleted four of another user's (PsychoHistorian) comments [19] after interpreting them as a personal attack. That interpretation is open to debate and in my opinion Fourdee is being sensitive for effect as a way to continue his argumentation.

0b) I reverted the deletions with the explanation "You may not edit other people's remarks. It is not for you to play censor." [20] The Undo accidentally deleted a small comment of his that he had combined with the deletions.

0c) Fourdee again deleted the comments [21] with the explanation "you are again mistaken about the usual practice on wikipedia, which is to delete ad hominem attacks."

0d) I restored the comments a second time [22] explaining that it is not usual practice, referring him to the actual page: "Wikipedia:Remove_personal_attacks is guideline not policy. Further, it "should be used sparingly"."

0e) Fourdee deleted the comments a third time [23] with the argumentative statement taunting me: "care to go for 3? attacks deleted again."

1) I have never violated the 3 Revert Rule in my living memory. When you use the word "again" with 3RR, the implication you make is specious.

2) Your npa2 and npa3 tags here are completely unwarranted. I was not supporting or denying PsychoHistorian's statements, I was simply reverting your censorship, so I am not guilty of "ad hominem by proxy". Furthermore, it is an abuse of the intent of the tags when you place an npa3 tag in the same message as your npa2.

3) Fourdee violates several provisions of the WP:RPA guideline in going too far (guideline quotes in italics):

Claiming it is usual Wikipedia practice when in fact it is extremely rare, should be "used sparingly", "is controversial" and "a clear consensus did not emerge".

"It should, at most, be interpreted strictly", meaning that the rare occasion where it is appropriate to remove personal attacks is when they are severely personal and uncontestably an attack, i.e. egregious abuse and not strenuous debate.

Deleting instead of refactoring. "Removing an entire comment is almost always poor form."

Deleting and rebutting in the same edit.

Deleting a remark referring to editors in general, i.e. not personal.

Deleting remarks so that the remaining portion of the user's commentary is stripped of context.

When such removals are contested, "it's best to let the disputed comment stand, allowing other editors to judge for themselves".

Not including a link back to the original version with each deletion.

Clearly in this case, it would have been best to leave the original remarks untouched.

4) Finally, Fourdee himself has made personal attacks in the Talk:Emergence pages and elsewhere regarding editors working on the Emergence article.

— Hu 23:53, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads up on that. It should surprise me that someone would lodge an official complaint about me and fail to notify me that they've done so.-Psychohistorian 13:39, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personal attack

I find it curious that Regebro (whom I suspect is a sock puppet looking at the history of the account, but I don't know for sure) has stated that all of those links are to personal attacks, yet [24], for one example among many, clearly isn't given that its not targetted towards any person.-Psychohistorian 12:30, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, there is no way your comment is a personal attack. Also, user Addhoc has hinted at an interesting theory that Fourdee might fundamentally be a troll. Hu 13:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Geoffrey Healey

Thank you for spotting that I have not yet finished my article on the car designer Geoffrey Healey. Quite a lot more information is ready to be added.--G N Frykman 15:52, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome, and I'm glad to hear it. Hu 15:54, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Walker Linerlock

Thank you for adding the correct stub category...I couldn't think of which category to put it under. --Mike Searson 18:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. Your article is well developed, but tagging new articles with stub tags is a way of getting them some wider attention. Hu 18:16, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Conservapedia

Discussion transferred to Talk:Conservapedia.[25] Hu 00:32, 17 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cullen Finnerty

I inadvertently deleted the "speedy delete" / "db-bio", while editing the article which was started by another user, instead of adding a proper "hangon", to Cullen Finnerty's article. We are working on fleshing out the article on this likely NFL prospect, who just lead his college team to a national championship, setting many all-time NCAA records in the process. If you really feel the "speedy delete" is still necessary, while we try to rapidly construct the article, then please feel free. I added reference links on Cullen in the mean time in the External Links section. Just wanted you to know that I wan not trying to be a troll or something working on a non-notable article. --T-dot 21:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Thanks for the note. I didn't consider you a troll, that takes much more effort and many more edits! There is a simple way to avoid speedy deletes like that. You need to assert proper notability in the article, even if it is a stub. If you had written that into the stub, I wouldn't have tagged it. Hu 22:08, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trimming

Okay, so Gary's notability is that he's the guy who invented the Lightsphere, right? And this is because he's a photographer. Right?

So what does it matter that he has a degree in pharmacology? DS 23:41, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply. I can see how you'd reason that way, but two points. First, he was notable as high-end ($100,000 fees) wedding photographer as well as the Lightsphere, which is a fact that will have to be entered. Second, his degree is a fact, which may or directly matter in the long run. At the very least it indicates he received a tough degree at a reputable university. He may not have directly used that education in his career, but it can't but help have affected him. Other biographies on Wikipedia note degrees people have attained in fields they haven't used much. An example I chanced up on yesterday: US Senator Lincoln Chafee#Early life, education, and early_career. Hu 23:52, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:MinnesotanConfederacy

Hello Hu,

I saw your comments on this users talk page - I wanted to bring to your attention that the user keeps blanking the Discussion page and has created more 'bogus' categories. - Ozzykhan 21:49, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'll look into it. However, technically, Wikipedia policy is that users can blank their discussion pages. Hu 22:13, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Need a little help

Could I please get a detailed description on what "under-handed attacks" I'm engaged in? CSC-2020 21:25, 21 December 2006

Your text in the article Ken Orabone reads like nonsense. The details are not very pleasant and don't really belong in an encyclopedia. The link is dead. You better edit it to the bone very quickly if you really have any interest in keeping it. Look at other biographical articles on Wikipedia, and make it look like one of those if you can. Hu 04:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for a little explanation... The reason the link was dead was due to the automatic input method into Wikipedia. It added the "www." when none should have been present. What parts read like "non-sense"? Also, not all details of life are plesant; however, all of the details within this article are true (and I unfortunately removed many other true tid-bits that should be included for the purposes of this article). Care being a little more specific? CSC-2020 21:41, 21 December 2006

It's good to know that a little mistake is punished by those wishing to shine in the good graces of the wiki-elite. Instead of a simple explanation, or a little leeway for an admitted mistake, you come after me again and again for nothing more than two misunderstands: one being mine and one beings yours. My misunderstanding, as a NEW USER, was simple. I saw "If this page does not meet the criteria for speedy deletion, or you intend to fix it, please remove this notice" and thought that meant to remove the notice. I admitted this and had I known how to put it back, I would have. Your misunderstanding is thinking I am attacking someone I consider a great friend. Its amazing how fast you jumped on my case. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CSC-2020 (talk • contribs) 05:01, 21 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

We have no way of knowing who a newly registered editor is, or who they are friends with. All we have to go by is the articles, and most of the article was junk. I have radically pruned it. It still lacks proper assertion of notability. I have now placed a Welcome message on your Talk page, and you need to read around those links, and heed the note about signing Talk page comments with four tildes ~~~~ Hu 05:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So basically you ruined the article and are suddenly playing nice? Can someone explain why the other article was taken down without an explanation? I was told I had 5 days to make my case and make any changes to both articles. I was actually given less than a day before one was removed and the other "pruned".CSC-2020 05:15, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I did not ruin the article, I edited it according to Wikipedia standards. Other editors would have been more severe and stil within Wikipedia standards. Read the links. Also, in the Speedy Delete tag, we have gone to the trouble of putting important information in bold letters. It is not our fault if you read what you want to hear and avoid reading the part in bold letters that countermanded what you did. A Proposed for Deletion tag gives you five days. Non-notable biographies can be deleted at any time by Admins. You still have not read the notability links provided in the tags, despite the fact that they have been up for quite a few minutes, long enough for you to read them. Hu 05:20, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Claiming I read what I want to hear is an ignorant comment made by somehow who jumped to an unnessicary conclusion. I speak English as a third language, and might not be able to write or read as perfectly as you want me to. Saying that I write like nonsense or purposely ignore parts of the rules is a rude accusation. I think you are taking this farther than previous editors did, simply because I managed to ange you. Also, the article which has been deleted was Proposed for deletion, and said five days on it. (While English might not be my first language, I'm rather good with computers. The cached copy of that page says on it five days, and I didn't even get one day.) I also don't appreciate you deleting the comment made beneath this one without responding to it in anyway. CSC-2020 05:29, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bolding of important text is a signal that is independent of the language. You claimed you did not see it. We can't be held responsible for other people's language skills. Stop taking this so personally. It is not personal! Just accept that "something happened", and learn from the experience. As far as I can tell, I did not delete any of your comments, but if you can point to it or simply want to restate it, go ahead, just in case I might have been in error. Technically, editors can delete most things from their Talk pages except things like notices and warnings from Admins, as I can see you know from the way you have edited your talk page, removing the Welcome message with the useful links that I left there, your privilege. However, I tend not to delete comments here. I did not claim you write nonsensically, I claimed that the content you wrote was nonsense. It is not an attack on you, it is an attack on the content. An important distinction. I'm sorry if English is not your first language, I have no way of knowing that, and English is the language of this Encyclopedia, so again, don't take it personally! You claim you recreated an article that had been deleted, probably not a good idea without discussing it first. But you do need to relax a little and realize that I did not realize that you hadn't been given the links to read that are in the Welcome message I gave to you. Live and learn, this is an encyclopedia, not myspace, so don't think we are attack you or your friend, biographical articles have to be about notable people or they get deleted. Hu 05:43, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even making every possible allowance for difficulties with English, the first version of that page was a {{db-attack}}. With the attack parts stripped out, it's clearly a {{db-bio}}. -- Jim Douglas ^(talk) _(contribs) 05:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I knew how to restore deleted content on your talk page I would. I am capable of distinguishing content from author; however Hu, you did make personal attacks against me. Through false accusations, much harsher actions for admitted mistakes than other editors, by butchering the article in question, and by deleting another article that said I had five days to edit it. (I would love to have discussed recreating the other article, but it was deleted without such opportunity. How is one to discuss the non-existant?) I don't take my language ability personally, but accusing me of attacking my close friends is a blatant attack on my character. CSC-2020 13:37, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

An Admin deleted the article. I do not have the power to delete articles. As far as the Ken Orabone article goes, at least two other editors here also thought it was an attack article (and told you so), because of its content, not because of how it was written. After I edited the article to remove the nonsense, what was left was a non-notable biography and an Admin agreed and deleted it on that basis. Nobody attacked your character. Wikipedia sees this kind of article many times a day, and can't know the motives of any article creator. Thus the system has been developed to speedily delete articles that are biographies of non-notable people. You failed to adequately assert the notability of the subject of the article, despite having enough time to do so, and despite being pointed to Wikipedia help pages to assist you in meeting that requirement. That is the actual reason it was deleted. Instead of arguing with me and the other editors so much, you should have just asserted the notability of the subject, but I suspect that the subject is non-notable and so you actually could not have properly asserted it. If you really believe that the person is notable, read up on how to properly assert notability with proper references and then place a {{help}} tag on your talk page and somebody not previously involved will show up to help you. Finally, your treatment was not harsh. The treatment was no harsher than that given to other editors. In fact, you got favorable treatment. As this section shows, I spent considerable time answering your questions and providing you with links and advising you. Hu 17:24, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Having enough time" equals deleting it in the middle of the night? It takes time to find a reasource citing an event that took place 25 years ago in Rhode Island. The subject is worthy, and had this issue been discussed instead of attacked, that may have been made apparent. The motives of the artilce's creator could easily be discovered, should anyone take the time to ask instead of making false accusation about the creator, butchering the article, and ultimately deleting a worthy article. Thank you for the links. Should I find the time to sit and research all the rules and policies in place, I will be back. Please, with all do respect, don't give me anymore of your "favourable treatment". CSC-2020 21:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The facts on the church burning would not have made the subject notable, since it was in childhood. Wikipedia doesn't care much about about editors' motives. How many times do I have to say that? If you think the subject is worthy, I explained how to make an article that sticks. Hu 22:50, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. CSC-2020 05:15, 22 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

karen kellock

I would like clarification as to why what I said was deletable. I really am a theoretician, I have wrote those books, it does part company with other scientists, it is loved by laity and science publics alike and high fat diet is good--please explain why you deleted it. Thank you very much and I look forward to your response. Karen Kellock. p.s. this is so confusing--can you email me if you replied, and tell me where! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Karenkellock, see User:Arialboundaries123 (talk • contribs) 01:42, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

The content of the books is not the question with regard to your biography. There are two issues: 1) Biographies must be neutral point of view (like all articles), so they must not be written in a promotional style such as an advertising copy writer might write. 2) It is bad form for the subject of a biography to be the one to write an article, because it can lead to a lack of perspective and end up being promotion. There is no hard and fast rule forbidding it, but all articles must be factual and Wikipedia: Neutral point of view. Take a look around at a number of biographies here and see what the style is. Hu 07:43, 23 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]