Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:50, 27 December 2005

Frogger C64 screenshot

The C64 Frogger screenshot by tyan23 is from the Sega Cartridge version --Tjansen 22:43, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I think it is unlikely that the version is an unlicensed clone, because a) it's a cartridge and b) Sega has released at least one other C64 cartridge, Congo Bongo --Tjansen 22:43, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

need your help on two RFCs

Please visit these pages and post a comment in support with an example of how this is true. Thanks

http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User:Gamaliel http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/User:Robert_McClenon 24.147.97.230 17:21, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I just found a list that confirms the existence of this cartridge: --Tjansen 22:48, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

I strongly suggest that you tone down your rhetoric and do it now or risk being run up for a request for comment. If I elect to tag articles, I will do so under the rules. If you have a problem, e-mail me and inform me of your concerns. Keep your accusations off of my talk page. - Lucky 6.9 02:09, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

I was planning on starting a new one anyway. Your response was the impetus to do so. As for using my page - a public forum - as a place to be called on the carpet, I tend to react rather negatively. There is a ton of garbage coming into this site every day. I edit a lot in the main article space. I've bought six articles to featured status. When not doing that, I feel obligated to help "keep house." I made no threats nor am I malicious. I simply will not tolerate what I feel to be an invasion of my privacy and of my pastime. If I bit back, it's because I believe that you commited a breach of etiquette. I do not wish to fight. If I created extra work, I apologize. - Lucky 6.9 03:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Posting a message on a talk page is not an "invasion of privacy". That's the craziest thing I've ever heard. Posting on your user page, certainly would be - that's your personal space - but not a talk page, which is a public forum. It's nice that you've contributed to six feature articles, but that does not give you license to be careless about such a sensitive matter as deleting articles. Why do you think you have to fight against a "ton of garbage" coming in? It's going to come in no matter what. You can't stop it. And most of the good articles on Misplaced Pages have started out as "garbage" articles. Mirror Vax 03:43, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

"Crazy" and "careless." Sheesh. I tried to offer an olive branch and you stuffed my face in it. Please just drop this and let's move on. No answer is necessary. - Lucky 6.9 05:43, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

London bombings

Thanks for letting me know, but you removed all categories in the article. Of course there are subcategories in actually every category in Misplaced Pages, in this case e.g Category:Terrorist incidents by year --ThomasK 15:48, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

You're wrong; I didn't remove all categories. Category:July 2005 London bombings is a member of the categories I removed (well, all except for the Al Quaeda category, which shouldn't be there). Mirror Vax 15:55, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Well, I just saw that there is a new category. alright --ThomasK 15:59, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Terrorist incidents

Sorting events by year is a common practice on Misplaced Pages. For example Category:2005 in rail transport or Category:2005 elections. Sorting by region would be useful too, for example something like "Terrorist incidents in Europe" a then sorting by each country. Remember that Misplaced Pages is a longterm project and there are many terrorist attacks ahead of us in various countries. - Darwinek 17:49, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

A depressing, if accurate observation. Nearside 20:45, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Gamaliel

Gamaliel has threatend a revert war on Joe Scarborough. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:Gamaliel#Joe_Scarbourough 67.18.109.218 18:12, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Sousa

I was sent on a mission from Raul to help him add some files he uploaded; it appears they have since been deleted for copyright concerns. I've removed the links from the page. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 23:54, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

What "copyright concerns"? Recordings made by the U.S. government are public domain. Mirror Vax 23:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Merge and Delete

Essentially, one can't merge the contents of a page and then delete the page it came from because this violates the authorship traceablitiy required under the GDFL license. For reference, see Misplaced Pages:Guide_to_Votes_for_deletion#Incompatible_votes. --Icelight 18:46, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the explaination. Mirror Vax 02:47, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

CFD

I've noticed some of your comments over at CFD, and you seem to be in a grumpy and ill-tempered mood. Is there anything going on that I can help with? --Kbdank71 13:36, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, you could start by explaining what you are doing with Category:Christian people. It looks like you moved the subcats into Category:Christianity. That is wrong from the point of view of the existing category structure. Do you plan to completely empty Category:People by religion? Frankly, your changes seem kind of random to me. Probably not improvements, and definitely not clear improvements. Mirror Vax 13:50, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Let me say something more general about CFD. The category system is complex, and at times downright confusing. To make sound decisions, you have to immerse yourself in it. It is not amenable to snap judgements. The people who vote on CFD are mostly people who just like to vote on lots of things, and they have neither the time nor inclination to contemplate what they are doing. Their input is worse than useless. Mirror Vax 14:08, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Not sure I can help, then. There is no requirement that one needs to be an expert before joining. --Kbdank71 14:15, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

How about helping by doing the right thing? There is no obligation to pay any attention to votes. Misplaced Pages is not a democracy, and the discussion is supposed to matter more than votes. Mirror Vax 14:20, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

You might want to speak with Mel Etitis on that. He thinks I should count votes, and disregard discussion. On a side note, please don't remove the CFD tag from categories until the discussion is complete and closed. This may not be a democracy, but there are procedures to follow, even if you disagree with them. --Kbdank71 14:29, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I removed the tag because the person who put it there didn't open a discussion. You did, but that was an error, since you can't speak for the person who put the tag on.

Anybody can effectively delete a category by recategorizing the members. It does not require CFD. People who vote to 'delete' a non-empty category should be required to specify how the articles should be recategorized - and volunteer to do it! Mirror Vax 14:36, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok, good point. Truth be told, it's easier to remove cfd tags than list the category on cfd with no idea why it was tagged. --Kbdank71 14:45, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

DualDisc FAC

Hey Mirror Vax. Thanks for all your feedback on the article. The nomination failed the first time around, but I have re-submitted it as an FAC. I was wondering if you'd consider supporting it this time around? Cheers! --K1vsr (talk) 15:37, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

VFD'ing a VFD nomination...

...is a very bad idea, regardless of the merits of the nomination. There's the obvious question of recursion: is there any reason to assume the discussion on that nomination will be any less hostile and unproductive as the original one?

Don't open this can of worms, please. Let it have its five days, then stand back and mock it. This is just fanning the flames. JRM · Talk 13:06, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I thought about just blanking the page, but I figured I would follow the rules. I don't know why the admins didn't close the VFD immediately, since it is nothing but a personal attack and attempt to censor a disliked proposal (which, of course, was going nowhere anyway). Mirror Vax 13:16, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

A personal attack is directed at a person, not a proposal. Questioning the value of contributions in polite terms is always allowed and does not constitute a personal attack. There are in particular concerns whether this proposal is compatible with Misplaced Pages's fundamental goals at all, which would make VfD'ing it appropriate, if still not particularly constructive. You're quite right that the rest of the discussion quickly degenerated into flame wars, but arguing that the nomination constituted a personal attack seems baseless to me.

The mere fact that administrators are not closing the VfD (though there was discussion, as you can see) should be enough indication that few people take this as an obvious personal attack or a censorship attempt without merit. In that vein you're kindly thanked for not blanking the page. JRM · Talk 13:23, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

An attack on speech is also an attack on the speaker. VFDing a new proposal, which does not violate any rules, is not an attempt to start a "polite" discussion, but rather an attempt to prevent any discussion. Mirror Vax 13:39, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

There's been a huuuuuuuge amount of discussion as a result of the VfD! Admittedly, the ratio of constructive discussion to petty bickering isn't as high as it should be, but there've been a lot of interesting points raised on both sides of the issue. KeithD (talk) 13:49, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

What's wrong with using the Talk page? That is where discussion is supposed to take place. Mirror Vax 14:00, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

"Which does not violate any rules" is exactly what was disputed. And a VfD nomination is empathically not an "attack on speech"; by that logic, VfD == censorship and every nomination of could be construed a personal attack. That's one way of looking at it, but it's not a constructive way. And if VfD, especially this VfD, fails at doing anything, it is probably preventing discussion. Constructive discussion is another matter. But as I've said on the talk page: this is not going to get any sort of consensus to begin with. Rather than second-guessing the second-guessing of the project, it's probably better to let this run its course and make up the inventory. If it is to be closed, a VfD is not the right way to go about it (for one thing, that vote would last longer than the original!) You could try the Misplaced Pages:Administrator's noticeboard, where this point is also being raised. If enough people agree, it may yet end prematurely. JRM · Talk 13:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

You are wrong; the nominator did not assert any rule violation. The nominator said, essentially, "this is a dumb idea" and argued against the merit of the proposal. Well, most proposals are bad ideas. That's the nature of proposals and is not a valid reason to censor them. Mirror Vax 14:08, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Very well, correction. "Which does not violate any rules" was one thing that was hinted at ("introduces POV") and subsequently disputed (along with "violates 'no legal threats'"). The nominator also argued it was not merely dumb, but actively harmful in introducing bias, and a WikiProject is not a proposal—it's something that's established and immediately starts being a presence. A proposal to set up a WikiProject like that would have been another matter.

Last but not least, a VfD nomination doesn't censor anything. That's why it's a vote and not an announcement board. Regardless of what the nominator intended, the subsequent discussions were enlightening (and stupid and irrelevant, of course, all flavors are present). VfD has a long-standing policy of not cutting short discussion that's well underway and not clearly being shot down as bad faith by many people, which this wasn't. JRM · Talk 14:19, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps superfluous and irrelevant, but I'd like to point out I voted Keep for reasons much resembling yours in spirit (if not in execution). JRM · Talk 14:21, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

The "no legal threats" was completely spurious. There are people who are fastidious (even fanatical) about complying with laws (e.g. copyright), and we don't accuse them of making legal threats. Mirror Vax 14:34, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. JRM · Talk 14:39, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Denied

Thanks for the suggestion, but I do not think I have made an irrationally heavy contribution to VFD recently. Radiant_>|< 07:42, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

• No, per m:instruction creep, and the fact that any arbitrary limits are gamable. If somebody is making many spurious nominations in bad faith (which is rare) we can already admonish him for vandalism or WP:POINT. If the nominations are in good faith, then regardless of how many there are, there's no need to limit that person's ability to clean up. I would like to hear what problem you perceive. Radiant_>|< 08:04, August 19, 2005 (UTC)
  • VFD is dominated by a small number of people, while most Wikipedians rarely participate. As a result, the "community consensus" of VFD is the consensus of the community that likes to vote on things. Limiting the frequency of votes, and holding the VFD window open longer, would enable broader participation. Mirror Vax 09:28, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
    • Your assertion is not entirely true; if a heavily-trafficed article is nominated for deletion, loads more people flock in to express their opinion. However, lengthening the period for a VFD nom is not really going to help - the only thing that would seriously let people join is having a smaller VFD page. However, 80%-90% of nominated articles are unanimously deleted, so arguably there is good function to most VFD nominations. If it were easier to get rid of obvious junk, it would give us more time to form a better consensus on articles that are truly controversial. Radiant_>|< 12:28, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
      • Correct, the main problem is with lightly-trafficked articles, especially newly creates ones. That's where a longer VFD window would help. I have no problem with making it easier to delete things as long as it is also made easier to undelete. Ideally, VFD/VFU would be eliminated and deleting/undeleting would be treated as normal editing. Mirror Vax 14:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
        • Good point about VFU. However, please bear in mind that some amount of deletion will remain necessary to keep vanity and spam at bay. Radiant_>|< 12:29, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

Walsh

I also have the feeling Walsh is a long time Wikipedian on a troll. Why else suddenly start the homophobic bit? I suspect he is a student who is working off a different IP address during the holidays and has worked out he is unlikely to be booted before school restarts. --Gorgonzilla 01:01, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Joe Scarborough

There's no reason to remove legitimate information I added about his congressional history and his rock band because we disagree about the issue of Lori Klausitis. Gamaliel 23:27, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't look closely enough. Mirror Vax 23:34, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

You are currently in violation of WP:3RR. If you undo your most recent revert I will not block you for this violation. Gamaliel 21:39, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

CBM computer subcats

Regarding your recent subcat creations (C64, VIC-20), I'm a little unsure about whether some of the article inclusions are redundant, as many of them actually pertain to most or all of CBM's 8-bit machines. One solution would be to have a category for the 8-bit range as such, but I'm not sure if I like that either. It's an alternative, anyway. Any comments? --Wernher 23:09, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

(please reply right here to keep the conversation in one thread; I'll be watching for a while)

You are correct, but I couldn't think of a better way. Mirror Vax 07:55, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

Image

Thunderbrand 15:52, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

Image

Listed under Misplaced Pages:Images and media for deletion/2005 September 9. Thunderbrand 16:05, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

BASIC programming language

I see you have contributed to the BASIC programming language article on Misplaced Pages. Any chance you would like to join in editing the wikibook: http://en.wikibooks.org/Programming:Visual_Basic_Classic? --Kjwhitefoot 10:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

WP:3RR on Pat Robertson

You have now reverted Pat Robertson three times. You are hereby warned that further reversion will result in your being reported for violation of WP:3RR policy.--chris.lawson 22:05, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

2001 Anthrax attacks article

Hey Mirror Vax,

I also think Gary Matsumoto's entry belongs on the page. Barbara Hatch Rosenberg and Don Foster also conned scientists into believing them. So, the fact that some gullible scientists agreed with Gary doesn't make him right. He's still promoting an unverified theory that is different from the theories being promoted by the others on the list. Things he claims to be "facts" are definitely NOT facts. In his Science article, he simply dismissess facts from acknowedged experts and presents his own "facts" from NON-experts who support his beliefs. He may be the only "journalist" on the list, but Barbara Hatch Rosenberg is the only scientist on the list, Don Foster is the only teacher of literature on the list, Ross Getman is probably the only lawyer on the list, Richard Smith is the only practicing "computer expert" on the list, etc.

Hi Mirror Vax,

First of all, thank you for addressing Mr. Matsumoto's objection. It appears he is still unsatisfied. I am copying the text of the message he left on my talk page (he may not realize that to talk to you, he needs to be on your page, and since he has a dynamic IP, messages left for him on his talk page he may never see). I'm quite unfamiliar with the article and the issues involved, beside my casual collision with it on the evening news. Here is his post, in italics:

MIRROR VAX: I have deleted my revised entry, again. In all fairness, I am, as far as I can tell, the only journalist on this list. I object to you making me an exception. I did not propogate a theory, as did everyone else on your list. I reported facts that had been, my Science magazine article, reviewed by scientists as well as editors. This specific article was also supported by footnotes and a bioliography. That is lot more than I can say for all the journalists who did propagate theories, but have been spared the ignominy of being on your list. For example, Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times wrote several high profile columns in America's newspaper of record, accusing "Dr. Z"/Dr. Steven Hatfill of being the most likely anthrax mailer. Marilyn Thompson did the same in the Washington Post Magazine; NYT's Judith Miller implied as much in a front page piece she wrote on Hatfill's work in constructing mock BW labs on wheels. Brian Ross of ABC News said Hatfill's arrest as the anthrax mailer "was imminent." These are bona fide journalists who not only advanced theories on how the anthrax was made, they advanced theories on who mailed it ... all without providing verifiable physical evidence or testimony to link Hatfill to the crime. All the individuals that I listed above have more in common (Hatfill) with Don Foster and Barbara Hatch Rosenberg than I do. Yet I am on your list. Scott Shane of the Baltimore Sun broke the story that a U.S. Army lab was actually making weaponized anthrax, but he is not on the list.

So I object to Misplaced Pages's inaccuracy; its inconsistency and the arbitrariness in its choices. Putting me on this list equates my work with anti-Semites, with Internet conspiracy-mongers and with people whose work is now the subject of litigation. As I pointed out in my previous message, I have no website advancing a theory behind this crime. My Science article was reviewed by a half dozen Ph.D.s and vetted by nearly as many senior editors at one the most highly regarded science journals in the world. My Science article is cited in formal papers published in peer-reviewed science journals and is also cited in Ph.D. dissertations written by scientists working for U.S. government laboratories doing biodefense research.

Your entry for Gary Matsumoto was, for many months, grosssly inaccurate. Now, the revised copy - an alleged sop to a disgruntled subject - fails to provide context that would enable a reader to distinguish me from individuals whose work has been discredited as inaccurate and defamatory (and is the subject of litigation), or from individuals whose work should be discredited for its substandard quality. Inclusion on your list is a dishonor. Kindly leave me off it, or in fairness, add to it every journalist who has written or broadcast about the 2001 anthrax attacks. Sincerely, Gary Matsumoto

I hope it will not hurt if I add a comment here: Mirror Vax, I urge you to act with extreme restraint if you wish to restore anything to the anthrax article concerning Mr. Matsumoto. Reporters are career professionals whose livelihood depends on their reputation for accuracy and neutrality. Putting Mr. Matsumoto onto a list of theory advocates could unfairly harm his reputation. If anything, he belongs in a discussion of reporting by the legitimate press, but in fact I think it would be best to say nothing about him at all. I hope you will understand and cooperate. Sincerely, Opus33 04:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Gary's "context" was shameless self-promotion, which Misplaced Pages standards of fairness and neutrality do not permit. I did add the qualifier "professional" to "journalist", just in case anybody thought otherwise. Gary's article is mentioned because it is important and noteworthy. He seems to agree. So the complaint comes down to the fact that he doesn't want to be mentioned in the same article with other people, unless the article reads like a book jacket ("Gary is an award-winning journalist...")

Is Misplaced Pages often inaccurate, inconsistent, arbitrary, etc.? Yes, of course! That is inherent in the process. Does that give someone with a sensitive ego the right to vandalize articles? No, it does not. Mirror Vax 08:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

MIRROR VAX: First you say Misplaced Pages has standards of "fairness and neutrality." In your very next paragraph you say that Misplaced Pages is "often inaccurate, inconsistent, arbitrary, etc.." Is that so? Why: "Yes, of course!" you say, as if this were something to be proud about.

Misplaced Pages is an arbiter of "fairness and neutrality," but it is "often inaccurate and arbitrary"? Well, which is it? As you insist on having it both ways, how about Misplaced Pages is also an "illogical, hypocritical champion of double standards; and proud of it?"

By including me on your list of Internet conspiracy-mongers and lawsuit defendants, without also including any of my journalist colleagues in the MSM, Misplaced Pages is hardly fair or neutral. It equates my article in Science with junk journalism and blindly sourced Internet screeds. Thus, you are making an editorial judgment whose neutrality and fairness I challenge. For months, the author of the Gary Matsumoto entry couldn't even get his/her facts straight when all that was required to do so was read the article. To be equated with the likes of Robert Pate is not oversensitivity; it is an objection to a gratuitous insult.

There is nothing fair or neutral about listing me with the likes of Pate. It is bias through context. You refer to my work in Science in the same breath as an article, Pate's, which is on the website of National Vanguard, a group that bills itself as "an intelligent and responsible organization that stands up for the interests of White people." What is National Vanguard? Well let's go to the source. On its website, National Vanguard complains that "especially in the United States, Jewish interests hold a massive amount of power, far beyond what one would expect based on their population numbers. Jews dominate the mass media, which shapes opinion and cultural values, and have a strong hand in the political scene at all levels." Is that so?

If you'll pardon the religious reference here Mr. Mirror Vax, there are, according to the liturgy of the Episcopal Church, sins of omission and sins of commission. In Misplaced Pages's anthrax letter article, you sin both ways. You commit blatant factual errors; and then compound those errors by omitting information that would help Misplaced Pages readers assess how much weight they should give to one set of facts over another. I think that readers of Misplaced Pages's anthrax letter article should know that Robert Pate is "a researcher" for National Vanguard and that he published his anthrax article in National Vanguard's magazine and on its website, which openly decries "the chaos being created by Zionist-inspired U.S. meddling in the affairs of other nations, and the certainty that multiracialism is a death sentence for any society that attempts it."

Robert Pate's article is titled: "The Anthrax Mystery: Solved." And what is Pate's solution? Israel and agents of Zionism did it!

"Israel’s objective was to bring America into a new war against Iraq. When the al-Qaeda plot was discovered, Israel let the terrorists proceed, thereby insuring America would go to war. The anthrax attack that followed was the bio-terror event needed to focus America’s attention upon Iraq and its alleged weapons of mass destruction. However, Israel had planed the anthrax attacks upon America years before the discovery of the al-Qaeda plot. The anthrax hoaxes that preceded the anthrax attacks were an integral part of the conspiracy," he writes.

The anthrax attacks were a part of carefully planned Zionist conspiracy to manipulate America into declaring war on Iraq? Oh really? Which brings me to the reasons that you give for including me in Pate's illustrious company. In rebutting my complaints you say to a third party that "Gary's article is mentioned because it is important and noteworthy."

If importance and noteworthiness are the standard for inclusion on your list, does that mean you believe Robert Pate's Goebbels-esque invective is important and noteworthy too? If you do, then I would conclude that that judgment alone - if that is what you truly believe - says something about you that most people, National Vanguard readers excepted, would consider unflattering.

I believe Misplaced Pages readers would benefit in knowing something about Pate's ideological proclivities. They might also benefit in knowing that Barbara Hatch Rosenberg's work is the basis of the Nick Kristof columns for which the New York Times is now being sued for defamation; and that Don Foster's "Hatfill-did-it" article has gotten Vanity Fair sued too.

By keeping Misplaced Pages uninformed of certain facts, you sir, are misinforming them. You are making implicit editorial judgments that lack both transparency and accuracy.

For the record, I object to Pate's white separatism and egregious anti-Semitism, and to your associating me with the likes of him. What's more, I think Pate's assertion that Israel and its alleged Zionist USAMRIID agent, Col. Philip Zack, were behind the attacks is not just unfounded; it is ridiculous, ideologically-driven crap that lacks even marginal significance in this nation's search for the anthrax killer(s).

Did I "vandalize" the Misplaced Pages article? No, I did not. There is an "edit" and "cut" function for every Misplaced Pages article. Thus, in deleting my entry, I was merely exercising my Wikipedian-given right to make this article more accurate, as readers are invited to do in what is supposedly Misplaced Pages's uniquely democratic editorial process.

I first deleted my entry some months ago. Apparently, it was you who kept restoring it over my objections. Then, when the entry kept reappearing in this game of editorial "whack-a-mole," I changed it to something that you didn't like. What you dislike is "vandalization." What you like is "fair and neutral." Give me a break. Judgments like yours are what make the Internet a menace to fairness and accuracy in the media, as well as an alleged an arbiter of it.

Well, Mr. Fair and Neutral, why don't you start living up to your alleged standards of fairness and neutrality by identifying yourself and your qualifications to make such judgments? Anonymous and blind sources are a hot button issue in journalism these days. Concealing one's identity conceals from readers the authority on which you make your self-avowed "inaccurate, inconsistent and arbitrary" judgments. Identify yourself. That will give us readers, and hapless victims of your editorial arrogance the means to judge for ourselves the value of your comments.

Naming sources is one means by which journalists inform readers why someone they quote in an article is worth paying attention to. Attribution and sourcing were Judith Miller's downfall. I also suggest that they are yours. At least Judith Miller put her byline on her articles; she took responsibility for her work. Who are you? What is your name? On what authority do you make such editorial judgments? What is your agenda? Because you appear to have an agenda. Why do you insist on misleading the people in what is supposed to be a fair and neutral forum - Misplaced Pages, the People's Encyclopedia? Well, I'm part of "The People" and I say that this particular Misplaced Pages article is both grossly and subtly inaccurate.

Your inaccuracies are a disservice to the public. Who are you? What do you do for a living? What do you know about anthrax, aerosol physics, forensics and criminal investigations? What experience do you have in journalism and editing? Why have you withheld from Misplaced Pages's readers information that would help them assess an article's value, or lack thereof? Who gave you the right to discredit other people's work while hiding behind an anonymous "nom du Internet?" Let us all know why we shouldn't assume that you and Misplaced Pages tacitly endorse the white separatism and anti-Semitism of Robert Pate and National Vanguard.

Sincerely, Gary Matsumoto

You make a lot of valid points. Do I think all the other people mentioned are as relevant as you? No, I do not. So why don't I delete them? Because they don't do any great harm, and whoever added them in the first place would probably put them back. Misplaced Pages articles are the product of many editors, many/most of them incompetent, biased, etc. Get used to it.

Why don't you direct your energies to deleting the Robert Pate entry, which I agree is of marginal utility, instead of deleting the Gary Matsumoto entry, which is clearly relevent? The bottom line is that you are not improving the article; you are making it worse. Mirror Vax 18:30, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Plea for edit summaries

Hi there. Since we obviously have many watchlist items in common (incl. computer stuff in general and CBM stuff in particular), we would do each other a great service if we consistently remembered to add edit summaries---it gets outright tiring having to click on lots of edits all the time which turn out to be just minor corrections. As the committed Wikipedian you are, I'm sure you agree. See y'around. :-) --Wernher 17:49, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Itanium

Can you please explain your revert of my revert on Itanium? User:65.102.172.33 seems intent on removing any critisms of the Itanium from that article. However, he/she has not provided any evidence that the critisms have not been made. Remember, as an enclopedia, Misplaced Pages needs to deal with both sides of an issue. -- JLaTondre 18:55, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

"Both sides"? What does that even mean? The section was opinionated spin, which would never in a million years be found in a real encyclopedia. Mirror Vax 20:03, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

It is a fact that the Itanium has been critized. It is fact that vendors have dropped it. If the critisms are not valid or if the vendors have dropped for reasons that do not reflect badly on the Itanium, then the critisms should be shown to be invalid and not ignored. Ignoring them is POV. I don't think the current wording is great, but a rewrite and not a delete is the proper solution. -- JLaTondre 21:51, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

So rewrite it. It is better to keep opinions (whether critical or positive) out of it. There is no need for a "criticism" section as such. It is just an invitation to put negative opinions in the article (which in turn is an invitation for people to place positive opinions in the article for "balance"). This isn't a political article, so let's keep it simple. Mirror Vax 04:03, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Articles are supposed to be balanced. Misplaced Pages is not a propganda piece whether it be politics, international affairs, or technology. We shouldn't dumb down or white-wash an article because it "isn't a political article". Yes, there are better ways to present information, but deleting information we don't like isn't the answer. Anyway, the article is in an edit war and I'll let those folks handle it. My involvement steemed from RC Patrol and not a personnel interest in the processor. -- JLaTondre 12:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gregory Lauder-Frost

I've responded to your unsigned comment at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Gregory Lauder-Frost. Homey 16:42, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Template:65xx

I noticed that you reverted my changes to the 65xx template. May I ask why? This template really needs some work - the formatting is a mess. The line breaks happen in random places and make no sense. Also, I am not sure why WDC chips are lumped in with MOS chips. The 16-bit family is conceptually separate from the MOS 8-bit line, and were produced by a different company. Crotalus horridus 18:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Replied on Crotalus's talk page. Mirror Vax 19:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

MOS navigation templates

I understand your concerns about the new MOS templates, but the existing one was really bad. It had no real formatting and no coherence ("anything ever made by MOS or by a company cloning their products" isn't really a viable category). Your concern about the {{WDC CPU}} template is well taken, though - I agree that a one-article navigation template is probably unwise. Consequently, I have folded that into the main {{MOS CPU}} template, which now includes all 65xx CPUs, 8-bit and 16-bit alike, whether they were produced by MOS or by a second source vendor. However, I do not see why graphics and sound chips, IO chips, and CPUs should all be lumped together in one template. If you want, I can add a link to the bottom of each such navigational template to either the other nav templates or to a list of all MOS chips. Please feel free to further discuss this on either my Talk page or the article talk. Needless to say, I have no desire to fight an edit war. I know we both share the goal of making the most accurate articles possible about these classic ICs. (I recently created MOS Technology CIA and a few other stubs - any help there would be most appreciated.) Crotalus horridus 20:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

There are a lot of bad templates on Misplaced Pages, but I don't think this was one of them. It was not an "anything ever made by MOS" template - it was focused on 65xx family chips and chips designed for 65xx systems (including non-MOS chips, and excluding MOS chips not related to 65xx systems).

I do appreciate your efforts to fill in the article gaps (the CIA article was much needed). Mirror Vax 20:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

MOS Technology CIA

I have added considerable information to the CIA article, including a detailed description of the parallel and serial I/O, timers, and TOD clock. I also added datasheet external links to both CIA and to many other MOS chip articles. In addition, I have created MOS Technology SPI and MOS Technology 6508 (not much to say about each one, the SPI is a very simple one-port I/O chip, the 6508 is just a 6510 with a page of RAM built in). Hopefully we can get rid of the few remaining red links soon. I'm currently researching the MOS Technology TED, aka 7360, which was used in the Commodore Plus/4. Crotalus horridus 02:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

MOS Technology TED

We've got rid of the last red link on Template:MOS Video/Sound. I wasn't able to find a datasheet for the TED, but I did find a good memory map (listed on external links). Crotalus horridus 05:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Daniel Brandt

Please stop removing whole discussion sections from the talk page. WP:RPA is disputed, and the ArbCom has said it should be "interpreted strictly and used sparingly" . Since many other users have contriubuted to the discussion it is far from obvious whether it can be considered a personal attack. And if you do insist on removing it then at least have the courtesy to not remove my comments at the same time by blind reverting. the wub "?!" 18:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Feel free to add your comments minus the personal attack section. Misplaced Pages is not a platform for your vendetta and/or "whimsy" . Mirror Vax 19:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Reversion

Hi, please can you see Talk:Grammy Award for Best Engineered Album, Classical. Thanks -- sannse (talk) 11:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Rogue admin

Suggesting that anyone is a rogue admin is a personal attack. Please remain civil. Thank you. JFW | T@lk 14:26, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Articles are (or should be) deleted because they are inappropriate for inclusions in an encyclopedia, not because their current contents are poorly written. If an article is simply poorly written, then it should be re-written, not put on AfD. The previous article was deleted because the topic was judged (by a large consensus) to be un-encyclopedic - articles deleted on this basis are all candidates for speedy deletion. Oh, and again, please stop violating Misplaced Pages's civility policy. Thanks. Jayjg 16:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

That is contrary to official Misplaced Pages policy. From Misplaced Pages:Criteria for speedy deletion:

Recreation of deleted material. A substantially identical copy, by any title, of a page that was deleted according to the deletion policy, except if it is in userspace, or undeleted per the undeletion policy. Before deleting again, the admin should ensure that the material is substantially identical, and not merely a new article on the same subject. In case of a speedily deleted page, they must also determine that it did meet a criterion for speedy deletion in the first place.

That is exactly what you failed to do, and what you are now claiming you don't have to do. Why do you think the rules don't apply to you? Mirror Vax 18:07, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

As of three weeks ago, deletion policy said "Deleted pages can be restored, by administrators, if and only if there is support on Misplaced Pages:Votes for undeletion, or the page was speedily deleted out-of-process." Since then inclusionist editors have apparently edit-warred some more restrictive wording into the policy. In any event AfD is supposed to be about deleting un-encyclopedic topics, not about bad content, even though the if the various deletion related policies are not entirely consistent. On the other hand, other policies, like WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, are quite stable; why do you think these policies don't apply to you? Jayjg 21:41, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Instead of blowing smoke, why can't you say, "You know, you're right. I misunderstood the speedy delete policy. Won't happen again." I'm prepared to forgive and forget, but you have to stop the obfuscation and denial of established (and uncontroversial, as far as I can tell) policy. Mirror Vax 22:15, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

The speedy delete policy is not consistent with the deletion policy. Instead of making false "Rogue admin" charges, and continually violating WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF, why can't you just admit your error and stop violating these policies? I'm prepared to forgive and forget, but you must stop violating established and uncontroversial policy first. Jayjg 22:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Deletion policy and speedy deletion policy are two very different things. They are not supposed to be "consistent", whatever that may mean. In any case, the policy that applies to speedy deletion is the speedy deletion policy - that's clear enough. The way to make me look like a fool is to acknowledge that I'm right (thus proving that you aren't a rogue admin, after all, merely one that made a mistake and is happy to correct it). Mirror Vax 22:34, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Deletion policy is quite clear that the article should not be re-created in the first place, and that deletions are about encyclopedic topics, not poor writing - thus the inconsistency. Your assumption that the only possibilities here are that I am either a "rogue admin" or "made a mistake" is an example of the false dilemma fallacy; you leave out other possibilities, including the possibilities that policy has changed, that policies are contradictory, and that you yourself have misunderstood policy. Regardless, when spurious ad hominem accusations are made which clearly and unambigously violate multiple policies, there's no point in responding to the substance of the ad hominems; instead, the only sensible recourse to encourage the editor to abide by policy. I certainly have no intention of making you look like a fool, nor was it my intent to do so until now; however, it is still my intent to encourage you to desist in your violations of WP:CIV and WP:AGF. Jayjg 17:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

So your defense is, "I'm not wrong - the policy is wrong!" That is the very definition of a rogue admin. You do not respect clear, unambiguous, longstanding, uncontroversial, official policy. Instead you say that you will follow your own personal policy, one that you find more "consistent". That is unacceptable. Mirror Vax 20:03, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Please stop making strawman arguments. As I have made clear, I followed policy in this case, and if you are unwilling or unable to converse in good faith, and are unwilling to desist from violating policy, there's hardly any point in continuing. Jayjg 20:11, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Not only have you not made clear that you followed policy, you've made clear that you believe the policy is "inconsistent" and that you have no intention of following an "inconsistent" policy. I have quoted chapter and verse, and you just ignore it and blow smoke. It's too bad that you can't discuss this rationally. Mirror Vax 20:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

All of this is quite confusing to me. Why do so many people want this article deleted? I admit that the stub I wrote needs a lot of work, but cleaning up an article and deleting it are two different things. The concept is extremely well known, and one of the central issues in the Arab-Israeli conflict is whether or not the Arab states accept Israel's right to exist. If there are statements in the article that are insufficiently sourced, let me know and I will try to expand sourcing for them. If the article violates Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, let me know what violates it and I will fix it. If the phrase "right to exist" refers to other conflicts as well, then we can disambiguate it. But I do not see what criteria on Misplaced Pages:Deletion policy is violated by this article. Crotalus horridus (TALK ● CONTRIBS) 22:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I have experienced the same feeding frenzy with articles I've started (on less controversial topics). There is no logic to it. It's crowd psychology at work. Mirror Vax 22:48, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Mike J. Henry

I have no idea if Mike J. Henry (of Fast Hack'em fame) is a real name or a pseudonym, but it certainly sounds like a real name, and I see no reason why he would have wanted to hide his identity. Remember, at the time, nibblers were sold openly, with no fear of legal repercussions; I count nearly a dozen nibbler ads in one issue of COMPUTE!'s Gazette alone, plus tons of ads for cartridge copiers and other such devices. This was all before the atrocious Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Crotalus horridus (TALK ● CONTRIBS) 22:30, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

I know. My reason for raising the question is that I once read that it was a pseudonym (but the source wasn't reliable, so I don't put much weight on it). Mirror Vax 22:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Reversion on Pascal programming language

• As I and others have stated, please make your case for removing those categories on the talk page of the article or you'll be reported for 3RR. The category you have insisted on has been added to the list along with the categories you seem bent on removing. Haikupoet 21:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Please see the message on your talk page. My action was self-explainatory (at least to anyone who understands how categories work). You deleted the main category, which is what I object to most strongly. Mirror Vax 21:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

C64 category renaming suggested

Hi again, how about renaming the C64 category to Category:Commodore 64/128? The rationale being that there are a certain amount of C128(only)-related articles there by now, and that, IMHO, the intro text in the C64 cat isn't quite enough to make the current situation seem very logical/natural. If we elect to do the renaming, better now than later, anyway (unless you're able to do this by wikibot; I, unfortunately, have not reached that level yet, I'm sorry to say). --Wernher 08:13, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I gave this some thought when I created the category. Other computer families generally have "family" attached (e.g. Atari 8-bit family, Apple II family), but "Commodore 64 family" didn't correspond to any article, plus it seems weird. So I went with plain "Commodore 64" even though it is not fully self-explanatory. It is not limited to just the C64 and C128 - it also includes things like C65, C64-in-a-joystick, MAX machine, C64G, etc. So, "Commodore 64/128" would still not fully describe the category. If there are enough C128-only articles, my preference would be to create a "Commodore 128" category (there is already a "Commodore 128 software" category that I rather rashly created). Mirror Vax 12:26, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Well, I'd still argue for a C64/128 name for the cat, which would be descriptive for all articles related to the C64 (i.e. all the examples you mentioned above), the C128, and the C64 plus C128 combined. Would you protest if I did the renaming? After all, I'd doubt there will ever be enough C128-only related articles to warrant a separate C128 cat. --Wernher 13:06, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Go ahead if you feel strongly about it. It's not my preference, but it doesn't offend me. Mirror Vax 13:11, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I see no problem with using the term "Commodore 64 family" (which would include the C128, SX-64, C65 prototype, and so on). Firebug 12:50, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

BASIC "toolkit" or "extension"?

Hi, just came to think of the discussion about the naming of this article. You might be interested in having your say at its talk page. --Wernher 09:00, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Chip pinouts

I thought you might be interested in seeing my newest addition to MOS Technology 6522. I added a technical drawing (SVG format, made by me) showing the pin configuration. Because of the vector nature of this file, it not only can be easily scaled to any arbitrary size, but I only need a text editor to re-use the same drawing for other 40-pin DIP ICs like the CIA and 6510. Hopefully we can soon get pinouts on all the MOS chip articles. Crotalus horridus (TALK ● CONTRIBS) 11:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Amiga error

I fixed the unintentional revert. Thanks for notifying me. Crotalus horridus (TALK ● CONTRIBS) 13:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Category:Sinclair Research

Why are you tagging each computer individually, instead of just updating the Template:Sinclair computers and clones template once? Do you want to distinguish the original Sinclair devices from the derivatives and clones? BACbKA 19:40, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes. There was already a clones category, Category:ZX Spectrum clones. Mirror Vax 20:02, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Why did you remove my stuff from Antiwar.com article?

Would you please explain what compelled you to remove this? I notice you said the material was "POV" in your note, but no other explanation. I don't think it's "POV" at all. (Notice protest over removal lodged on that article's Talk page.) --ILike2BeAnonymous 21:55, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

I didn't remove anything. You want to talk to User:Willmcw. Mirror Vax 21:57, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry; go ahead and delete this entire entry if you wish. --ILike2BeAnonymous 22:06, 26 December 2005 (UTC)