User talk:Exploding Boy/archive3 Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Exploding_Boy/archive3

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Exploding Boy. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Sorry I can't be of much use regarding Robert the Bruce. It looks like the case needs to go to arbitration. On the RfC page, someone said that arbitration should wait until elections are over and the new arbitrators are in, but that doesn't seem reasonable to me and, in any case, it appears that stuff is ongoing even now at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration. Arbitration seems appropriate as there has been volumes of talk page discussion and at least one attempt at mediation (which appears to have failed). My personal opinion, for what it's worth, is that anything of value Robert contributes is not worth the negative aspects of his editing, and he should be thusly banned. A quick look at his contributions doesn't show any recent violations of the 3RR, so I can't block him. (if he does break this, feel free to let me know or post at the Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard so an uninvolved admin can do the dirty work). If I'm missing something, please point me to the diffs for his reverts; I'd be glad to enfore the 3RR, as I don't believe I ever have.

I'm not sure if this is really what you're asking for -- sorry I can't be of more help. Perhaps the most valuable thing I could tell you is not to let him ruin your day. Have faith that the system will work. You've tried everything short of arbitration to no avail, so go ahead and take that last step. I think that with his history, the most likely result will be a permanent ban, and then we can all go back to writing about foreskins and smegma in a neutral manner. Tuf-Kat 23:37, Jan 10, 2005 (UTC)

Heya, I took the liberty of adding my agreement with your request on the RfAr you filed; Do you mind if I add myself to the Parties section? --fvw* 18:52, 2005 Jan 11 (UTC)

sure. Exploding Boy 21:29, Jan 11, 2005 (UTC)

Could you have a look at the current state of Sexual intercourse? Looks like Robert the Bruce is picking an edit war over a line drawing showing vaginal penetration, which he claims is deceitful anti-circumcision propaganda (presumably because the penis in question has an intact foreskin). To me the image looks useful because it shows what the whole thing is all about. I don't care whether it has a foreskin or not--it has to be one or the other. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 05:12, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• You go Tony! You sure are going to a lot of effort over something you supposedly care little about. Pull the other one ;-) - Robert the Bruce 16:20, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Could you have a look at the current state of Sexual intercourse? Heh heh heh.

Sorry, I had to get that out of my system. But seriously, I notice that you put in a request for pictures of Tokyo subway stations. I live in Tokyo and often use the system: did you have something particular in mind that I could shoot for you? --Calton 07:42, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

いいなあぁ～　東京は大好きだよ... where in Tokyo? I was looking for pics to add to the Sarin gas attack on the Tokyo subway article. There's lots of stations or even lines to choose from, so whatever you can get would be great! Exploding Boy 17:02, Jan 20, 2005 (UTC)

I live in Mitaka (western side, just outside the Central Wards). Like I said, what did you have in mind? Interiors? Exteriors? Trains? Logos? What examples, ideas, or concepts should the photos be illustrating? Be specific, since I can just shoot it to order. --Calton 07:26, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Great. Pictures of trains on the lines in the article, and of the stations mentioned, would be excellent. For trains, photos of the front of the train showing the name/destination, or of the side showing the same would be fine. For stations, station entrances or platforms (again showing the name) would be good. The lines/stations are:

• Chiyoda line
• Shin-ochanomizu Station
• Marunouchi line
• Ogikubo
• Ochanomizu Station
• Marunouchi line
• Ikebukuro
• Shinjuku
• Yottsuya
• Hongo-san-chome
• Kokkai-gijidomae Station
• Hibiya line
• Ebisu
• Kamiyacho
• Kasumigaseki
• Kita-senjū
• Akihabara
• Kodenmacho
• Tsukiji Station

We don't need all of them, just whatever you can do. Also, a picture of a crowded rush-hour subway would be good. Thanks!

Exploding Boy 18:17, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Yes, I sorry if you feel that I shoulf have requested permission to tag GFDL. Morally you are quite right. In my defence could I note that the wiki has been very slow recently, making any edits a real pain, and technically any image that you create and upload to wikipedia is automatically GFDL (just the same as text that you write). You can add further permissions but you can't take away. So in tagging GFDL, I was only re-affirming what you stated when you uploaded.

By the way, as a reluctant student of chinese characters, can I congratulate you on the beauty of your calligraphy? Zeimusu 00:09, 2005 Jan 22 (UTC)

Please don't. My calligraphy is horrible (and I'm not trying to be modest). Why "reluctant?" Exploding Boy 17:48, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

Please be informed that I have made a request for mediation to attempt to resolve the issues you have with me. - Robert the Bruce 18:07, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

A request for mediation is not a unilateral thing. Where have you made this request and to whom? I certainly haven't been involved in any such discussion. Exploding Boy 18:11, Jan 22, 2005 (UTC)

• Good. We are talking. That is a good first step ... now we need to find a mediator to help us resolve the issues you have. - Robert the Bruce 18:26, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Are you actually insane? Exploding Boy

• We need to address the issues you have with me which have brought about the series of actions you have initiated recently. Clearly these have been to the detriment of Wikipedia. We need a mediator to help you work through your issues. - Robert the Bruce 05:54, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

For some reason the dialog above reminds me of Talkie Toaster --Tony Sidaway|Talk 21:24, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Your case against Robert the Bruce has been accepted. Please bring evidence to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Robert the Bruce/Evidence. -- Grunt 🇪🇺 19:08, 2005 Jan 28 (UTC)

Re your silly allegation that User:Robert the Bruce is User:Robert Blair: Shouldn't you either withdraw it or block Robert Blair for a 3RR violation, in accordance with the arbcom's injunction? - Jakew 01:51, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

For crying out loud, why do you care? Why do I have to keep repeating myself on this one: yes, I'm an admin. But since I (1) edit the pages to which they both contribute and (2) am invovled in a dispute with Robert the Bruce, I can't use my sysop privileges in matters involving them. Besides which, as I've also said before, suggesting that someone has a sockpuppet is pretty low on the scale. It happens all the time, and is agreed not to be a personal attack. And once again, why on earth do you care so much? I mean, I have to say you've improved a lot over the last little while; at the very least you're willing to discuss things. I would think you'd want to see some improvement on RtB's part as well, but, then, I suppose since you and he seem to share opinions on just about everything you don't mind having someone who will back you up. And plus, what injunction? Exploding Boy 16:20, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

I care because I think it's childish and unbecoming of you to make such accusations. You just seem to be flinging as much mud as you can, in the hopes that some will stick. Coupled with the fact that you won't even try mediation, I think that's pretty despicable. Robert has his faults, but I'm certain that he's no troll. He believes every word he says. And while he isn't always neutral, he's a lot more neutral than many who edit the circumcision-related articles. As you'll see from my user page, I share Robert's concern that activists are using this encyclopaedia as a soapbox for their own agenda, and I think that reflects badly upon Wiki. If Wiki loses Robert, it loses a defence against losing all credibility in these articles, whereas if you agree to mediation with him, there's a fighting chance that some or all of your objections to him might be resolved, and everybody wins. - Jakew 17:12, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Listen, it's not even just about me any more. It's way beyond that. Take a look at the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Robert the Bruce/Evidence page. To be perfectly honest, I don't even give a shit if he IS Robert Blair, or even if he's YOU. The point is that the "Robert the Bruce" persona is disruptive to Wikipedia. Every last article he works on is a mess of controversy. Whether he's a deliberate troll or not, the effect is the same. And just because he "believes every word he says" doesn't mean that his behaviour is excusable. Exploding Boy 17:25, Jan 31, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I don't entirely trust you, and I know you feel much the same. Nevertheless, I'm going to assume good faith on your part, and assume that you actually want to help with this idea.

I have had email conversations about this with someone whom I usually argue with (User:DanP about this idea (I'm not actually pro-circumcision, it's complex - see my user page). What I suggest is that we think small, and apply the idea at first to one small circumcision-related article - say Genital integrity or Ridged band.

The proper way to solve the problem, I suppose, is to create a page RfC, and then approach the ArbCom with community backing to authorise both a) a long-term protection, and b) authorising a nominated admin to make community-approved changes. You think that this won't work. Why not?

A creative way around the problem, that DanP and I discussed, is to have a "code of honour". Namely, we agree to revert any edit that hasn't been agreed first, even if we personally approve of it. This should force "rogue users" to use the talk page, and if not, they'll be in such a small minority that they'll fall afoul of the 3RR and get blocked.

It'll be a pain in the neck, but I think we have to have unanimous vote, rather than majority. The latter makes Wiki too vulnerable to the "calls for arms" that Robert the Bruce highlights (these are real, and concern me too, incidentally - they are directly opposed to NPOV. And in theory they can be made by either "side").

Oh, and answer your email. Ignoring me is rude. :-P Jakew 23:16, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure it'll work because it means extra work on the part of some admin (not in itself a problem) and it violates the spirit of Wikipedia, where anyone is supposed to be able to edit pages. I'm not saying I don't support the idea, mind you. Let's go ahead with the RfC.

I think your second suggestion is far less workable. We can't put a notice on an article saying all non-approved edits will be reverted, and ideally we'd like to get away from automatic reverts. We can put "controversial" messages on articles, though, which direct readers to the talk page before editing.

I don't often check the email I use for Wikipedia since I never get any messages. Is there something there that wasn't here? I'll check it soon. Exploding Boy 17:36, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

Email checked and responded to. If you can't respond here, could you at least leave me a note to check my email? Exploding Boy 19:36, Feb 2, 2005 (UTC)

Can these articles be unprotected now, or do you still prefer them to be protected until the rewrite is complete? -- AllyUnion (talk) 07:00, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hi. I have posted a request to revisit this topic at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (Japan-related_articles). Thanks. Your input will be appreciated. LG-犬夜叉 09:19, Feb 26, 2005 (UTC)

Note: Please read this carefully and thoroughly, as this is important.

RickK, one of the admins, blocked my former accounts "User:Hil Duff" and "User:Hil Duff star". He didn't give any reason why and totally ignored my comments on my talk page just because he thinks my user name would be something like imposting or vandalizing. I wanted to discuss things over with him, but he just deleted my account immediately without reason. I just want to be a happy Wikipedian here.

I AM NOT A VANDAL, and I won't be Hilary Duff, just Cool Cat886. I won't tell anybody that I am famous or a pop star. I just want to contribute in peace here, and YOU CAN BLOCK ME ONLY IF YOU SEE ME VANDALIZING OR ACTUALLY DOING SOMETHING BAD, BECAUSE I DIDN'T. Would you support me and be my good friend, or should I just get blocked for eternity because I didn't do anything? Cool Cat886 07:19, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I'm going by the current MoS. Also, Kodansha's bilingual volumes read "Waki Yamato" in Roman characters. WhisperToMe 18:58, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I noticed you expanded some image captions today, in in the process removed some brackets or made them not balance in such a way that some of the images stoped displaying or the caption became part of the article text outside of the image box. I fixed a couple, but there may be others. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 19:06, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hello, ExplodingBoy.

I saw your improvements over on the sushi page. I've been copying this stuff out of various books. It looks like you speak, or at least understand, Japanese; I myself am less than clueless.

I'm getting the words and the spellings out of various books that don't even agree with each other—I'm guessing it's a transliteration thing. But there are other kinds of sushi that don't have their names in Kanji ('futomaki' and so on). Would you be able to help me add the unknown ones in?

DanielVonEhren 19:25, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi. Yeah, I speak Japanese. I can help you with names etc., but not for a few days as I'll be away. If you have a list you can leave them here. Exploding Boy 00:26, Mar 25, 2005 (UTC)

Greetings. I'm contacting you because you voted to keep Image:Autofellatio.jpg, but you indicated that part of your reasoning was because the image was not demonstrated to be a copyright violation. Someone recently found the image on http://www.wowboy.com/welcome.htm, a porn pay site, with the notice "© WowBoy 2001-2004, All rights reserved". I don't know if this changes your vote or not, but I thought you might want to know. – Quadell ^{(talk) (sleuth)} 02:27, Mar 27, 2005 (UTC)

I see you reverted my edit to geisha, but you didn't explain why. What didn't you like about what I added? It's completely factual, so do you feel that it's a little too dogmatic about pronunciation or just that it's unneeded? I realize that sometimes information about how things are pronounced in other languages can come off as a bit too POV ("this is the right way to say it, and everyone else is wrong!") but I tried to make it clear that the pronunciation of geisha in Japanese and English are different (if related) things. If you feel that it's just unneeded, I would have to disagree with that. My parents, for example, always assumed it was pronounced gissha before I told them otherwise (though maybe I'm flaunting my own provincialism here). It's my feeling that the information I added is both correct and moderately interesting, so I'd like to know what your objections are, so that we can come to a compromise. --Carl 10:16, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi. Sorry, I forgot to do an edit summary (or rather, when you revert you can't add one). Anyway, not to get personal but I reverted your edit because it wasn't encyclopaedic enough. The way you spelled the pronunciations is confusing, there are other reasons why the non-standard pronunciation is to be avoided, beyond simply being incorrect, and the bit about the ox cart is unnecessary. But I don't disagree with having the information there, just in better form. Exploding Boy 16:10, Apr 1, 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I would have done the IPA or whatever, if I had known how that works… Maybe I should just put a note on the discussion page that someone who knows how to write IPA should add it back to the page, but make it look more professional. --Carl 02:56, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's been over a year - are you planning to do anything with this? Please clean up, or grant me permission to clean up for you. --Woggly 07:56, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

go ahead. Exploding Boy 21:14, Apr 4, 2005 (UTC)

---

I could use some help from you and any other gay wikipedians you know of in dealing with a dispute at North American Man-Boy Love Association. Adam 08:22, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The heterosexuality article lately has been enhanced as follows:

• It is important to mention that sexual reproduction, a major function of sexuality, is normally a result of heterosexual vaginal intercourse. Despite the fact that we now can produce offspring by other means in some cultures, heterosexual penis-vagina intercourse remains the normal way of reproduction for humans. This does not exclude that there exist a great variety of human sexual behaviors which goals are not reproduction, and this reguardless of sexual orientation.

I would like to understand why this was removed, since it is factual, and cannot be denied. Moreover, it even mentions the fact that other non-reproductive sexual behaviors exist, that they can be of various sexual orientations. If it is because of bad wording, I would like help to include a more proper sentence. It however cannot be considered innacurate.

Thanks

Perhaps something similar to:

• A major function of sexuality, human sexual reproduction generally results from heterosexual coitus between sexually mature partners. However, the realm of human sexuality far exceeds that of reproduction alone.

instead? In my opinion, and probably that of many others, reproduction has to be mentionned as one of the main features of heterosexual behavior (note that there exists a line between orientation and behavior, but the ties are implicit).

Without a reply, the later formulation was considered more appropriate and included; If you still consider that it is out of context, we could possibly consider adding a section "Biological factors" instead.

Thanks again

I am not sure how my quote from the autofellatio discussion is homophobic - I assume it was just placed under my comment by coincidence, but if there is something homophobic about it please let me know. Thanks Trödel|talk 18:38, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

* Delete - Thanks to Achilles for informing me of this vote. Vote Packing what a crock - the best thing for wikipedia is to have this vote known as widely as possible and for as many people in the community to vote as possible. I thought the issue was settled last time - if another image comes up for vote please inform me when it comes up for deletion. As I stated on the mailing list (http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-February/019866.html) "Editorial control is what we do everyday in deciding what stays in or out." Lets use wise discretion in deciding how we are presented to the world. One can simply click any of the external links if one wants proof that it can be done (if the drawing is not enough). There is no need for this picture on Wikipedia. Trödel(direz) 15:55, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I wasn't referring to your comment. Exploding Boy 18:41, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

Re your edit of the shudo article, the hairdo sported by the man is known as a chonmage (topknot) and is the style favored by Edo-period samurai. Thus it is way of representing samurai status when the daisho (long and short sword pair) is not visible. Haiduc 19:17, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Yes, and townsmen also wore chonmage. Exploding Boy 19:54, Apr 26, 2005 (UTC)

Hello Exploding Boy

Here's an invitation to visit WP:JCOTW, Japan-related collaboration of the week. Your vote, nomination and comments are welcome. Hope to see you there! --Aphaea* 04:54, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Please take a look Yug 10:59, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Exploding Boy. I encourage you to visit Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 May 7#Gay, lesbian, and bisexual / LGBT occupational categories. (Wikipedia really needs a GLBT noticeboard for stuff like this.) Jonathunder 04:50, 2005 May 8 (UTC)

Inspired by Jonathunder's idea, I have created a LGBT noticeboard. Please take a look. -- Samuel Wantman 07:11, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi Exploding Boy! While I left your links intact, I removed the paragraph on sexual obsession, as this is in fact a trait of methamphetamine addiction that seems to be only present in the gay community. I don't have any objection per se to your inclusion of the information in the article, make sure you don't make it statement that encompasses all meth addicts. Sexual obsession does not seem to be a large trait among meth addicts on Indian Reservations, in Small Towns, and in the Mexican communities in Southern California; as it does among those of us in the gay community.

My advice? Keep it to a single sentence, and link to Crystal and sex for more information. ℬastique▼^talk 23:26, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your comments. I've reverted your change to the methamphetamine article. It certainly wasn't "POV" as you stated in your removal, and it's certainly worthy of mention in the article as it's a major feature of meth use for a large number of people. After the revert I changed the paragraph a little; take a look, but please don't remove information wholesale. Exploding Boy 02:16, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

It's why I mentioned it to you as soon as I did it--consideration and explanation. You didn't lose your work because you can access any edit that you make at any point. I had neither the time nor the inclination to edit your work for accuracy, so I reverted them so you would have a chance to correct them. Your facts, while not patently untrue, are in fact, misleading. A) Heterosexuals make up the majority of human beings. B) Heterosexuals do not often become obsessed with sex when using methamphetamine. Therefore, the statement C) Users of methamphetamine often become obsessed with sex, participating in sex sessions, sometimes with multiple strangers, that may last up to several days, is non-factual. However, from my standpoint, as a regular attendee of gay-frequented 12-step meetings, statement C) does seem to be very true, although I know for a fact it isn't. Therefore I must assume it to be my point of view. ℬastique▼^talk 03:51, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Ok, well, your reasoning is a little off, but whatever. Exploding Boy 19:54, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Now some guy named Bk0 is claiming that the paragraph in Methamphetamine and most of the article about Crystal and sex is homophobic. Help me set him straight. ℬastique▼^talk 01:55, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Ye gods! I've had to reverse another editor degaying the section you first wrote on methamphetamine. Do you think we have some sort of internalized homophobia for bringing these subjects to light? ℬastique▼^talk 02:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Please have a looksy here. --Mas5353

Sure, every article needs work, since the perfect article does not exist. But you need to explain on the articles talk page why it needs special attention. Right now you give us zero clue what you find wrong. Continue this discussion on talk:Changeling. Salleman 20:33, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is an edit war going on concerning the homosexuality of actor Nick Adams. Could I possibly ask you to have a look at the Talk:Nick Adams page? As a recent reply to administrator Willmcw's comment on this page, User:Wyss has written, "You clearly haven't read that link yourself. Why didn't you bother to check it? Maybe because you're so busy as a new Wikipedia:Admin?" This sounds very similar to flamings by User:Ted Wilkes who, some weeks ago, frequently deleted all references relating to Adams's homosexuality. See also his reply to administrator User:Mel Etitis on his talk page: "Yet again I have to request that you read facts and know what you are talking about before commenting. I suggest, since this matter is in the hands of Wikipedia:Mediator Ed Poor, that it might be best for you to refrain from further comments and not interfere in the process." See, in addition, this user's attempts at silencing me by repeatedly accusing me of vandalism and deleting my contributions to the Talk:Nick Adams page and some related pages. Why are users Wyss and Ted Wilkes so keenly interested to suppress every reference that Nick Adams was gay? See also Natalie Wood and Talk:Natalie Wood where information concerning Wood's contacts to Hollywood gays taken from a current biography has been repeatedly deleted by user Wyss. On the Talk:Nick Adams page, this user now claims that he "found zero documented evidence to even thinly support any assertion under WP standards that Mr Adams was a homosexual" and that none of my edits "are supported by documented evidence cited in peer-reviewed, secondary sources". In my opinion, this seems to be a new strategy by user Ted Wilkes (using an alias) to suppress any reference that Adams was gay. I am quite sure that users Ted Wilkes and Wyss must be identical, as User:Wyss is all too familiar with David Bret's writings (see also Talk:David Bret) and uses similar arguments as Ted Wilkes presents to suppress my contributions to the articles on Nick Adams and Natalie Wood. Significantly, the following sentence can be found on User:Wyss's page: "I think the Internet trolls inhabiting Wikipedia are its biggest weakness since they stir up unhelpful vandalism throughout helpful anarchy." In addition, the "barnstar of diligence" is appearing on both of their pages. See User:Wyss#Sway_me and User_talk:Ted_Wilkes#Thanks_Ted_Wilkes.21. What do you think? Perhaps you can place some comment on the Talk:Nick Adams and Talk:Natalie Wood pages, etc. Thanks in anticipation. 80.141.202.159 2 July 2005 16:58 (UTC)

Howdy Exploding Boy, If you put a semi-colon after your &nbsp's, they will work correctly. Like       this. (see code)

I've been watching the exchange between the two of you, and I commend you for keeping your composure on his Talk page. It's not without some irony that he makes a personal attack in decrying your existence as a admin. That your admin status alarms a chronically abusive editor only bodes well for the project. As one who has also been on the receiving end of his irrational and abusive behavior, you have my sympathies and support. FeloniousMonk 22:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

It's not misinformation, boy. It's confirmed information that will show up in Book 6. 67.174.230.30 19:41, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

The book hasn't been released yet, so as of now it's pure speculation. Exploding Boy 19:43, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Wait three hours if you will, but so far every person I've talked to (a list which includes librarians, booksellers, and customers) has confirmed the rumours as fact. 67.174.230.30 19:46, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Rumours aren't "confirmed information." Leave it out until it's verifiable. Exploding Boy 19:46, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

My revert on the HP+THBP article was of 24.125.31.154's vandalism, not of your edits. If you wish to revert the article to the edit you made seconds before I reverted, you obviously can do so, if you haven't already done so. Aecis 20:54, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I know. Dealt with. Thanks! Exploding Boy 23:21, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

No, I won't stop posting that link because it is relevant and receives much google traffic. If you want to proceed with dispute protocol, I encourage you to do so.

My dear Yarman, you'd better not revert again or you'll be blocked for violating the 3RR. That link is not encyclopaedic. It appears to be a blog of some sort, and doesn't belong in an encyclopaedia article. I suggest you take it to the Talk: Homosexuality and Christianity page. Exploding Boy 01:29, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

You do that. You usually forget to go ahead with the appropriate number of :s. So I gotta correct it in order to make the page readable. --85.74.131.62 23:52, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

No... you don't have to add an ever-increasing number of colons to indent. It's fine to let it go ragged as long as it's clear whose comment is whose, and it's much easier to read that way. Exploding Boy 00:41, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

Even though you soundly beat me in the fugly fug issue, I wish to award you the Editor's Barnstar in recognition of all the hard work you have made in paring down some of the text in the Harry Potter pages, and especially for your efforts in removing fan-based speculation. You are free to put this on your user page, or to delete it, as you desire. Congratulations! --Deathphoenix 12:54, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh, thanks! Exploding Boy 14:26, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. :-) --Deathphoenix 18:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

You may want to offer insight at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Sam_Spade FeloniousMonk 23:31, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Your anal sex reverts are not nessisary. Pitcher and Catcher are common terms. They were used on Sex in the City and in Queer as Folk(a couple had matching t-shirts, one guy's said "pitcher" and the other's said "catcher.")

http://www.dalgazette.ca/archives/2005/02/supersex_in_the_9.html

http://www.thinkingink.com/michael/gay_terms.htm Just because it is not popular in your vocab doesn't mean others don't use it.

Systolic 05:50, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

And likewise, just because it's common in your vocabulary doesn't mean it's common in everyone's. Exploding Boy 18:58, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick work. If I have anything to add I'll do so in the morning (I am on Eastern US time). Haiduc 03:53, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Man, I'm sickened. I wish there was more to add, but I can't find anything at the moment. Do you know where that picture came from? There are apparently a few others out there as well. Exploding Boy 03:55, August 1, 2005 (UTC)

Good thinking on the category and the articles. I'll scour the literature and come up with more names, as I am able. It is interesting to note that those killed are often outsiders: the Iranians kill their Arabs, the Saudis decapitate Yemeni guest workers . . . easy and cheap. Haiduc 10:52, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Per his usual pattern, SS has deleted your comments from his Talk page [1]. FeloniousMonk 20:16, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

LOL, yeah, I noticed. Exploding Boy 04:34, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

I just took a look at Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni and The Cairo 52. Great job. Have you considered listing them at WP:DYK? -- Samuel Wantman 20:53, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your comments. I didn't know you could list articles there.... Interesting. I don't really have time right now, but go ahead if you think they're worthy. Exploding Boy 04:34, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

When I appealed for the quote "One presumes that, like photographs, the kittens move magically but aren't really alive" you gave me the quote. What I really wanted was the page on which the quote is/was. Do you still remember where? Thanks.

Hi, 80.175.250.218. Sorry, but I'm not sure what you're talking about. Can you be more specific? What you've quoted above is... what I wrote, it's not a quote from Harry Potter. Exploding Boy 04:34, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, when I said page I was not referring to the book; I know where the kittens are mentioned therein. What I am looking for is where on the wiki that the kittens are mentioned. Thanks.

Google is my friend. Turns out it's on the Hogwarts page.

I noticed you've added this category to a couple of other categories. One of them I removed, but then I realized you did this to at least one more. My concern is that Category:LGBTis already included in Category:Gay, lesbian or bisexual people, so adding it to all of the subcategories isn't very helpful. On the whole I'd rather rename GLB People than add LGBT to all of its subcategories. Cleduc 21:46, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Please understand how categories are meant to work. Category:LGBT is a subcategory of Category:Human sexuality; human sexuality is not a subcategory of LGBT. Subcategorization is only used to delineate a more specific, narrower range of topics within a larger subject area, such as Category:LGBT literature or Category:LGBT art. It's not used just to link related topics. For example, if you were to start a category for Category:LGBT-related hate crimes, that could be a subcategory of both Category:LGBT and Category:Hate crimes, but "hate crimes" itself can't be a subcategory of LGBT if it includes race-related and religion-related hate crimes. And we're also not supposed to duplicate categories by simultaneously filing things in both Category:LGBT culture and Category:LGBT, when LGBT culture is already a subcategory of LGBT. It's one or the other. Bearcat 07:53, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you meant AN not ANI, so I was rather confused by your comment on my talk page. I assure you that any such removal was purely accidental, and I apologize for the oversight (I responded on my own talk page here, but just in case you overlooked it...). Best regards, El_C 05:35, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Hello Exploding Boy, I recognize your handle from Big Daikon. I occasionally post there as "The Crow". I wanted to invite you to a Japan-oriented wiki that I've created called Takipedia because we need participation of people like you who are familiar with Japan and the wiki world. It is somewhat different from Wikipedia, if you'll take a look around you will see how the notability and POV standards are skewed slightly toward people living in Japan. It's also an evolving community, so your experience would be welcome. I hope to see you there. Warmest regards The Hokkaido Crow 14:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Please read this: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Japanese terms. As you do, note that someone had marked the section for deletion. Since I disagreed with the deletion, I am going through and vetting the Category: Japanese terms cat to see what can be cleaned up and moved into other cats. For example, you mentioned Kimono. I took that out because it has less to do with a Japanese term so much as it is a Japanese article of clothing, and part of the Japanese culture. Names of Japan for roughly the same reason. The Japanese terms category is long overdue for an overhaul (if only to prevent someone from trying to CFD it), and I could use the assistance, if you're interested. I hope this explains things a bit.--Mitsukai 23:19, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting my RFA. It couldn't have happened without your effort. FeloniousMonk 17:21, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

You posted a link to an RfC against ShmuckytheCat, but you did not post the RfC page itself. Please post it. Robert McClenon 11:33, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

"::This is an outrage! We've now come full circle back to what you objected about in the first place, with a notice about name order! I'll be reverting all the name order changes as soon as I have the time. Exploding Boy 17:31, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand. Elaborate this first. WhisperToMe 22:44, 18 August 2005 (UTC) "

As I said, I do not understand how you came to that conclusion. Please explain yourself. WhisperToMe 22:49, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Figure it out. I'm just so tired of having these discussions and going over the same thing time and time again. I've altered the page, restoring it to the original version and removed a lot of redundancy. Exploding Boy 00:50, August 19, 2005 (UTC)

"In the absence of any compelling reason not to, I'm inclined to revert the names to their original, Japanese order. Exploding Boy 23:50, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Then I'll say it is not an outrage and it is not contradictory. I don't see how it is "contradictory" to post a notice about the naming. The reason I want to use English order in the article is consistency with English-language usage and policy on EN as well as consistency between AUM-related articles and on most English-language sources. More or less Aum-related articles should be in western order to reflect English-language usage.

Now, as for confusion with English-speaking audiences, the Japanese-language footnote does explain things, but people will still wonder about why EN uses Japanese order when the other sources (including English-language Japanese newspapers) use the Western order. English-language Wikipedia policy state that usage in most cases should be common usage.

Besides, what I was doing was testing a footnote for English-language usage of many Japanese names, as the French have one too. WhisperToMe 01:19, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm aware that no new policy has been made on naming, but who knows. Maybe there will be consensus for at least using the footnote. After all, check out the Japanese Wikipedians notice board. Taku posted a comment I left on his talk page, adding that he felt it is a good idea. WhisperToMe 07:20, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

So there must be something appealing and interesting about teacup dogs, but your comment abut "nonsense" makes me think there's a little POV editing going on there-- Would you care to add what it is that people find appealing about it? And I wonder whether it's only "laypersons" who use that term. Elf | Talk 17:27, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your input on the proposal to use the term intact rather than uncircumcised in the main circumcision article. I thought it was very balanced and fair. Not to sound melodramatic but its become clear that pro circumcision POV pushers are censoring wikipedia uninhibitedly, which can be seen in their attempt to the disambiguation page at uncircumcised to eliminate any other interpretations of the word supported by the dictionary that they feel improves their political agenda. For the sake of intellectual freedom I implore you to look into these matters and make choice about how you will respond. Thanks again. Sirkumsize 03:54, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

My vote was not to use the word intact. It was to use a different word altogether. Exploding Boy 21:45, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

To start from a middle which will serve as a beginning, I reverted you on the ass article cause Sam's contribution seemed appropriate and I couldn't IMAGINE a reason for you to be anti it except for bias. But enough about that, I hope to never hear about the ass article again. I added partly in fun that your addition of by Sam was by you on a talk page. THEN I read the page where you pointed out his signiture DID NOT IDENTIFY HIM. Whoops. If that fact had crossed my mind I would not have "contributed" my 2 cents worth. Score me as pro Sam and anti signatures that don't identify. And I never want to read another word about ass. WAS 4.250 03:51, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Since you have participated in "Use English" talks, please visit Talk:Ekaterina Dolgorukova to contribute to the current poll. 217.140.193.123 06:12, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

and stop editing my comments. Tasks you can do 20:23, 31 August 2005 (UTC) Posted by User:Sam Spade

I didn't vandalize the template you use, I simply made it clear who you are. And I've never edited your comments, I've simply, again, made it clear who left them (as above). Please alter your signature to reflect your user name or I will proceed with a Request for Comment on the matter. And don't accuse me of vandalism. Exploding Boy 23:56, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

One may place {{unsigned}} at the end of an unsigned remark. If it does not identify it is not a signiture. WAS 4.250 01:49, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

In the course of informal discussions at Wikimania in Frankfurt the possibility of having Wikimania 2006 in Vancouver was raised. What makes Canada desirable for such a meeting is the capacity to draw delegates from the United States. For many overseas delegates, however, U.S. visa requirements make that country less attractive. All else being equal, Europeans see Vancouver as a more interesting Canadian city to visit than Toronto, the only other Canadian city to receive significant consideration.

Preliminary bids from various cities need to be made by Sept. 30, 2005. A short list will be drawn from those bids. Is there enough interest and energy to put together such a conference in Vancouver for August 2006? The people in Frankfurt put on a tremendous gathering, with a core organizational group of about a dozen people. Some 400 people attended from 52 different countries.

I expect that a North American Wikimania could be a little smaller, but we would still need a suitable facility. It would be good to know that such a facility is available for a conference; the type of youth hostel facility that was used in Frankfurt does not exist in North America. What would be the cost of hosting such a conference at UBC?

I'm looking for interest and commitment. To that end I am proposing a Vancouver meetup for Saturday, Sept. 24. If someone has a reasonably accesible place for such a meeting please let me know. (I live in Richmond, but something in the city of Vancouver would be more appropriate.)

I am spammiong this to all Vancouver area Wikipedians that I can find. Please reply to my talk page. Eclecticology 21:50:16, 2005-09-03 (UTC)

Hi Exploding, I know you followed the APA/DSM POV pusher at Homosexuality, since you commented there. Unfortunately, despite it being flatly false, an admin whom I've had problems with in the past inapprpriately blocked my account for alleged 3RR over at that page. It's not even close to true (I made a lot of unrelated edits, but not four on the same section). Could you take a look at my comment over at User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters, and either forward the matter back to the 3RR noticeboard, or just unblock me yourself? Thanks, Lulu...

Would you like comment here: Wikipedia:Vocabulary levels? Its on the levels of vocabulary that can be used in wikipedia. =Nichalp «Talk»= 18:53, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

Please join Grace note and I in informal mediation regarding our conflicts @ Talk:Anal sex and elsewhere. Leave him a note @ User_talk:Grace_Note#Mediation if your willing. Thanks, Sam Spade 14:53, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

What exactly is "informal mediation"? Look, to put it bluntly, I have no reason to believe that this exercise will change anything about the way you interact with me or the way that you approach editing certain articles. Do you? Exploding Boy 21:10, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

If nothing else its a step towards arbitration, where we might be able to get you blocked from watchdogging articles of interest to homosexuals. Sam Spade 22:23, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

This from someone who wants to engage in mediation? What a laugh. Go for it. Request arbitration on me. But expect to be called to task for your destructive edits to gay-related pages. Exploding Boy 02:11, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Requestiong arbitration would be foolish, we havn't completed the Wikipedia:Dispute Resolution process yet. Unlike yourself, I don't rule out success, you used to be half-way reasonable until I opposed your FA nomination. I even supported your bid for adminship, based on what I tragically misinterpreted as signs of your character and neutrality. Obviously this anti-gay bias bullshit is nothing but a feeble attempt on your part to blur and emotionalize the issue, as a review of our edits makes clear. Sam Spade 12:35, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Sam, I know it is frustrating, but please don't talk about a mediation process as a first step to arbitration. It can't work unless it's seen as an alternative to conflict. And please try not to make personal comments about EB, his reasonableness or his motivations. We want to talk about the edits, remember, and how we can make a page that all are at least content with, not about what arseholes we all are. Grace Note 03:59, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Informal mediation is mediation that doesn't feel like a court case ;-) It would be an attempt in good faith to resolve your issues without recourse to a more formal (and generally frustrating and painful) process. Basically, I would set up a page for you to discuss your issues. You might both agree some ground rules, such as not to edit the page while you were mediating (maybe I would make agreed edits), to stick to the subject under discussion, that kind of thing. I would structure the discussion a little to keep it on track and referee incivility and the like (you can't sort out your issues if you are both bickering about who called who what). I would accept emails if you want to express views that you do not want to be made public, but I think we'd have to agree that any emails would CC the other party.

You have very different POVs and I think it's fair to say you probably downright disapprove of Sam's (and he yours, I daresay). So you won't be changing each other's hearts and minds. But that's okay. We don't have to convince one another how right we are, do we? We just have to produce a page that is neutral and, hopefully, that we can all at least live with.

Worst case, if it breaks down, you have a neutral, impartial figure who has taken part and can give a fair view of who did what. Approach it in good faith, assume Sam will try to meet you halfway and treat him with civility and as much respect as you can muster, and best case, you might just find it constructive. You have nothing to lose. If you don't bother, any case you bring as part of the dispute resolution process is likely to fail. If it doesn't work, and you do as I suggest, you will not be at fault and that will be quite plain. Grace Note 22:42, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Grace. I'm sure you mean well, but I'm equally sure that mediation with Sam will go nowhere (see his comment, above, for an example of just why).

I don't think there's much point in engaging in mediation with Sam that is not formal, official mediation, and even then I have grave doubts about undertaking such an exercise, as I believe that it will change nothing. A brief examination of Sam's responses on the Anal sex page reveal that he's doing nothing but talking nonsense when it comes to explaining his reverts on a topic about which he's clearly woefully mis/underinformed.

Sam considers homosexuality a paraphilia, and if you take a look at his list of things he's in favour of and against, you'll notice that paraphilias are one of the things he's "anti" (whatever that even means). In my opinion, Sam is a homophobe; he'll probably deny it; he'll claim that the word has "no meaning"; but his edits repeatedly reveal just such a bias. For example, he repeatedly tried to add a "see also" link to pederasty to the Straight acting article (dif, only finally stopping when threatened with an RFC. Similarly, on Anti-gay slogan, he repeatedly tried to quote factually inaccurate information from organizations known for their rabid anti-gay stance as fact, despite overwhelming objections from other editors, and then he claimed that there was some sort of cabal protecting the page (notice he's accusing me of the same thing here).

But it's not only gay-related pages; Sam cannot discuss anything rationally with me at all: witness the recent shennanigans at I am, where he insisted on adding a nonsense redirect and accused me of objecting to his changes solely on the basis of his rejecting an article I proposed for FA status 10 months earlier.

In my view, Sam has been getting away with crap like this for far too long. He keeps managing to wiggle out of being disciplined by suddenly dropping out of arguments he's created, by trying to get other users to mediate for him, and by various other means. The sooner he's stopped, the better.

Exploding Boy

I'm very disappointed. All I'm seeing are a lot of personal attacks and accusations, an editor who refuses to even try to sort out the page and reach consensus and a page that is going nowhere. In mediation, you don't necessarily need to discuss things rationally with Sam. You can discuss them with me. That's what a mediator is for -- to get in the middle and help stop this nonsense. If Sam was to start a case against you, I'd have to agree that you made no attempt to resolve the dispute. You're not going to be able to get him banned so that you can just have your own way -- you don't have the connections and I doubt you could muster the support. If you keep on this course, the most likely -- the fairest -- outcome would be that you are banned from the page, since you are currently preventing it from being unprotected (if you agreed to allow me to make edits on both your behalfs for the time being, we could start to make progress -- I'm willing to have both of you yell at me for being unfair). You need to find a way to accommodate him and he needs to find a way to accommodate you. That's what a wiki is. I understand your concerns about Sam's biases (although you have to try to understand, if not accept, that he feels you are biased too), but being biased does not exclude an editor from editing -- it's making biased edits that counts against you. Give it a go. Maybe he'll surprise you for once. Grace Note 03:41, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Exploading Boy. In considering the offer by one Grace Note (aka Dr. Zen)'s in allow[ing] [him] to make edits on both your behalfs for the time being, please note his own bias in areas related to sexuality. Goodfaith notwithstanding, the end result may be more one-sided than it appears. El_C 03:57, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

I hereby officially and formally request mediation with one User:Exploding_Boy. Please see Wikipedia:Requests_for_mediation#User:Sam_Spade_and_User:Exploding_Boy for more info. Sam Spade 13:30, 15 September 2005 (UTC)