text:
User talk:Ta bu shi da yu/Archive8

RFC on Pename
As Pename has been attacking both Alberuni, myself, OneGuy and RickK, I was wondering if you would like to certify Requests for comment/Pename? - Ta bu shi da yu 13:07, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Would you be willing to certify the RFC? Please, I'm not asking to pressure you. I won't be upset if you don't :) - Ta bu shi da yu 03:21, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I think I did. Check again, under Outside Views. —iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 03:26, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

 * Sorry, was confused. Now I have. BTW, I still don't understand the difference between "Certifying" and "Endorsing the summary." You might want to check with Zora; I think she also signed only in the first place I put my name.  —iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 03:28, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

I've only dealt with Pename on the Jihad page, so I don't think I'll participate for now. If we cross swords elsewhere, I might step in, though as far as I'm concerned, the RfC process is broken. RickK 05:45, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

 * Gah! I got this wrong! The first section has the comment: Please note: If you did not try and fail to resolve the dispute, but agree with the summary's presentation of events, please sign in the next section, and the section section (others) has the comment "If you agree with the summary's presentation of events but did not try and fail to resolve the dispute, please sign in this section.". Sorry if I mislead you... that was entirely unintentional. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:32, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Yeah. Though I don't think the same people can sign up in "Endorsing the summary" and in the "Outside View" thing. —iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 08:25, Nov 25, 2004 (UTC)

MacDonald White Paper
I started a stub rewrite of the copyright-violating entry on the MacDonald White Paper, but discovered there is already an entry on the subject called White Paper of 1939. I've shelved the stub and replaced it with a redirect, but I'll take a closer look at the existing article and see if there's anything in my stub that can be merged in. --Minority Report (entropy rim riot) 19:32, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Improving Abington School District v. Schempp
In my opinion, the entire article should be re-written in accordance with the outline proposed by the Supreme Court case WikiProject. Some of the information in the essay is valuable, but no one paragraph or sentence should remain as it is now. In addition to the fact that it expresses a clear POV (though I admit that I have not read it in its entirety as of yet), it is in a very grey area with regard to federal copyright laws.

The author has stated that he has released it, but he may feel differently if it were changed and did not reflect his original POV. This would be the use of part of a work under Title 17 statutes, which the author has not expressly consented to. Even one paragraph used could be considered infringement and we do not know the author actually retains the rights or if it has been published in some manner or that he is really the author even. Ignorance is not a great defense.

From what I know about Schempp it is a pretty cut and dry decision. The Establishment Clause made the Pennsylvania statutes regarding prayer in school unconstitutional. To tell the truth, I think the extent of the article is a bit of overkill for a Wikipedia article anyway.

Feel free to start working the "reformed" article. When I get a chance to read over the complete decision, I will do some editing of my own and we can make a good article. I will also add it to the "Intensive Care" section of the WikiProject to-do list. Hopefully some of the other contributors will jump in.

Skyler1534 02:38, Nov 26, 2004 (UTC)

Article
Article of Puerto Rico Referenda is not copied from elsewhere. The data can be obtained from the cited websites.

Totally inappropriate?
I don't agree. Jguk (a) erased my entire rewrite of the seriously broken new history section (which I think few would stand for), and (b) redid the previously negotiated intro without discussion. I think that this was totally inappropriate. He did not even seem to look at the edits I made, whereas I repeatedly go through and compare paragraph by paragraph. As evidence I note his claim that my re-revert was just "reorganisation" - a claim either deceptive or ignorant. Very Verily 06:26, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * To say the lead section needs work is an understatement. It needs to be replaced with a real intro. Very Verily  07:47, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * The one we had was fine, indeed carefully assembled long ago. Your concerns about length are not overpowering given the subject matter.  What is not acceptable is having the intro read like what follows is a history article. Very Verily  10:11, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I have explained my concerns multiple times, and the two of you continue to erase all the edits I make, which you can't expect me to stand for. Why are you not posting on jguk's page about his reversions?  And I restore the relevant subsequent edits each time, unlike the two of you. Very Verily  20:14, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I rewrote the history section which was a bunch of false and misleading claims strung together, and I rewrote the death penalty section replacing innuendo with facts and elaboration. True to form, you reverted all these edits.  And then you have the gall to tell me on my user page that I'm reverting too much.  Either you didn't even bother to look at what you were reverting, or, well, I won't speculate further.  I don't know why you think I or any editor would take this lying down. Very Verily  03:30, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * I don't understand the communication disconnect. The overhaul proposed by jguk is unacceptable for reasons I gave.  The erasure (repeatedly, by you) of my attempt to fix up the new sections is also unacceptable.  You constantly reverting me in an attempt to force these changes, well, you see where this is going, but none of your comments to me seem to acknowledge that this is the issue.  I've made my points on the Talk pages and in the edit summaries.  I realize your words are polite and constructive, but your actions - reverting me repeatedly without rhyme or reason - are taken by me as very rude.  And keep the "temporary" injunction out of this, thank you much; the ArbCom and their bizarre rulings are another can of worms.

 * I have been working on this article for over a year. I have prevented it from getting trashed several times in the past, and I intend to do so again. Very Verily  08:20, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * You don't own the article either. I am allowed to make changes if I feel they are needed, and you can't just revert me numerous times. Very Verily  10:35, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * If you still refuse to acknowledge that you have been reverting my changes too, then this conversation is not going to go anywhere. The same goes if you make obviously incorrect assertions such as implying that I am not allowing changes, which even a casual glance at the page history will disprove.  And please keep my other disagreements out of this; I work on a lot of controversial articles and inevitably have to deal with people like "Ruy Lopez". Very Verily  18:16, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * You analyzed the edit history of the previous dispute, not this one, and your descriptions continue to belie your claims that you have paid attention to my edits. Spare me your lame threats; the October conflict was raised at ArbCom, and if you raise another, they'll ask you to try mediation. Very Verily  01:36, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * If you continue to post false claims on my user talk page that I'm not allowing you to make changes, I will start erasing your comments on sight. As I said, there is no point in conversing if you continue to deny that (a) you have been reverting substantial edits by me and (b) I have left numerous changes unaffected.  My "old tricks" are protecting this article from aggressive POV editing. Very Verily  01:55, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

VeryVerily
Regarding VeryVerily reversions, which I saw you mention on his user talk page, you may be unaware that this user has a temporary injunction against making reversions in many cases - Requests_for_arbitration/Gzornenplatz%2C_Kevin_Baas%2C_Shorne%2C_VeryVerily.

Specifically, he is banned from editing articles having to do with communism or the Cold War. He is also banned from reverting an article more than twice (yes, twice, not three times) in a 24 hour period. And he is almost certainly going to be banned for at least two months for abuse of reversion once the arbitration case is finalized.

This user has been abusing the reversion capability for a while, and I'm happy to see the Wikipedia arbitrators are finally beginning to deal with the problem. Ruy Lopez 23:24, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

 * Ruy Lopez is a troll. He is upset that I prevented him from ruining dozens of articles over the last year with his army of sockpuppets.  The ArbCom is largely ignorant of the history and doesn't seem too interested in evidence, so God only knows what they'll do. Very Verily  03:33, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Vote on Three revert rule enforcement
Hi Ta bu shi da yu. Anthony DiPierro is claiming you voted twice on the Three revert rule enforcement page. Could you possibly go there and clarify? Thanks. Jayjg 01:42, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just look at the summary of recent edits on Three revert rule enforcement and his summary; he insists that the summary has to count certain votes (like yours) twice, because you had a concern and you voted yes. Jayjg 01:52, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wilhelm Imaging Research
Yes, I retreat. I got a wrong impression out of your original stub (just feels ad-like to me) and their About section of webpage. Glad that we have a democratic mechanism like this, so consensus can be reached. Ahh, I put part of this discussion on the bottom of your User page, sorry for that and any other inconvenience. Will you take care of vfd removal? Oneliner 08:07, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

RfC against Quadell
Greetings. User:HistoryBuffEr and I are having a disagreement about the protocol of an RfC page here, and I wonder if you could lend your expertise.

HistoryBuffEr started an RfC against me, and I responded in the Response section. Several other users endorsed the Response. HistoryBuffer commented on the various users' endorsements in the same section. It seemed to me that the Response section wasn't the place for the complainant to make further accusations or other statements, so I moved these comments to talk. Was this an appropriate thing for me to do? HistoryBuffEr objected, and moved the comments back. So where should these comments go? Any help you could offer would be appreciated. Thanks. – Quadell (talk) (help)  20:26, Nov 30, 2004 (UTC)

cc: User talk:Ambi, User talk:Theresa knott, and User talk:Neutrality.

 * I think you dealt with it very well. HistoryBuffEr is a very difficult user to deal with. See here for a taste. Thanks for your help! Any further help would be appreciated as well.   – Quadell (talk) (help)   13:48, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks
...for your endorsement! Very much appreciated. :) Ambi 04:31, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for your kind words :)

Best regards,

Guy Montag

Welcome to the withdrawn candidacy club!
I don't feel so alone now. ;)

On a more serious note, I hope your wiki vacation helps. I know you've gotten involved in a couple of stressful incidents lately which have been unfortunate. Hopefully some time away will prevent you from getting too jaded over them. Shane King 10:36, Dec 1, 2004 (UTC)

Islamism
According to Pename, he checked the Oxford English Dictionary from Oxford University Press and it says that Islamism is as follows:

Islamism / 'zlmzm/, / 's-/ → n. Islamic militancy or fundamentalism. - DERIVATIVES Islamist ( also Islamicist ) n. & adj.

SOURCE: "Islamism n." The Concise Oxford English Dictionary. Ed. Catherine Soanes and Angus Stevenson. Oxford University Press, 2004. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. University of Toronto Libraries. 2 December 2004 ;

He also found the following:

Islamism Ideology calling for sociopolitical solidarity among all Muslims. Has existed as a religious concept since the early days of Islam. Emerged as a modern political ideology in the 1860s and 1870s at the height of European colonialism, when Turkish intellectuals began discussing and writing about it as a way to save the Ottoman Empire from fragmentation. Became the favored state policy during the reign of Sultan Abdulhamid II (r. 1876–1909) and was adopted and promoted by members of the ruling bureaucratic and intellectual elites of the empire. With the rise of colonialism, became a defensive ideology, directed against European political, military, economic, and missionary penetration. Posed the sultan as a universal caliph to whom Muslims everywhere owed allegiance and obedience. Sought to offset military and economic weakness in the Muslim world by favoring central government over the periphery and Muslims over non-Muslims in education, office, and economic opportunities. Ultimately failed and collapsed after the defeat and dismemberment of the Ottoman Empire after World War I. Resurrected during the resurgence of Islam after World War II. Expressed via organizations such as the Muslim World League and the Organization of the Islamic Conference, which seek to coordinate Islamic solidarity through political and economic cooperation internationally. Has also served as an important political tool in recruiting all-Muslim support against foreign aggressions.

SOURCE: "Islamism" Oxford Dictionary of Islam. John L. Esposito, ed. Oxford University Press Inc. 2003. Oxford Reference Online. Oxford University Press. University of Toronto Libraries. 2 December 2004 ;

I'm confused. Our Islamism article says something totally different. The Oxford reference is relatively authoritative. Help! - Ta bu shi da yu 05:37, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Authoritative? How? It is basically one quote from one writer (John Esposito) with one POV. The POV of someone who thinks that something that lasted almost 1400 hundred years "failed". How long did the Roman Empire or Communism last? I am replying on the talk page for that entry. See you there! —iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 05:46, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Copyvio rewritten:MacDonald White Paper
This is a reminder that one week ago you added MacDonald White Paper to Copyright_problems. I rewrote it as a redirect to another entry on the same subject, White Paper of 1939, at MacDonald White Paper/Temp. --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 06:48, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article
I've seen it. :-) Evercat 22:05, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You were mentioned.
And it wasn't flattering. See http://www.cornellsun.com/vnews/display.v/ART/2004/12/02/41ae87066c10f

 * On the bright side, this may be the next phase of natural selection: Fvw's 874 posts per day, one imagines, are not exactly being sandwiched between booty calls. (Although it is eminently possible that they are being sandwiched between sandwich calls.)

 * But on the less-than-bright side ... these really are the best and brightest of humanity. They've got DSL. And grammar. And encyclopedic, albeit utterly useless, depths of knowledge. It's horrible, but true: when ekOeOfhOpe and dArK_RaVeN and Sparky and Evercat are found rotting in their apartments, it will be their inferiors who have repopulated the earth in their own sweaty image. Ooh. Not so chipper anymore.

Enjoy the libel while it lasts! - Ta bu shi da yu 21:49, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Haha, richly comic. I wondered if we'd hear any more from the Paul Eastlund people. I don't remember being called a fart-face, but funnily enough I do remember googling quite a bit on mealworms to verify the good luck story mentioned, and I found enough stories about them being baked into bread that it seemed credible. Thanks for the heads up! --fvw * † 23:13, 2004 Dec 2 (UTC)

User:Lucky 6.9
Heya, User:Lucky 6.9 insists that untrue articles and vanity are speedy deletion candidates, and won't stop listing them as such even after I pointed out WP:CSD disagrees. Since you're a respected admin and appear to be a wikifriend of his, could you have a word with him about it? I'd rather avoid an RFC or anything else as unpleasant. Thanks --fvw * † 00:31, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)
 * Actually, in this case I agree with Lucky 6.9. It appears to be a hoax. I beleive it should be listed on CAT:CSD. It appears that it is a hoax along with "Canadian Town", the rock band "Arrowhead" (can't find any reference to this band!), "super star" Jessica Paquette or Augustine's Child. Do you have any information that this is not a hoax? - Ta bu shi da yu 00:56, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * The matter is not whether it's a hoax or not (I'm sure it is), the matter is that hoaxes aren't candidates for speedy deletion. See the list at WP:CSD --fvw * † 01:04, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)
 * Er, hoaxes are part of WP:CSD. Patent nonsense is a criteria for speedy deletion, and hoaxes are listed under patent nonsense. It's valid to delete these articles. - Ta bu shi da yu 01:06, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * You might want to reread WP:PN, hoaxes are in fact listed under Not to be confused with (fat lot of good that section did :-)). --fvw * <SMALL>†</SMALL> 01:09, 2004 Dec 3 (UTC)

Need Admin help
You're an admin, right?

There's a revert/edit war going on at Islamist terrorism. An anonymous, unregistered user is reverting to add some text that most editors don't agree should be there. —iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 03:55, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

 * OK, I see the problem. I'm watching the page very closely. If User:68.107.102.129 does it again I'll block for 24 hours. - Ta bu shi da yu 04:01, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * He has. Take a look at the history of that page. Unless you want me to go in and put myself in danger of violating the 3RR myself. —iFaqeer (Talk to me!) 04:04, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Australian Aboriginal art
You voted for Australian Aboriginal art, this week's Australian Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article. Thanks.

(If you're not still on vacation --ZayZayEM 06:00, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC))

Criterion 4 of Candidates for Speedy Deletion
It states: "Very short articles with little or no context". I contend that since the subject matter is unverifiable (through mutltiple google searches and imdb searches) that it is impossible to expand on the stubs. The fact that they're hoaxes/vanity pages is, of course, the REASON that they are short and have no context, but they still qualify under the rule. I'm not going to delete them again, no point in warring over them, but I ask you to consider my rationale and revert yourself. :) --Dante Alighieri | Talk 08:06, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

 * As I'm looking at it again, I can't tell if context is the right word or if it's a typo for content. Either way, same reasoning applies. --Dante Alighieri | Talk 08:07, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

HistoryBuffEr on Ariel Sharon

 * 1) cur) (last)  06:46, 3 Dec 2004 HistoryBuffEr (The NPOV version with no objections to it replaces the POV hagiography)
 * 2) (cur) (last) 06:35, 3 Dec 2004 Viriditas m (Revert edits by HistoryBuffEr to last version by Ferkelparade. We arenot required to fallaciously "prove" a negative. You are, however, required to discuss your proposed changes on talk.)
 * 3) (cur) (last) 06:15, 3 Dec 2004 HistoryBuffEr (Updated neutral bio (still no objections in Talk))
 * 4) (cur) (last) 12:34, 2 Dec 2004 Ferkelparade m (rv)
 * 5) (cur) (last) 12:30, 2 Dec 2004 130.37.20.20 (Six-Day War and Yom Kippur War)
 * 6) (cur) (last) 09:06, 2 Dec 2004 MPerel (HistoryBuffEr, stop replacing article with your personal version)
 * 7) (cur) (last) 08:59, 2 Dec 2004 HistoryBuffEr (Restore the neutral version, to which NO objections have been made)
 * 8) (cur) (last) 08:43, 2 Dec 2004 Viriditas m (Reverted edits by HistoryBuffEr to last version by Wk muriithi. Please propose major changes in talk.)
 * 9) (cur) (last) 08:35, 2 Dec 2004 HistoryBuffEr (The more neutral bio is back, post objections in Talk (haven't seen any yet))

While his previous blocking appears to have been a mistake, this looks to me like 4 reverts in 24 hours, and is quite provocative given the recent RfC against Quadell. What do you think? Jayjg 16:22, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Blocking of HistoryBuffEr
Greetings. HistoryBuffEr has violated the 3RR (again), and I have just blocked him. I left a detailed note on his talk page here explaining my action.

The last time I blocked him, he was very upset. I was mistaken in my time frame in that instance, thinking he had reverted four times in 24 hours when he had only reverted four times in 26 hours, and I had to back down and apologize. Still, he launched an invalid RfC against me, which was, in my opinion, an attempt to punish me. He then disendorsed many of the Arbitor candidates who endorsed my summary on the RfC, which seemed to me as a way of punishing them as well.

I am quite sure the blocking this time was appropriate – I dotted all my i's and crossed all my t's. But I suspect he will be no less upset. I'm asking you to keep an eye on the situation. If he acts in a vindictive way, I ask that you support me, if you feel this is deserved. – Quadell (talk) (help)  16:56, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Clit Wars Episode CLXVIII
Hi, I hope you and violetriga can agree amicably on what kind of protection this is going to be. It's somewhat disturbing to me to see this kind of argument going on. What on earth is it about the images on the Clitoris page that arouse so much disagreement? --[[User:Tony Sidaway|Tony Sidaway|Talk]] 17:01, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Request for Assistance
Hello again. HistoryBuffer is under a 24 hour block for violating the 3RR. He has continued to edit while not logged on, signing his name to these edits.

According to User:UninvitedCompany: "The usual procedure regarding blocks in general in the past, has been that evading the block results in: the time period for the block beginning anew, any contributions made in evasion of the block being reverted, blocking any IPs used to evade the block, blocking any new identities used to evade the block."

HistoryBuffEr has now filed a Request for Arbitration against me, while still under this block. I feel it would be inappropriate of me to roll back this change, since it involves me, but I would appreciate it if another sysop would do this for me.

Thanks,   – Quadell (talk) (help)   21:27, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Update: Someone else already did this. Thanks anyway! – Quadell (talk) (help)  21:43, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

FamilyFord car4less, Goldberg, 131.107.71.94
Aloha. User:FamilyFord car4less, an alleged sock puppet of HistoryBuffEr, has reverted the Yasser Arafat page to HistoryBuffEr's version at least five times in 24 hours. He is also posting from User:Goldberg, and User:131.107.71.94. Thank you in advance for any help you can offer. I have posted a warning on the users talk page. The page has been reverted a total of nine times in 24 hours by HistoryBuffEr's sock puppets. Evidence follows this sig. --Viriditas 02:51, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * 02:45, 4 Dec 2004 131.107.71.94 (rv sock puppet vandal Slimey/Viriditas/Jewbacca=same jerk, different alias)
 * 00:53, 4 Dec 2004 FamilyFord car4less (rv sock puppet vandal Slimey/Viriditas/Jewbacca=same jerk, different alias)
 * 00:47, 4 Dec 2004 FamilyFord car4less (rv sock puppet vandal Slimey/Viriditas)
 * 00:33, 4 Dec 2004 FamilyFord car4less (Viriditas vandalism)
 * 00:09, 4 Dec 2004 FamilyFord car4less (rv Slimey vandalism)
 * 00:00, 4 Dec 2004 FamilyFord car4less (this is one is more neutral)
 * 18:31, 3 Dec 2004 Goldberg (rm jewbacca's wholesale vandalism)
 * 17:46, 3 Dec 2004 Goldberg (npov version - remove anti-semitic version)
 * 06:41, 3 Dec 2004 HistoryBuffEr (Even better; a real NPOV version (with no objections about it))
 * Thank you for your prompt attention. --Viriditas 07:28, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Well, I could use your informed opinion on Talk:Quadell right now. Ambi unblocked HistoryBuffEr.  See my response on Quadell's talk page.  HistoryBuffEr should still be blocked. --Viriditas 08:05, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I noted this on Quadell's talk page as well, but I thought I'd better apologise here as well - on a second glance, it appears that the mistake was mine. I don't know how I missed this. Ambi 08:26, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

New admin here, please keep me informed. Can admins check for sockpuppetry or is that solely a developer thingy? [[User:MacGyverMagic|Mgm|(talk)]] 19:46, Dec 4, 2004 (UTC)

Note about your recent actions
Hello, Ta bu shi da yu. I used to consider you evenhanded, but your actions lately have become clearly biased:
 * You supported Quadell's unjustified block and even blocked HistoryBuffEr without a valid cause. Your opinion that a revert+edit is a revert is just your unsubstantiated opinion, see:
 * 3RR Policy discussion "When is a revert not a revert? When it is: A revert+edit.:
 * Two other sysops, Mirv and Ambi, disagreed with blocking in this specific case.
 * And even Jayjg disagrees with your opinion, see

 * A few days ago, you also supported the previous invalid block by Quadell, which even Quadell admitted was wrong.
 * And, you have now joined another drive against HistoryBuffEr, by adding evidence to RFAr, which you claim shows HistoryBuffEr's violation of 3RR. But the case you cited is actually already listed there as evidence of a clear violation of 3RR by Jayjg . Interestingly, you also failed to characterize the much more numerous reverts by Jayjg  as violations of 3RR.

It is evident that your actions are biased. I understand your displeasure since my disendorsement of you (and anyone else who supported rule breaking) for the AC, but the cause of your animosity before that is unclear. I would welcome your explanation. Also, I'd appreciate it if you could refrain from questionable actions until further discussion.

Thanks, HistoryBuffEr 04:04, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)

Response by Ta bu shi da yu
Firstly, you did violate the 3RR. You may not edit an old copy of a page and then add new material and expect that we won't call it a revert. Second, I have readded your material. Evidently those who reverted you didn't see the changes to the biography. I can see why, because you'd been reverting them continuously over a period of several days. Thirdly, whether you disendorsed me or not I couldn't give a damn as I've withdrawn from the arbitration vote anyway. Fourthy, provide evidence of Ambi and Mirv not supporting the second block please. Ambi did actually did finally support the block. See on Quadell's page. So that's two admins who agree with Quadell's second decision. Fifthly, I have provided evidence on your arbcom evidence page that details how you do use the edit summary to engage in discussion. This needs to stop immediately and you need to immediately start using the talk pages to justify your edits. Sixthly, the edit you gave me is for 15:56, 24 Oct 2004, however the edits that caused you to be blocked are:

 * 18:35, 2 Dec 2004
 * You revert. You lose Wk murithi's wikifications. You do not put them back.
 * 18:43, 2 Dec 2004
 * Viriditas reverts to Wk murithi's changes. Edit summary: "Reverted edits by HistoryBuffEr to last version by Wk muriithi. Please propose major changes in talk."
 * 18:59, 2 Dec 2004
 * You revert again. You again lose wikification changes by Wk muriithi. Your edit summary is "Restore the neutral version, to which NO objections have been made".
 * 16:15, 3 Dec 2004
 * You do a simultaneous revert and update of the section "early years". (see the following comparison of his old revert and his new revert/edit: ) This is most certainly still a revert. I posit that the edit summary is misleading as it says "Updated neutral bio (still no objections in Talk)". There is no mention that you have edited the page from an old copy of the page.
 * 16:46, 3 Dec 2004
 * You revert to your bio change version. Your edit summary is "The NPOV version with no objections to it replaces the POV hagiography" yet it still contains the non-neutral sentence "even though Israel was ultimately defeated and its image of invincibility was destroyed forever by this war" You have not discussed this edit!

This is 4 reverts under 24 hours. You get blocked for violation of the 3RR.

With regards to Jayjg, some of the reverts I see aren't good, very true. However, some of the reverts I saw were reverts where several users were reverting yourself because you refused to use the talk page correctly. I can't see why it was so hard to use it to detail the reasons your edits should stay! But it's a good point that Jayjg has been reverting too much also. You'll note I didn't block your originally, I simply enforced the block that is already in place.

I am going to place a note on Jayjg's page asking him to pursue a different course of action next time he feels the urge to revert more than three times. I suggest you also to also take a different course of action next time you feel like reverting. My advise for you is to: use the talk page to explain detailed changes. Don't rely on the edit summary to explain changes. That's not the purpose of this. Try to come a compromise on contentious issues. Put up an RFC or request for page protection if revert wars are ongoing. Stop making personal attacks and giving warnings (I've seen you do this a few times). Stop reverting!!!!

HTH. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:27, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Oh, P.S. The edit you gave me (""When is a revert not a revert? When it is: A revert+edit.") for the 3RR page is part of "Arguments in opposition" of a proposed amendment by Eloquence, added on March 14. This is not part of the 3RR policy. - Ta bu shi da yu 07:34, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Response by HistoryBuffEr
Hi Ta bu shi da yu, glad to hear that you will try to be evenhanded as you were in the past.
 * As shown in my examples, a number of sysops (Martin, Mirv, Jayjg ...) disagree that a revert+edit is a revert, so there is no consensus that a revert+edit is a revert.
 * The example from the 3RR Policy discussion is the only one I found that specifically talks about it.
 * The evidence that Mirv disagreed is here
 * The evidence that Ambi disagreed is here. Ambi did change position on this, but only because Viriditas caused confusion by wild interpretations and claims of sock-puppetry.
 * I've shown one example (which you seem to have misunderstood under your "sixthly" above) of Jayjg claiming that his revert+edit posts were not reverts. There are more examples, let me know if you need them.

 * It would be a good idea to discuss and clear up this issue on the 3RR policy page.
 * Until then, it would be probably best to avoid broad interpretations like yours, because if the consensus reached contradicts your view, many users could have been unjustly blocked in the meantime.
 * I agree that users should not be able to avoid 3RR by "sneaky" edits. See for examples of Jayjg doing just that.
 * However, that is not what happened in my case! I edited after 2 posts, not after 3, which is what Jayjg usually does to avoid the 3RR vio. Besides, I did not even intend to make the 4th post (see ). All this suggests that I was not playing games around 3RR, and that is why your block was doubly unfair.

 * As for justifying edits, if you check articles I edited you'll find plenty of my posts in Talk initiating discussion of objections and posting info, and very few by Jayjg, possibly none -- he usually only replies and rarely posts anything other than "post your objections". Yet, somehow, you never criticized Jayjg, or any of his POV troops who behave identically, for that.
 * Lastly, Wolfman's opinion from Quadell's RfC sounds very reasonable to me:
 * "While blocking for the 3 RR rule is now policy, I would be glad to see considerable restraint used. There's not much harm caused by an extra revert now and then, Wikipedia's not going to fall apart.  There is however considerable potential harm in overzealous blocking.... Wolfman 01:27, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)"

I believe that you can be fair and agree that your decision was not the best solution considering the evidence.

HistoryBuffEr 20:58, 2004 Dec 5 (UTC)

P.S: Can I ask you for a favor? SlimVirgin placed on user page of User:FamilyFord_car4less this text:
 * "Presumed sockpuppet for HistoryBuffEr"

This statement is false and a personal attack. I asked SlimVirgin to remove it, but SlimVirgin simply deleted my request 3 times (revert 1, revert 2, revert 3), without removing that offensive comment. I know I can edit the page myself but would prefer not to as it may be interpreted that I want to hide something. Could you please ask SlimVirgin to remove that unwarranted smear from User:FamilyFord_car4less? Thanks.

Abdel Qadir on Binational solution

 * 1) (cur) (last)  04:56, 5 Dec 2004 Abdel Qadir (Arabs demography is a crises only for Jews)
 * 2) (cur) (last) 04:50, 5 Dec 2004 Jayjg (Abdel Qadir, you have already violated the 3 Revert rule, please do not revert again)
 * 3) (cur) (last) 04:44, 5 Dec 2004 Abdel Qadir (Jews groups are already killing Arabs to make Israel. Please see Talk)
 * 4) (cur) (last) 04:25, 5 Dec 2004 Jayjg (No Israeli group has proposed this; please see Talk:)
 * 5) (cur) (last) 04:23, 5 Dec 2004 Abdel Qadir (Balance correction)
 * 6) (cur) (last) 00:06, 5 Dec 2004 128.120.185.31
 * 7) (cur) (last) 23:46, 4 Dec 2004 Abdel Qadir ("One man" is spiritual leader of Israel Shas Party. Many Israelis call for "Kill the Arabs" and everyday they do.)
 * 8) (cur) (last) 23:20, 4 Dec 2004 128.120.185.31 (one man's dubious statements vs, wide spread statements about genocide on the Arab side does not constitute proof that the "extreme" Right seriously considers genocide.)
 * 9) (cur) (last) 23:05, 4 Dec 2004 128.120.185.31 (POV of Arab World territories occupied. Disputed NPOV this is a compromise)
 * 10) (cur) (last) 17:24, 4 Dec 2004 Abdel Qadir (Evidence is on Discussion page "Kill the Arabs")

How about this case? Also, can an admin involved in the dispute enforce the block? Jayjg 05:03, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A plea and a warning

 * Ta bu shi da yu, I hope you don't mind me butting in regarding the message you left for Jayjg. While I agree that asking for page protection is almost always preferable to a revert war, the reverts made by HistoryBuffEr are, in many instances, acts of vandalism where, as I understand it, the 3RR rule does not apply. For example, in Yasser Arafat, HistoryBuffEr, in reverting, was deleting large amounts of perfectly factual, well-referenced material. In placing a lock on such pages because of vandalism, it means the article cannot be developed by genuine editors. While I would agree with what you wrote 99 per cent of the time, HistoryBuffEr is, in my view, a vandal pure and simple, and reverting his vandalism should therefore not count against any other editor. Just my opinion, and I hope you don't mind me expressing it. Slim 08:17, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Yes, it does address my concerns. Thank you for the reply. Slim 08:28, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)
 * Ta bu shi da yu, you wrote that I wouldn't see you disagree with the concerns I expressed regarding HistoryBuffEr, and now I've seen you do precisely that. :-) You wrote to Fred that HistorBuffEr has valuable contributions to make and that his POV disputes have not been vandalism. Regarding Yasser Arafat, I have to tell you that you are quite wrong, in my view. In the time I have been editing this article, HistoryBuffEr has not made a single encyclopedic contribution, POV or NPOV. What I mean by that is that he has not provided a single piece of information. All he has done is delete large sections of facts, which were properly referenced to academic books and explained in historical context. He has been personally abusive to at least four other editors, and has used several sockpuppets. I have yet to see a single factual contribution from him, whether it's one I agree with or disagree with. Jayjg has been extremely patient and civil in the face of it. It's absurd to draw any kind of comparison between these two editors. Slim 23:54, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse/pictures suppressed
Do you disagree with this? It uses the real article as a template and censors images by inserting "-5px" into image tags marked with the parameter. This causes images in the censored version to error out. Without parameters set this does nothing in the real article: red-link templates for "suppress image" are thrown out by the image tag parser. The censored version therefore has the same content as Abu Ghraib prisoner abuse and does not fork the article. Cool Hand Luke  09:20, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * On an unrelated note, you're telling me that these people exist? If so, I'd reinstate them and change my vote. Cool Hand Luke  09:42, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * As far as I know, it's never been done before, which is why I'm rather proud of it. It's kinda tenuous because it relies on an apparent bug in image tag parsing. Perhaps we should just ask them to develop this kind of thing as a general (and less hacker-like) solution. I don't think this should be done for all (or even many) such pages, but this one is uniques for the volume of pictures involved. Cool Hand Luke  09:52, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I have only gone on the IRC channel once when the Wikipedia was down. I think something like this would actually help resolve (or at least bring to a simmer) a lot of our silly wars. We could create a new image tag option that, when present, would make the server generate a header saying something like "some readers might find images in this article offensive and may prefer _". Maybe make the message and prominence thereof customizable on subpages of the article. Perhaps even offer a way to comment out passages or offer alternative passages. In all cases though, the uncensored version should be the default. I really ought to be going to bed now though. It's much much too late. Cool Hand Luke  10:10, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Martin Kramer
Hi. Like many others, I sometimes spot check new articles. That one read like text written for a non-Wikipedia context, and a quick google found the source, so I listed it on WP:CP. Thanks for taking care of it. Best wishes, -- Infrogmation 19:29, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Re: 30 day block
Hi, I've responded on my page. Jayjg 23:50, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I've responded again. Jayjg 01:38, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Regarding sock puppets and HistoryBuffEr
Aloha. I just wanted to respond to your comment on my talk page regarding HistoryBuffEr. Are you aware that he has lied about his identity in the past? For evidence of this lying, please see this link. Let me know what you think. Is his word still "good enough for you" after reading that? Personally, when I discover that someone has been lying, I have trouble trusting them after that point, unless they have apologized and they have expressed sincere remorse. HistoryBuffEr has never apologized for his policy-violating behavior at any time, nor does he seem capable of doing so in the future. Read his responses to his arbitration case. According to HistoryBuffEr, everyone except him has a problem. However, I'm sure that you and I would agree that nobody is perfect, and everybody makes mistakes. Yet, according to HistoryBuffEr, he has never done anything wrong, even when he lied about his identity. With that said, how can you trust him when he denies using a sock puppet? The only way we can know with any certainty (and even not then) is if we have a developer check the IP's of the socks in question. Otherwise, I have no reason to believe him, however, I am willing to admit that it may not be him. --Viriditas 01:28, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * In response to your reply, I have a question: Is it reasonable to assume good faith about a user's identity when that user may have lied about their identity in the past? I cannot see the answer being yes, in any case.  Skepticism is certainly called for here, and it does appear that HistoryBuffEr lied about his identity when he claimed he was not a registered user while posting using his IP address, when in fact, he was a registered user.  I think it's hardly coincidental (see occam's razor) that this "unregistered user" happened to be editing the same pages and topics as HistoryBuffEr. --Viriditas 01:57, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Request for page protection
As you were saying editors should ask for page protection before getting into a revert war, could I ask you to protect Schiller Institute? A Lyndon LaRouche activist has just reverted to a previous edit, thereby removing large amounts of information and references. This article had been stable for some time after a previous revert war, which I would not like to see started up again. I would appreciate it if you could protect my (SlimVirgin) last edit. Many thanks, Slim 02:02, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Re Viriditas repeated slander
Hi Ta bu shi da yu.

Thanks, I've replied to your Arb proposal on my page.

Another issue is the Viriditas post above. I have promised not to reply to Viriditas because of his previous smears in the RFAr page, see,   and.

His new charges are more of the same, and he is asking for sanctions because he is again lying while accusing me of all sorts of things.

Just to see how far Viriditas has gone, check his claim of "proven" sock-puppets. You'll see, for example, that I made posts without logging on yesterday, only to object to the block, because I could not post while logged on. I signed all those posts with my user-id. A signed post is, of course, not "sock puppet" because there is no hiding involved, contrary to what Viriditas dishonestly claims. HistoryBuffEr 02:39, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)

Update:

I have removed the slander posted by SlimVirgin on the User:FamilyFord_car4less page. Your temp fix was OK, but because there is no evidence it makes no sense to keep my user-id there at all. Just like with any other edit, posting my user-id needs to be substantiated by those who would like to put it there. HistoryBuffEr 04:42, 2004 Dec 6 (UTC)
 * Contrary to what you claim, I have asked others to see this link where you claim not to be a registered user on Wikipedia. Are you still maintaining that you were not already a registered user on Wikipedia when you wrote that comment?  If so, then you were posting as a sock puppet since you had already been registered for more than two weeks.  Of course, I notice that you have avoided addressing this issue.     --Viriditas 04:59, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * FYI...I have changed the arbitration page to reflect HB's contention that 4.232.123.136 was not a sock puppet. He is correct on that point, and I have moved it to the section Other IP Addresses.  However, the original claim still stands.   66.93.166.174 was used as a sock puppet and is classified as such. --Viriditas 06:48, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Per your excellent suggestion, I have begun to add evidence for sock puppetry by HistoryBuffEr. Note, this is a work in progress. --Viriditas 07:19, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ariel Sharon article
When you have a chance, do you think you could address my comments of a couple of days ago on Talk:Ariel Sharon? Thanks. Jayjg 04:59, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Schiller Institute
Thank you, Ta bu shi da yu. Regarding references, I have added them to the section of the article I have written, and I've asked the LaRouche supporters to supply references to the parts they have written. This is, in part, what the dispute is about. They don't want to add references, and they don't want to see my references in the article. Slim 07:24, Dec 6, 2004 (UTC)

Your vi macros are broken :-)
Hi; I note you did Osama bin Laden Fatwa on Wikisource; but note that there were lots of cases where the first 2 letters of a link were missing. I've fixed some (see diff). Evercat 21:38, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The issue is just what I've noted above. I've not actually used your macros, it just seemed likely that it was they that were to blame... Evercat 22:17, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about this, Ta bu shi da yu. Tim Ivorson 23:03, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Libertarianism in Australia
I don't know anything about it, not being Australian, but the best-informed comment I've found is this one, which actually cites sources. As to the anon, if Chuck has described the Liberal Democratic Party's politics correctly, it's completely accurate to describe them as capitalist. RadicalSubversiv E 22:22, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

SirAglet
Since I mostly work on content but don't concern myself with fighting vandalism, but since you seem to do a lot of that, I thought I'd hand this one over to you. Read the notices on User:SirAglet and User talk:SirAglet and you'll see what the problem is. All this user's edits on December 7 have been vandalism (see for example, , and ) (which I've reverted), but because of the nature of this situation, we can always expect more vandalism from this account. Should this situation call for a permanent ban of this account? Also, earlier edits from this account need to be checked for accuracy. Let me know on my talk what ends up happening. Thanks. —Lowellian (talk)  07:02, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the quick response. I've added a notice to User:SirAglet's user and talk page so that others will be made aware of this. —Lowellian (talk)  07:23, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Huh? Despite being an sysop for over six months now, I have never blocked anyone, so I'm not really familiar with the details of the process, but surely the software must allow us to block a username without blocking the IP addresses behind it, right? —Lowellian (talk)  07:45, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Okay, great. Well done. —Lowellian (talk)  08:01, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Sock-Puppet Ta Bu?
HistoryBuffEr, er Ta Bu, that was funny. It was lame of them to use speculations as proven evidence, it just shows they have no solid evidence.

I have posted some examples what Jayjg calls "lesser degree of incivility" of RK, at. Then compare RK's 4 month ban to the 2 month ban for me.

HistoryBuffEr 07:50, 2004 Dec 7 (UTC)

P.S: I hope you don't mind me shortening your name to Ta Bu, I am getting used to a new keyboard.

 * It's not "speculation". You admitted posting as 66.93.166.174 when you wrote: You'll see, for example, that I made posts without logging on yesterday, only to object to the block, because I could not post while logged on. I signed all those posts with my user-id...      --Viriditas 10:39, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Regarding your proposed merge
Aloha. I noticed that you proposed merging Trivial objections with Fallacy of many questions. This is incorrect as they are two different fallacies. On November 28, User:KayEss asked you to explain your proposed merge on Talk:Fallacy of many questions, but you haven't responded. Assuming good faith, I suspected you did not add this page to your watchlist. I didn't even know about your proposed merge until today; perhaps you forgot to tell me about it? A little common courtesy can go a long way, especially when two editors are familiar with each other. --Viriditas 10:44, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I forgot to add it to my watchlist. I have now checked "Add pages you edit to your watchlist", although this function doesn't satisfy my needs as I don't want hundreds of pages on my watchlist.  What I would like is an alternate setting like, Add pages you create to your watchlist.  Do you think anyone else would appreciate that kind of feature? --Viriditas 10:54, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * I now have approximately 700 pages on my watchlist, and it's hard to get any new work done. OTOH, I'm usually the first to find vandalism on many rarely read pages. Jayjg 17:51, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Regarding arbitration policy
''Once the hearing has begun, the Arbitrators will deliberate the case. If the deliberations are made public, then outside commentary on the deliberations is discouraged until such time after the hearing has ceased that the Arbitrators define as the period for public commentary on the deliberations''. I think this mean you should move your comments (and my replies) to the discussion page. What do you think? I've just reviewed the arbitration cases on the docket, and none of them allow discussions during deliberation. Discussion is allowed by arbitrators, however. I am going to move your comments to the discussion page under the appropriate title. If you think your comments belong on the proposed decision project page, could you please get permission from the arbitrators before adding them to the page? --Viriditas 12:03, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your understanding. I was worried that other people might start adding their comments to the project page, too. --Viriditas 12:06, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your comments are welcome on the talk pages of an arbitration case as your evidence is on the evidence page. You are not permitted to edit the proposed decision either before or after the case is decided. Fred Bauder 13:04, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

Yasser Arafat
Hi Ta bu shi da yu, just to let you know that the sockpuppets have started reverting Yasser Arafat again, which was unprotected yesterday. It might be possible for one of the developers to determine whether this is HistoryBuffEr. I've been told that Tim Starling is the person who handles that kind of query, or who would know who to direct you to. The sockpuppets are Goldberg, Family Ford car4less, and IP address 131.107.71.94, which is registered in Redmond, Washington to the Microsoft Corp. At least if you had some firm information, you'd know whether you were backing the right horse, if I can put it that way. Hope this helps. Slim 17:40, Dec 7, 2004 (UTC)

 * hey. thats not me! I'm Irishpunktom in an alter ego --195.7.55.146 09:34, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * It is actually impossible to get consensus on YAssir Arafat. Everything Jayjg dislikes, regardless of it's factual content, is removed. It's a disgrace that someone like  Jayjg, who has an extreme POV on a subject is allowed to dictate the course of an article at the expense of the truth.  I will not revert it back, but I would encourage Jayjg to leave it alone. --195.7.55.146 09:42, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Request for expansion
I haven't heard anything about the issue up until now, and I'm going to be away until Sunday. Still, once I get back I'll see what I can do to help. :) Ambi 21:01, 7 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Human rights
Okay I'll take a look later today. Hopefully we can work this out. Very Verily 01:20, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * I added comments on your comments on the draft on Talk. Do what you wish with that other Talk section; I suppose deleting Talk is generally bad form, but that section makes neither of us look good.  Perhaps stuff it into an archive, or replace it with a diff link?  Well, I don't really care. Very Verily  08:58, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing
Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:
 * Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
 * Multi-Licensing Guide
 * Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the " " template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

 * Option 1
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

OR
 * Option 2
 * I agree to multi-license all my contributions to any U.S. state, county, or city article as described below:

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace " " with "  ". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk) 18:26, Dec 8, 2004 (UTC)

Block request?
Alberuni has reverted Yasser Arafat four times in under 25 hours (24 hours and 5 minutes). Does this qualify for blocking? Thanks for your help. --Viriditas 09:38, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * 04:37, 9 Dec 2004 Alberuni (rv, This version is much cleaner than the dirty Zionist POV version)
 * 02:18, 9 Dec 2004 Alberuni (rv sockpuppet vandal, go enjoy your holiday)
 * 01:17, 9 Dec 2004 Alberuni (revert to Goldberg NPOV version)
 * 04:32, 8 Dec 2004 Alberuni (rv to Goldberg version. Why should anyone listen to your demands to use Talk page Jayjg when you refuse to use Talk page to explain your redirect of Zionist Revisionism?)

Thanks
You know, on reflection I was a little ungracious when we first met and I didn't thank you for taking the time to dig out the policy on speedy deletions for me. I saw your name in passing and it reminded me that I hadn't apologised for my abruptness.Dr Zen 03:34, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Re: What the hell does silsor think he's doing
You were spamming and had been politely asked to stop by others. Spam is spam so I blocked you for five minutes. silsor 04:01, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

 * To Silsor: Ta bu made an innocent error that I am sure he will not repeat. He did it in good faith and it is good to see an admin at least making the effort to consult on the appropriateness of an action with other admins. However, your block (even for five minutes) was inappropriate. Ta bu was not engaging in vandalism and editors acting in good faith are not to be treated as bad little children to be put in "time out." To Ta bu: In the future I guess you will know to ask select other admins for an opinion, not everyone. You can ask me any time. The worst is I won't answer. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 04:33, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Select admins
By "select" admins, I don't mean that you ask people you think will agree with you. I mean you ask a rnadom selection of maybe a half-dozen admins that have been around for a while and likely to be able to answer your question. Asking everybody is just not practical or nice, especially since you might have a lot of questions. There are talk pages and the mailing list. -- Cecropia | explains it all ®

I'm sorry if you felt my comment above was overly harsh. However, a lot of people were offended by your actions and I don't apologize for pointing out that this was inappropriate. I don't understand why you think I am the only admin to comment on it considering the number of replies above, many of which are from admins. Asking for a comment on a VfD listing is completely suitable for the mailing list and I don't believe asking for comments on the matter is necessarily about policy-forming, which is, or perhaps was, done on the mailing list anyway. Angela. 04:47, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Administrator's bulletinboard
I should clarify that I wasn't that annoyed with it myself. I actually thought you were messaging me because I was involved in the talk discussion to keep these RfCs and added the box to one of them. Messaging people personally gives them a strong inclination to respond, so sending everyone a message is a bit manipulative.

At any rate, I imagine that announcement on the community pump and other means should be able to get the word out reasonably well. I'm not sure, however, that we have any special authority. Our voice is as valuable as anyone elses; we just have more privledges. I would certainly watch such a messageboard though. Cool Hand Luke  05:21, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Your RfC on Yourself
I don't believe it is appropriate to bring an RfC against yourself. The appropriate RfC would be against User:Silsor for blocking you. However, unless he says he would do it again (or does it again) I would call the RfC bound to fail.

I understand there are a lot of ruffled feathers here, but you acted in good faith (IMO) but what you did was not a great idea. Just imagine if all admins did that every time they had a question. Silsor's action was inappropriate (also IMO) but I don't know he would be inclined to repeat it.

However, I think the appropriate thing right now is to remove your RfC, and let everyone cool off with a virtual hug in the spirit of Wikilove. This is a tempest in a teapot. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 05:24, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Well, since I said I thought you should drop the RfC, I think you should drop the RfC. ;-) As to publicizing your Administrator's notice board, you can put it in Wikipedia talk:Administrators and Wikipedia talk:Requests_for_adminship. You could also mention it at the village pump. I think another mass mailing would not get a nice reaction. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 05:40, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * Seconded. You an silsor seem to be escalating hostilities. Just take a short break, please. Don't reply to the last comment on his talk page, just take a break. I look forward to the board. Cool Hand Luke  05:44, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Upsetness
Yes, I do think it's understandable. But try to see it from his pov. The mailout upset him and he reacted maybe a little too strongly. Everything got a bit heated. If you give it some air, it will quickly dwindle to nothing. That would be best for all. I know you want to feel vindicated. I understand the feeling and I sympathise, but it won't help to carry on a huge fight over it.Dr Zen 06:20, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

24.108.245.56
Anonymous user 24.108.245.56 with two edits (both edits to Alberuni contribs) just reverted to the version by anonymous user 195.7.55.146 and added a few minor changes, hence it was a revert and an update. Please block both users (as they are probably Alberuni sock puppets) and please protect Yasser Arafat. --Viriditas 12:26, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Heh. Now that I think about it, who do we know that makes reverts and updates in the same edit? --Viriditas 12:42, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

WP:AN
I stuck it on Village Pump (news), too. I never go near the mailing list, personally. Filiocht 13:34, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

Question
Posted on User_talk:Netoholic

I've been meaning to ask somebody this, and I figure you may know: is there any for an admin to view the last active IP of a non-anon user? Many thanks. -- ClockworkSoul 23:04, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * No, only a system administrator (Tim Starling comes to mind) can find that out. -- Netoholic @ 00:38, 2004 Dec 10 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. Thanks. -- ClockworkSoul 22:17, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

 * CWS, why do you need to know? - Ta bu shi da yu 02:25, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * In reading recent accusations of sockpupperty and watching recent vandals rotating usernames, it seemed to me that the ability to cross-reference IP addresses would render the former moot, and the latter somewhat easier to deal with. -- ClockworkSoul 22:17, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * tell me about it. I said the same to Viriditas! - Ta bu shi da yu 22:21, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * However, if the users in question are using anonymous proxies, I'm not sure how these utilities will help. I actually have a way of correlating such users (mostly as a heuristic), but I need to work on it a bit more. --Viriditas 22:49, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Do you think its worth it for us to propose that administrators get the ability to see the source IP address of an edit, in addition to the author? I can't think of any major security issues, especially if it's only admin that can see them. -- ClockworkSoul 22:25, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Absolutely! That would solve many sock-puppet issues. - Ta bu shi da yu 22:26, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Would you like to write survey, or shall I? :) -- ClockworkSoul 22:30, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, such a proposal will not currently solve any sock-puppet issues if the users in question are editing from a secure browser (java disabled) and using an anon proxy. IIRC (and I could be mistaken), the only way to solve this problem is to ban open proxies.  Many IRC servers have implemented this solution, but I believe there are ways around it, depending on the type of proxy. --Viriditas 22:56, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Image copyrights
Hi! Thanks for uploading Image:PDcapture2.jpg, Image:PDcapture3.jpg, Image:PDcapture5.jpg, Image:PDcapture6.jpg and Image:PDcapture4.jpg. I notice they currently don't have image copyright tags. Could you add one to let us know its copyright status? (You can use if you release it under the GFDL, or  if you claim fair use, etc.) If you don't know what any of this means, just let me know where you got the images and I'll tag them for you. Thanks so much,   — Edwin Stearns | Talk 22:21, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

"All adminstrators"
Thought you might find that a bit amusing. ;) [[User:Neutrality|Neutrality/talk]] 22:42, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

title: User talk:Ta bu shi da yu/Archive8


text:
Pseudolite

Pseudolite is a contraction of the term "pseudo-satellite," used to refer to something that is not a satellite which performs a function commonly in the domain of satellites. Pseudolites are most often small transceivers that are used to create a local, ground-based Global Positioning System (GPS) alternative. The range of each transceiver's signal is dependent on the power available to the unit.

Being able to deploy one's own positioning system, independent of the GPS, can be useful in situations where the normal GPS signals are either blocked/jammed (military conflicts), or simply not available (exploration of other planets). Pseudolites are normally used to augment the GPS by improving dilution of precision (DOP). Or pseudolites are also used to implement GPS-like indoor location systems, where pseudolites are acting as GPS satellites. Pseudolites use cheap voltage controlled oscillator, so pseudolite based location system shall provide a methodology to compensate clock differences among pseudolites.

For planetary exploration, research being conducted at facilities including NASA's Ames Research Center and Stanford University (see link at bottom) may allow a rover to deploy an array of pseudolites with no particular accuracy and still calibrate the system to centimeter-level resolution without human assistance. This would aid a rover's path-finding routines and increase the safe maneuvering speed of the unassisted vehicle. The concept is sometimes referred to as a Self-Calibrating Pseudolite Array (SCPA).

Other applications of pseudolite arrays include precision approach landing systems for aircraft and highly accurate tracking of transponders.

Pseudolites have started to gain more and more attention in the context of indoor location.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Pseudolite


text: User:Jeandré du Toit/Copyrights

title: User:Jeandré du Toit/Copyrights


text:
Sibuyan Island

Sibuyan is a crescent-shaped island, the second largest in an archipelago comprising Romblon Province, Philippines. Located in the namesake Sibuyan Sea, it has an area of 445 km2 and has a total population of 62,815, as of the 2020 census. The island has two prominent peaks, the highest is Mount Guiting-Guiting, with an elevation of 2058 m, followed by Mount Nailog, which is 789 m high. The people speak the Sibuyanon dialect of Romblomanon, a Visayan language.

Sibuyan has been dubbed by some local and international natural scientists as "the Galápagos of Asia", because it has remained in isolation from the rest of the world since its formation. Never in its geological history has it ever been connected with any part of the Philippine archipelago. Seismic forces pushed up a 2000 m peak from the Earth's crust, forming a series of smaller peaks and slopes. The peak is Mount Guiting-Guiting (literally means "the saw-toothed mountain", in reference to its jagged ridge). Because of the steep slopes, much of its original forest remains untouched, and the rest is the island as we find it today.

Primary forests cover 140 km2, which is 33% of the land area of Sibuyan. However, most of the lower altitude forest has been logged or is secondary. Mount Guiting-guiting Natural Park (equivalent to the IUCN category of National Park) was established to protect these forests, which are mainly in the centre and north of the island, and covers an area of 157 km2 out of Sibuyan's total area of 445 km2. The park features a scenic landscape with twin towering peaks set amidst closed canopy forests. Its forests remain largely intact, and include the entire elevational gradient from lowland dipterocarp forest (at 200 to 900 m) and mangroves, through montane forest (above 700 m) to mossy forest, heathland and montane grassland around the peaks.

Political subdivision

The island is divided into three municipalities: Cajidiocan, Magdiwang, and San Fernando.

Biodiversity

Sibuyan has a rich biodiversity of flora and fauna. Exact figures on numbers of total plant species are hard to give, as biologists stumble upon species yet unidentified by the scientific community. In one study, the National Museum identified 1,551 trees in a single hectare, with 123 species of trees, and of this number, 54 are found nowhere else in the world. Hence, it has been proclaimed as one of the world's most diverse and dense forests. There are estimated to be 700 vascular plant species on the island. Nepenthes sibuyanensis, a pitcher plant species, is also endemic as its scientific name suggests. There are 131 species of birds and ten species of fruit bats, and many dwelling mammals, reptiles, and rodents yet to be fully catalogued. Three birds subspecies are endemic to Sibuyan: the Philippine hanging parrot (Loriculus philippensis bournsi), the Philippine Pygmy-woodpecker (Dendrocopos maculatus menagei), and the Orange-bellied Flowerpecker (Dicaeum trigonostigma sibuyanicum), all of which were recorded there in the early 1990s. Five species of threatened mammals, one fruit bat and four rodents, are endemic to Sibuyan, and the endangered fruit bat Nyctimene rabori occurs there.

An unspoiled ecosystem
Sibuyan Island has been said to be one of the most unspoiled ecosystems in the Philippines and the world. The water of the Cantingas River as well as most of the other smaller rivers and rivulets on the island was tested to be one of the best water quality for human consumption worldwide. The drinking water of Sibuyanons come direct and untreated from rivers, springs and holes drilled at mountain slopes or from the ground.

Mining activities
Mining operations in Sibuyan have started since 2005, when a barangay of San Fernando endorsed mining projects in their area, believing that this will create jobs for residents, although exploration of the area began as early as 1972. On October 3, 2007, Romblon town councilor Armin Marin was shot dead during an anti-mining protest against the operations of mining company Sibuyan Nickel Properties Development Corp. when a confrontation erupted between protesters and the firm's security guards.

The Sibuyanons Against Mining advocacy group, with the Sibuyan Island Sentinels League for Environment Inc. (Sibuyan ISLE) has been fighting for the conservation and protection of the island against mining activities considering its vast impact on the ecology, culture and society of the island.

2023 Altai Philippines Mining Corporation protest
In December 2022, the government issued a mineral ore export permit to the Altai Philippines Mining Corporation (APMC), allowing the company to bulk test 50,000 metric tons of ore. In January 2023, Sibuyan residents set up a barricade to protest APMC operations, saying the extraction of nickel ore will disrupt the island's intact ecosystems. On February 3, 2023, according to the environmental advocacy organization Alyansa Tigil Mina (ATM), protesters formed a human barricade intended to stop APMC trucks carrying nickel ore from leaving the San Fernando port, but the trucks forced their way through the barricade. This prompted 30 policemen to intervene and disperse the residents.

On February 4, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) served a notice to APMC stating that the company was found to be "constructing/operating a causeway project without an approved environmental compliance certificate". Two days later the company has voluntarily stopped all exploration and testing activities in the area, stating that they are committed to maintaining the "highest standards of environmental responsibility and community engagement". On February 8, DENR ordered a probe to conduct an investigation into the alleged damage of seagrass and other marine resources due to AMPC operations, and to take legal action for reportedly cutting trees without the necessary permit.

In a statement on February 10, the company said that it was "peacefully exercising its rights" under a 2009 agreement with DENR, and has appealed for due process, claiming it has been "maligned, unfairly judged, and prevented from performing its lawful activities".

Other events
On June 21, 2008, the passenger ferry MV Princess of the Stars of Sulpicio Lines (now Philippine Span Asia Carrier Corp.) capsized off the coast of the island in the height of Typhoon Frank. Of the 851 passengers, only 32 survived.

title: Sibuyan Island


text:
Postfix (software)

Postfix is a free and open-source mail transfer agent (MTA) that routes and delivers electronic mail.

It is released under the IBM Public License 1.0 which is a free software license. Alternatively, starting with version 3.2.5, it is available under the Eclipse Public License 2.0 at the user's option.

Originally written in 1997 by Wietse Venema at the IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center in New York, and first released in December 1998, Postfix continues to be actively developed by its creator and other contributors. The software is also known by its former names VMailer and IBM Secure Mailer. The name Postfix is a compound of "post" (which is another word for "mail") and "bugfix" (which is for other software that inspired Postfix development).

Typical deployment
As an SMTP server, Postfix implements a first layer of defense against spambots and malware. Administrators can combine Postfix with other software that provides spam/virus filtering (e.g., Amavisd-new), message-store access (e.g., Dovecot), or complex SMTP-level access-policies (e.g., postfwd, milter-regex, policyd-weight).

As an SMTP client, Postfix implements a high-performance parallelized mail-delivery engine. Postfix is often combined with mailing-list software (such as Mailman).

Operating systems
Postfix runs (or has run) on AIX, BSD, HP-UX, Linux, macOS, Solaris and, generally speaking, on every Unix-like operating system that ships with a C compiler and delivers a standard POSIX development environment. It is the default MTA for the macOS, NetBSD, RedHat/CentOS and Ubuntu operating systems.

Architecture
Postfix consists of a combination of server programs that run in the background, and client programs that are invoked by user programs or by system administrators.

The Postfix core consists of several dozen server programs that run in the background, each handling one specific aspect of email delivery. Examples are the SMTP server, the scheduler, the address rewriter, and the local delivery server. For damage-control purposes, most server programs run with fixed reduced privileges, and terminate voluntarily after processing a limited number of requests. To conserve system resources, most server programs terminate when they become idle.

Client programs run outside the Postfix core. They interact with Postfix server programs through mail delivery instructions in the user's ~/.forward file, and through small "gate" programs to submit mail or to request queue status information.

Other programs provide administrative support to start or stop Postfix, query status information, manipulate the queue, or to examine or update its configuration files.

 * Yellow ellipses: One of Postfix' many daemons serving exactly one purpose. This split-up into many smaller pieces of software is considered one of the reasons why Postfix is secure and stable.
 * Blue boxes: The blue boxes represent so-called lookup tables. A lookup table consists of two columns (key and value) containing information used for access control, e-mail routing etc.
 * Orange boxes: The orange boxes are either mail queues or files. In either case, e-mails are stored on persistent media (e.g., a hard disk).
 * White clouds: The clouds stand for points at which e-mails enter or leave Postfix. For example, smtpd receives mail from other mail servers or users whereas smtp relays mail to other MTAs.

Implementation
The Postfix implementation uses safe subsets of the C language and of the POSIX system API. These subsets are buried under an abstraction layer that contains about 50% of all Postfix source code, and that provides the foundation on which all Postfix programs are built. For example, the "vstring" primitive makes Postfix code resistant to buffer overflow attacks, and the "safe open" primitive makes Postfix code resistant to race condition attacks on systems that implement the POSIX file system API. This abstraction layer does not affect the attack resistance of non-Postfix code, such as code in system libraries or in third-party libraries.

Robustness
Conceptually, Postfix manages pipelines of processes that pass the responsibility for message delivery and error notification from one process to the next. All message and notification "state" information is persisted in the file system. The processes in a pipeline operate mostly without centralized control; this relative autonomy simplifies error recovery. When a process fails before completing its part of a file or protocol transaction, its predecessor in the pipeline backs off and retries the request later, and its successor in the pipeline discards unfinished work. Many Postfix daemons can simply "die" when they run into a problem; they are automatically restarted when the next service request arrives. This approach makes Postfix highly resilient, as long as the operating system or hardware don't fail catastrophically.

Performance
One single Postfix instance has been clocked at ~300 message deliveries/second across the Internet, running on commodity hardware (a vintage-2003 Dell 1850 system with battery-backed MegaRAID controller and two SCSI disks). This delivery rate is an order of magnitude below the "intrinsic" limit of 2500 message deliveries/second that was achieved with the mail queue on a RAM disk while delivering to the "discard" transport (with a dual-core Opteron system in 2007).

Mail systems such as Postfix and Qmail achieve high performance by delivering mail in parallel sessions. With mail systems such as Sendmail and Exim that do one delivery at a time, high performance can be achieved by submitting limited batches of mail in parallel, so that each batch is delivered by a different process. Postfix and Qmail require parallel submission into different MTA instances once they reach their intrinsic performance limit, or the performance limits of the hardware or operating system.

The delivery rates cited above are largely theoretical. With bulk mail delivery, the actual delivery rate primarily depends on the receiver's mail receiving policies and by the sender's reputation.

Base configuration
The main.cf file stores site-specific Postfix configuration parameters while master.cf defines daemon processes. The Postfix Basic Configuration tutorial covers the core settings that each site needs to consider, and the Postfix Standard Configuration Examples document discusses configuration settings for a few common environments. The Postfix Address Rewriting document covers address rewriting and mail routing. The full documentation collection is at Postfix Documentation

More complex Postfix implementations may include: integration with other applications such as SpamAssassin; support for multiple virtual domain names - and use databases such as MySQL to control complex configurations.

Surveys
In Shodan scan results from March 2024, Postfix was detected 2.7 million times, Exim 3.0 million times. Some sites block Shodan probes, but it is unclear whether this would materially affect the Postfix to Exim ratio.

In a 10 times smaller study published on March 1, 2024 by E-Soft, Inc., 148 thousand mail servers ran Postfix, making it a more distant second behind Exim with 227 thousand. This survey is often cited, but it specifically targets domains that provide web services.

title: Postfix (software)


text:
User talk:RajeevA

Hi! welcome to Wikipedia!

Hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. Be bold in editing pages. Here are some links that you might find useful:

 * Try the Tutorial. If you have less time, try How to edit a page.
 * To sign your posts (for eg. on talk pages) use 	 ~  (four tildes). This will insert your name and timestamp. To insert just your name, type (3 tildes).
 * You can experiment in the Sandbox.
 * For help, see Where to ask a question.
 * Some other pages that will help you know more about Wikipedia: Manual of Style and Five pillars, Neutral point of view, Civility, What Wikipedia is not
 * You can contribute in many ways: write a great article, fight vandalism, upload pictures, perform maintainance tasks, contribute to existing projects...

I hope you stick around and keep contributing to Wikipedia. Drop us a note at New user log.

-- utcursch | talk

Signing comments on talk pages
Please sign your comments with four tildes, like this: ~. Thanks! ~

title: User talk:RajeevA


text:
Talk:Postfix (software)

Security
Curiously, the word "security" never appears in article as per January 2018. Starting with Daniel J. Bernstein's comments at https://cr.yp.to/maildisasters/postfix.html, Postfix's security track record might be worth at least a brief mention. --Arto (talk) 06:08, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

License
''The main reason Postfix has not seen more widespread use is because it is not licensed under the GPL or BSD license. In fact the official website includes no information about its licensing scheme (Oct. 2003) in recognition of this weakness.''

Is there any evidence for this complex and worried-sounding claim? Postfix is distributed under the IBM Secure Mailer license, which is BSD-like. This license's chief distinctions from BSD are its more extensive warranty disclaimers, and its liability requirements for commercial distributors. There is no sense in which this license is a "weakness" as far as I can tell, and the chief reasons that it isn't posted loudly on the Web site are (1) Postfix isn't ideological about licenses, and (2) the Web site is disorderly. I'm going to remove this claim if it can't be backed up. --FOo 14:31, 23 Dec 2003 (UTC)

 * As promised, I have removed the claim. With Postfix distributed on all Macintosh sytsems (and with Apple having become one of the major Unix vendors) there isn't even any basis to say that Postfix isn't "widespread"! --FOo 14:26, 14 Jan 2004 (UTC)

 * It's also distributed with NetBSD as an alternative MTA to sendmail. Though sendmail is still the default. --B1ff 13:09, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I just found recently that...
There was a very recent Wikipedia article that changed "postfixes" to "suffixes". Well, who would ever use "postfix"?? 66.245.110.129 01:45, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Masquerade domain in postfix
I just merged in material from Masquerade domain in postfix. You might want to take it back out...it doesn't look hugely encyclopedic. NickelShoe 21:05, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

News
How come there is no news page detailing releases, not even a dedicated mailing list? 219.79.235.121 14:06, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Buffer overflows
"One of the strengths of Postfix is its resilience against buffer overflows." Is there some specific reason for this in the way Postfix is implemented or is it just an empirical observation? As the article also says "Postfix's source code is often used as a famous example of good programming practice," it would be interesting to elaborate a bit. -- Coffee2theorems 11:28, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Does the article still need more citations for verification?
The article has a warning at the top that says that the text needs more citations to reliable source for verification. In recent months I restructured the text and added a ton of links. At this point I wonder what is fundamentally missing at this point. Any discussion of the characteristics of the Postfix software, its strengths and weaknesses, etc., will ultimately have to be supported by empirical, accurate, first-hand, observations. What are your criteria for establishing the reliability of those sources? Wietse venema (talk) 00:59, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

SMTP
I would like to discuss recent changes by user 123.243.137.139, this user repeatedly removes SMTP compliance of Postfix without sources. I must also mention his personal attacks in the comments. So I am opening a discussion about this here. Wolscmip (talk) 07:36, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Source for the origin of the name
If anyone is interested in adding it back (not sure how relevant it is) with a source, https://marc.info/?l=postfix-users&m=164841848519002&w=2 is probably as authoritative as you'll ever get. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 23:46, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Relevance of release history?
The of this article is something like 80% of its vertical length and 60% of its bytes (YMMV of course with screen size), and yet it contains almost no  – plenty of data, but no context for it. Wikipedia is not a changelog, and I don't see it belonging here. This isn't the place to record that version 1.1.8 was released on 2002-05-04, and 1.1.9 was released eight days later, or that versions 3.4.2 and 3.4.3 were released on the same day (2019-03-10), especially when the majority of the "significant changes" column is empty ( that the changes between versions are insignificant – so why record them? ;)). This kind of versioning information belongs on Postfix's own changelog.

I'm going to go ahead and just remove it. If it turns out to have be beloved, we can discuss options, like maybe a much more summarized table with only x.y releases instead of every x.y.z release. oatco (talk) 23:16, 22 October 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Postfix (software)


text:
Mount Guiting-Guiting

Mount Guiting-Guiting is the highest mountain in the province of Romblon, located in Sibuyan Island, in the Philippines, with an elevation of 6,752 ft above sea level. Its steep slopes and jagged peak, have earned it a reputation as one of the most technically challenging mountains to climb in the Philippines. It is ranked as the 11th-most prominent mountain in the Philippines, and 71st-highest peak of an island in the world. Located at the heart of Sibuyan, it dominates the landscape for miles around. Guiting-Guiting, in the Romblomanon dialect means "jagged". It is one of the focal points of Sibuyan's declaration as a biodiversity haven and has been dubbed by some local and international natural scientists as The Galapagos of Asia. The island of Sibuyan has often been compared with the biodiversity endemism rate of the Galapagos islands in Ecuador. This high endemism prompted much of the mountain and its slopes to be protected in 1996 as the Mt. Guiting-Guiting Natural Park. The park also encompasses the nearby 789-metre (2,589-ft) high Mount Nailog to the west.

Hiking
It is often referred to as Mount G2, although the nickname is not accepted by the locals as it disrespects the indigenous name of the sacred site. The mountain is open all year round for hiking, with two established trails; the Tampayan Trail from the north, and the Olango Trail from the south. Hiking permits and guides are secured from the DENR office in Magdiwang town. The entire upper trails consist of exposed, broken, and sharp ultramafic rocks and boulders. The summit area of Mt. Guiting-Guiting is primarily a heath land and grassland with exposed rocks on the serrated ridges of the peak.

Though the length and duration of the climb is relatively shorter, two days to climb up and one day to descend, this mountain is still acknowledged as one of the most difficult and technically challenging Philippine mountain to climb, with 9/9 difficulty, alongside Mount Halcon in Mindoro, Mount Mantalingajan in Palawan and Mount Baloy, Mount Nangtud and Mount Madja-as in Antique.

History
In May 1982, under the leadership of Arturo Valdez, a joint team from the Bacolod-based Philippine Mountaineering Society (PMS) and the University of the Philippines (UP) assaulted the mountain, the attempt of which was to be the first in history.

It was during this expedition that one of the peaks, now known as Mayo's Peak was named after one of the team members, Mayo Monteza, who celebrated his birthday during the climb. One of the water spring sources is now known as Bulod's Spring, after a local guides named Bulod who volunteered (along with another locals) to join the climb.

The team failed to take the summit on this first attempt, but came back two weeks afterwards. On 17 June 1982, four climbers became the first to stand at the summit. Their names are Mon Ruiz, Kim Valino, Roel Tan Torres (of UP mountaineers) and Edwin Gatia of the PMS team.

Biodiversity

Sibuyan Island has extremely high endemism largely due to its remoteness. More than half of the Island is covered with forest. Preliminary reports include that the forest density in Sibuyan is 1,551 trees per hectare making it the densest forest ever recorded in the Philippines. There exists a full range of forest gradient in the Philippines consisting of mangrove, lowland, montane, mossy forests, heathland, and grassland—from the shoreline up to the summit of Mt. Guiting-Guiting,

There are approximately 700 vascular plant species, including 54 species that are endemic to the island. These include Nepenthes sibuyanensis; Nepenthes argentii; Heterospathe sibuyanensis Becc. (Bil-is), Agalmyla sibuyanensis (Sibuyan lipstick plant); Myrmephytum beccarii Elmer (Sibuyan ant plant); Begonia gitingensis Elmer (Guiting-guiting begonia).

A total of 130 species of birds have been recorded in the park, of which 102 are either known or presumed to be breeding residents. There are also nine (9) native non-flying terrestrial mammal species, nine fruit bats species, of which one is endemic, and nine (9) lizards and geckos.

title: Mount Guiting-Guiting


text:
Alternative literature

Alternative literature (or alt-lit) is a literary movement strongly influenced by internet culture and online publishing. It includes various forms of prose, poetry, and new media. Alt-lit is characterized by self-publication and a presence on social media networks. Alternative literature brings together people with a common interest in the online publishing world.

Origins
The term was first used to refer to this community of writers in the summer of 2011, when Tumblr and Twitter accounts named "Alt Lit Gossip" emerged, created by Cory Stephens (@outmouth). The accounts covered writers from presses and publications such as Muumuu House, Pop Serial, and HTMLgiant in a style akin to celebrity gossip sources like TMZ. After a few months the original accounts were deleted; they were revived by Frank Hinton in the fall of 2011, and began to gain popularity.

Shared traits across Alt Lit
Alt Lit is often characterized by self-publication, self-promotion, and the maintenance of a presence on social media networks. Josh Soilker has said that Alt Lit is "in blog posts, videos, gchats and Facebook status updates. In PDFs and folded papers..." and that the movement's principal figures were Tao Lin, Noah Cicero and Brandon Scott Gorrell.

Alt Lit writers share Gmail chat logs, image macros, screenshots, and tweets, which are then self-published as poetry books and/or novels.

Writing for the New Yorker, Kenneth Goldsmith characterized Alt Lit writing as "marked by direct speech, expressions of aching desire, and wide-eyed sincerity". He also noted that Alt Lit is "usually written in the Internet vernacular of lowercase letters, inverted punctuation, abundant typos, and bad grammar".

Literary magazines and blogs
Online and print Alt Lit magazines include SWAY Press, Illuminati Girl Gang, New Wave Vomit, Pop Serial, Shabby Doll House, Have U Seen My Whale, The Bushwick Review, The Mall, Keep This Bag Away From Children, Everyday Genius, Metazen, Housefire, UP Literature, Parlor, Sadcore Dadwave, Red Lightbulbs, In Parentheses and Unsure if i will allow my beard to grow for much longer.

Alt Lit news and creative blogs include Alt Lit Gossip, I Am Alt Lit, Internet Poetry, HTMLGiant, Beach Sloth, Allthemacchs, Heartcloud, FRXTL, Cutty Spot, and Alt Lit Press.

Presses and books
Presses publishing Alt Lit writing include Muumuu House, Civil Coping Mechanisms, Sorry House, Habitat, Boost House, Lazy Fascist, Macro, Nap, Scrambler Books, Publishing Genius, and Plain Wrap Press.

Two anthologies of Alt Lit writing are The Yolo Pages (2014, Boost House) and 40 Likely To Die Before 40: An Introduction to Alt Lit (2014, Civil Coping Mechanisms).

More than 150 books, e-books, and zines of Alt Lit writing, mostly self-published, have been catalogued on the Tumblr blog Alt Lit Library. Mellow Pages Library in Bushwick, Brooklyn, offers a wide selection of Alt Lit titles and hosts Alt Lit readings and book releases.

Authors
Alt Lit authors include Jacob M. Appel, Gabby Bess, Megan Boyle, Melissa Broder, Ben Brooks, Blake Butler, Marie Calloway, Jos Charles, Richard Chiem, Brendan Connell, Cecilia Corrigan, Heiko Julien, Noah Cicero, Claire Donato, Horse eBooks, Elizabeth Ellen, Aiden Elliot, Joshua Jennifer Espinoza, Mira Gonzalez, Jamie Iredell, Tao Lin, Scott McClanahan, Spencer Madsen, Guillaume Morissette, Steve Roggenbuck, Dave Wright, Beach Sloth, Tim Sanders,     Lauren Oyler, and Patricia Lockwood.

Related concepts and movements
Many writers and critics in and around the Alt Lit community have proposed different labels to be used in conjunction with or in place of "Alt Lit."

New Sincerity
Some critics have linked Alt Lit writers with New Sincerity, to the point of using the terms interchangeably. Notable Alt Lit writers such as Steve Roggenbuck, Spencer Madsen and Tao Lin have also been grouped under the label "New Sincerity", but many Alt Lit writers reject the influence of David Foster Wallace and prominent mainstream exponents of a "New Sincerity" such as Jonathan Franzen.

The New Sincerity connection entails the use of an array of literary techniques intended to create the impression of "sincere" communication, ranging from autobiography, self-revision and a conversational tone to minimal punctuation and sans-serif fonts.

Autofiction
Many Alt Lit writers, including Megan Boyle and Tao Lin, write autobiographical fiction or autofiction.

Electronic literature
Electronic literature (or e-lit, pronounced ee-litt) is an older field including any literary work explicitly written to be read on a digital computer or network. What scholar Leonardo Flores calls third generation electronic literature - literary works that use social media and other popular platforms - would include many works that are also thought of as alt.lit.

title: Alternative literature


text:
User:Root axs~enwiki

Hello my friends! de:Benutzer:Root axs

title: User:Root axs~enwiki


text:
Talk:Alternative literature

[Untitled]
This is a really bad half formed page that I will be adding to and structuring in the near future as soon as I can come up with something worth writing. This is because I have only just got access to the internet again after having my internet provider changed and so have only just been able to commence work on the planned "Alternative thinking" series. For these reasons I ask that this page is not aadded to votes for deletion. Thankyou. Motown Junkie 13:25, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say this, but this article still suffers from the same problem as the alternative culture article does: lack of undisputed accuracy. I'm going to have to put the warning on this one too. After all, I've never heard anyone actually use the term "alternative literature", even in commercial hype. -- [[User talk:LGagnon|LGagnon]] 05:34, Dec 12, 2004 (UTC)

Um, almost a year later, this article is still a mess. Noam Chomsky, Sylvia Plath, and Spawn, share a dubious connection at best, I would have to say. Unless this is really going to be substantially improved, I'm thinking it should probably be deleted or maybe redirected to counterculture or something along those lines. MC MasterChef 14:24, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

This article has no merit. It describes a huge amount of literature, and to be frank, I have heard very little of a genre called alt lit outside of the world of the internet. I'd like either HUGE improvement (with sources a'plenty, it would need it) or deletion (the realistic option).--150.237.85.249 (talk) 00:54, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

 * Maybe the term is not correctly used. As i've seen, "alternative literature" is most commonly used to describe free-of-charge direct-to-reader literature, without the need of publishing processes beyond formatting and other corrections. -- Hahc21 [ TALK ] [ CONTRIBS  ] 22:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I have edited the article to the beswhat the hell is up with this article?t of my ability. I have added a number of relevant references and removed parts which seemed promotional, silly or simply inaccurate. I have also removed the excessive number of listed authors. You will naturally hear very little of an internet-based, academia-rejecting genre outside of the internet (at least for the time being) but I think Alt Lit (as opposed to 'Alternative Literature') refers to an easily identifiable, select genre of literature (even if manifested manifold ways). -Fantini (talk) 18:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm afraid that in its current state, this article seems to be written so broadly that it doesn't really say much. Many of the authors mentioned as exemplars of Alt Lit are not verifiable by external sources as notable. It might make sense to edit that section down so that the established, published, top-line examples are mentioned, and the others are either cut or shifted to another section. I'm sure this page is a juicy target for self-serving vandalism by up-and-coming Alt Lit aspirants, so that doesn't make things any easier-- nonetheless, this is a legitimate subject for a wikipedia article, and it deserves a page that allows readers to actually get some kind of grasp on what Alt Lit actually means, and how it is used (even if pejoratively) by book reviewers and critics. 69sportsdude420 (talk) 17:06, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, on closer reading, this page seems pretty profoundly off-target. Most of the sources are blogs, and Alt Lit is (spuriously, I suspect) connected to "New Modernism" and "New Sincerity", both of which seem to have little to do with the actual exponents of what is commonly and collectively agreed to be Alt Lit (Tao Lin, Marie Calloway, and a handful of others). We need to start over here, seek better sources, and pretty much thoroughly renovate this whole page so that it clearly and accurately explains what Alt Lit is, who named it thus, and what writers actually represent Alt Lit. 69sportsdude420 (talk) 17:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

title: Talk:Alternative literature