User talk:Deconstructhis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Welcome to my talk page. Here are some tips to help you communicate with me:

  • Please continue any conversation on the page where it was started.
Thus, if I have left a message on your talk page please DO NOT post a reply here. I will have your talk page on watch and will note when you have replied.
  • Add or respond to an existing conversation under the existing heading.
  • Indent your comment when replying by using an appropriate number of colons ':'.
  • Create a new heading if the original conversation is archived.
  • To initiate a new conversation on this page click on this link.
  • Please sign all comments. You can do this automatically by typing four tildes (~~~~). All unsigned comments, or material I deem as harassing, will be removed at my discretion.


Help with Saltford,_Ontario Page[edit]

Hi Deconstucthis,

I too am interested in the small communities that once existed and thrived in Huron County in the late 1800s and early 1900s. I have found myself engrossed in researching these communities and what to document what I have dug up. I am starting with Saltford, the village in which I reside, but I plan to move on to some others in the vicinity such as Loyal, Carlow, Dunlop, Dungannon and Colborne.

Being a newbie to Wikipedia I would like to invite you to format (and contribute to) any of the works that I have created at,_Ontario

Thx, TekMason —Preceding unsigned comment added by TekMason (talkcontribs) 03:05, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good, I'm glad to see someone is taking an interest working on those communities. I've got a fairly sizable list of links to online resources pertaining to local histories in that region, sometime tomorrow I'll pass those on to you via the talk page for the Saltford article if you like. Thanks for taking the time to work on the articles. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 06:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Alexander Kalichuk section[edit]

Hey Deconstructhis,

I hear what you're saying about the biographical article. This being said, I think it is vital we mention Alexander Kalichuk in the context of Truscott's case.

Maybe - just a thought - we could create together a page on the Lynn Harper Murder instead of Truscott himself. Does that work? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nautical78 (talkcontribs) 00:20, 14 February 2009 (UTC)


I watched the documentary "Kanehsatake: 270 Years of Resistance" the other day and according to the filmmaker, the Mohawk Warriors threw water-filled condoms at the army soldiers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vataguy 5 (talkcontribs) 00:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It's perfectly acceptable to use a documentary (as long as it's reliably sourced) as a reference in Wiki. Check the Internet Movie Database website for this one and grab the "bibliographical" details from its entry, enter those details in your citation and you'll probably be fine. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 00:45, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

adding contact information for a reporter[edit]

I added contact information (her twitter account which she accepts news stories) for a reporter from a news station. Wouldn't that be the same as adding an address or e-mail? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Billhandy (talkcontribs) 21:41, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

No personal contact information is encouraged at all for inclusion in articles. See WP:NOTDIRECTORY. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 22:35, 26 March 2009 (UTC)


Sorry about that edit. I had a few drinks and made a careless edit. --DreamsAreMadeOf (talk) 21:05, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


CRM.png The Content Review Medal of Merit  
In recognition of your much appreciated reviews of Native American history articles, I am delighted to award you this Content Review Medal. --Conaughy  talk
Thank you! cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 14:32, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Quick Thanks[edit]

Thanks for your tireless work countering vandalism on Space opera in Scientology scripture and other articles. It's much appreciated. MartinPoulter (talk) 12:48, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

St. Helena[edit]

Hello Deconstructhis Please can you respond to the long note I left for you some days ago on my talk page regarding ethnicity on St Helena. I do not know how else to communicate with you. Shirebooks (talk) 13:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)Shirebooks

Please see the talk page of the article for a continuation of the discussion. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 14:15, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
Hello Deconstructhis Apologies for contacting you again on this Talk page, but I see no further comments being made on the St Helena discussion page and I am wondering where we go from here? I believe I have put up a number of strong challenges sourced from secondary sources to the existing Wikipedia ethnicity figures, of which perhaps the strongest is that those figures claim to be today’s ethnic split, whereas Ian Shine (from whom the CIA sourced the figures) said they relate to one to one and a half centuries before his 1970 book, ie to 1820-1850. As you know, I am personally certain Ian Shine’s figures are wrong anyway, but even he did not claim his figures related to the present day. Perhaps you would let me know. My own preference would be to state on the St Helena Wikipedia that today’s ethnic split is not known.

Shirebooks (talk) 16:27, 5 June 2009 (UTC)Shirebooks

Please see article talk page for response. thanks Deconstructhis (talk) 17:26, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear Deconstructhis Sorry to alert you on this page but I did not know if you would see it on the St Helena Talk Page. Please can you note that the ^ ethnicity link no longer works.

Shirebooks (talk) 15:13, 9 June 2009 (UTC)Shirebooks

Thanks for pointing out the problem Shirebooks. It appears to me that the website is undergoing maintenance of some sort, the St. Helena profile page is at present only one among many that are labelled "unavailable". I strongly suspect that the situation is a temporary one. If the current circumstances persist for more than a few days, just post a notification on the article's talk page and I'll re-establish a link to the information through the Internet archive. thanks again Deconstructhis (talk) 15:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear Deconstructhis

I do not agree with your latest change to my comments on ethnicity at St Helena. Given that we have already had this debate without reaching agreement, I should be grateful if you would tell me how I go about requesting an adjudication on this at a higher level within Wikipedia. Thank you.

Shirebooks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shirebooks2 (talkcontribs) 14:38, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh, pick pick pick pick :D[edit]

Regarding Macdonell and the "river edge of the Redan", clarifying to say the "edge of the gorge, on which the Redan was situated" was fair enough. But you did take it a tad far in the edit summary in suggesting I said "river's edge". According to Malcolmson pg. 156 of "A Very Brilliant Affair, the actual quote from Wool was "drove us to the edge of the bank, when, with the greatest of exertions, we brought the troops to a stand".

Nonetheless, just trying to give Macdonell the profile he deserves. Certainly, the quote from Wool makes the inscription on the plaque of the trio of rocks at the back of the Redan more poignant. So near and yet so far.Natty10000 (talk) 16:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It's our job to be "picky" isn't it? :) I'm glad to see that someone is taking the time to increase Macdonell's profile as it pertains to Queenston Heights in the encyclopedia. I reside an easy bicycle ride away from the battlefield, and often visit to soak up the atmosphere of the place. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 16:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Re-reading the salient pages in "A Very Brilliant Affair", I was astonished that the location of that plaque to Macdonell jives with history. Not the failed, never-had-a-hope second "Avenge the General" charge as it's otherwise been characterised as. And an "Oh, FFS" to me for meaning to correct Malcolmson to Malcomson and getting it bass-ackwards. Especially annoying as the book was right here on my desk! Natty10000 (talk) 20:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


I included Handsome Lake in the category of witch trials because he was heavily influenced by European and Christian thought, and according to the article, he became obsessed with witch hunting and even killed people who refused to confess. However, you are correct that witch hunting would probably a better category to put him into, and I have just created a category for that purpose. Asarelah (talk) 17:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. I think that in the long run it will be potentially far less confusing to readers. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 17:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Hunter S. Thompson[edit]

Regarding the return of the Universal Life ordination posting, I removed it as one of a myriad of spam posts made by the editor, who has been [User talk:CurranWhite warned repeatedly] on his talk page regarding the reliability and spam issues for that posting and many others. I won't revert you, but it is spam and hopefully no one will come along, see the post and add that to the article. Wildhartlivie (talk) 21:49, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Although I can appreciate your concerns regarding the addition of material that appears to only consist of an attempt at overt promotion of a given organization, I'd suggest that in my opinion the circumstances can be somewhat different when it comes to "religious" bodies. The Universal Life Church article contains a fairly lengthy list of this groups legal dealings with both state and federal authorities regarding their claims pertaining to a number of issues, including referenced favourable legal precedents that support the churches claim to legitimacy. Because of that I'd be hesitant to label these postings as cases of straightforward "spam", in particular if they're simply additions to an article's talk page, claiming that a particular person is purportedly a member of the organization. I'd have the same difficulty labelling those examples as clearcut "spam", as I would if someone were to suggest on a talk page that any chosen celebrity was a member of a given religious body. If the group was in the least "controversial", I would solidly expect that the contention be supported by more than a single mention on the groups own website before the material was actually added to an article, however I'm less certain that I would immediately label any mention of it on a talk page as less than an instance of 'good faith' (sorry, couldn't resist). cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 00:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi there. I posted a comment on Hunter Thompson, a few days ago. It was relating to his death. I had intended to add a link to the supporting evidence of the claim I made. However, I am not the most computer literate/savvy type, and I really couldnt understand the instructions on how to add the link to my written entry. So, without the link, I can see how my entry would be unacceptable. However, I do hope to make useful additions to wikipedia from time to time, and I'd be grateful if you could perhaps guide me through the basics of how to approach making an written addition to wiki, from the angle of - should I first discuss it in the "talk" section of a page, and/or simply make an entry (including a link to the reference)? Any help you can offer would be very much appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elgarenamel (talkcontribs) 10:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

neutrality template[edit]

I left my comment on the edit summary and I would ask you to respect my level of experiance here at Wikipedia and ask you not to leave template warnings on my talk page, I am here for discussion. (Off2riorob (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC))

I also discussed it on the talk page.. here is my comment, [[1]] tag is not needed, make your additions, there is no dispute. What is your problem with that? (Off2riorob (talk) 18:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC))
I can tell you your adding a warning template to my talk page has really annoyed me, and your summary of..Please do not remove this tag until the dispute is resolved which is arrived at through consensus with other editors, not single handedly by one person.Is also annoying, The template was added by one person.. you...(Off2riorob (talk) 18:32, 1 July 2009 (UTC))
Where are you? How dare you plant a warning tag on my user page and then walk off. (Off2riorob (talk) 18:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC))

Information.svg Please do not remove maintenance templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Stephen A. Kent, without resolving the problem that the template refers to, or giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your removal of this template does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Thank you.

I also notice you have a section here titled....Your use of warning templates... so I see you have had previous comments regarding your use of templates. (Off2riorob (talk) 18:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC))

Hello, It's me, you just left me a warning template, level 2 on my talk page and I would like to talk to you about it. (Off2riorob (talk) 18:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC))

I left my comment on the edit summary and I would ask you to respect my level of experiance here at Wikipedia and ask you not to leave template warnings on my talk page, I am here for discussion. (Off2riorob (talk) 18:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC))

As am I, which is precisely why I placed the original POV tag on the section a week ago and then replaced it when it was removed, rather than simply adding material directly to the article from the onset without prior consultation with other editors. I (apparently) foolishly believed that it would decrease the likely incidence of an 'edit war'. Live and learn. By placing the neutrality tag on the section in the first place, I hoped to alert a general reader of the article that in fact a dispute regarding the neutrality of the content actually exists, and that details of that dispute appear on the article's talk page, which in my understanding is exactly why POV tags exist and are utilized. As Pelle Smith properly assumed in their comments, I am experiencing a certain level of "frustration" in regard to this exchange, mostly centred on what seems to me to be a degree of heavy handedness and arbitrariness that appears to be occurring in the removal of tags placed in good faith by editors in an attempt at following accepted procedure. My intention is to wait a day or so for further comments regarding my proposal and barring serious objections, to add the material and references to the article. I apologise if my actions regarding your edit are perceived as personal in nature, they are not. Contextually, please take into consideration that my initial placement of the POV tag was contested and removed by an administrator, because I was alleged to have failed to provide specific references to substantiate it; a position I have yet to see spelled out explicitly in the policies that were cited to me, and then when I actually did provide references for my contention and reinstated the tag, I was informed that there actually wasn't a "dispute" at all and the tag was once again removed. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 19:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Add the material...Or remove the tag,, Waiting a day or two .. for what.. there is no one else here... you must add the material now or remove the tag. (Off2riorob (talk) 19:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC))
I am a little less angry..I appreciate your comments. To be clear, you are insisting on adding this tag... fair enough, but you can't just's not neutral.. please add your balance cites and comments and remove the tag. Waiting for concensus and leaving it a couple of days is tripe, it's now or never. Well it's not really now or never...but what have you actually got?(Off2riorob (talk) 19:31, 1 July 2009 (UTC))

I have the feeling I need to take responsibility for my actions here. I apologise for throwing my stress around your talk page. It was all my fault, I shouldn't have removed the neutrality tag, I don't know enough about the guy to have done that, I got overly involved in something I know nothing about. Sorry. I regret my actions and hope that you are not offended. (Off2riorob (talk) 11:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC))

No problem; I'd already let it go, but a sincere thank you for apologizing and taking responsibility, a rare and appreciated treat here on Wiki! :) cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 05:52, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


Come on then, make your changes. Deconstructhis should add whatever material is relevant and remove the tag. (Off2riorob (talk) 18:54, 1 July 2009 (UTC))

Please allow other editors an opportunity to comment on this matter on the article's talk page. See my comments above. Deconstructhis (talk) 19:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
This I have found recently is a comment from people who have nothing, It is a delay tactic and a claim of wait for concensus..that never comes. (Off2riorob (talk) 19:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC))

As contrary to common sense as it appears to be on occasion, I prefer to allow for a benefit of the doubt most of the time. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 23:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

false prophets[edit]

Why are my web links not appropriate when the whole page is supported by 4 off topic references including a web link. It can hardly be called original content to say faalsee prophets make false prophesies. Whereis the logic to banning all other so called prophets but Christian, jews and muslims? How can a page on false prophets not include modern day false prophets? In the talk page I prove joe smith made false prophesies with the moma proof of the plates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BMcC333 (talkcontribs) 23:31, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd suggest that Orange Mike is providing you with solid advice on this subject on your own talk page. I'd only emphasize that I believe it's very important for an editor in your situation to carefully read and understand what's being talked about in WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. I've encountered editors in the past, who, after they finally got a handle on what's required of editors in those policies, decided that perhaps Wikipedia editing wasn't something they wished to continue actively participating in. Our policy requirements are definitely not everyone's 'cup of tea'. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 01:14, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not see any orange on my page or false prophets, only Newportm (talk) 23:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

It seems absurd for the whole page to be held up on the definition of false prophet when the words define themself. This is not my 1st wiki page to edit. I am not a noobie and do not need to be patronized. I am not going anywhere when 3 religions are being attacked by vandals. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:36, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I deleted the apologetics reference, but they are more valid than the others there now. I only use the mormons own book to prove he made false prophesies. Now if they stop vandalizing a simple definition in lieu of one attacking Christians, Jews and Muslimswe can make progress. The "threat" that it wil get ugly with the real definition is just a convenient excuse imo. They did not answer my post to give examples of Jesus, etc. as a false prophet. (talk) 05:18, 4 July 2009 (UTC)BMcC333

In the interest of progress, all reference from any Cnristian site has been deleted. It only took the mormon book to prove Joe Smithmde false prophesies. The story of the discovery of the missing papayri is major proof and the salt lake city newspaper is all that is needed to prove him. I left a common Koesh quote. (talk) 05:13, 4 July 2009 (UTC)BMcC333

I do not see how to edit the ref list. (talk) 05:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC)BMcC333

To help ensure that everyone is 'in the loop', please continue this discussion on the article's talk page. thanks Deconstructhis (talk) 05:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Akwesasne[edit]

Not all information requires citation as wikipedia would rapidly become an ilegable mess if this was a requisite. The addition of information regarding Akwesasne was done in good faith to bring some balance and perspective to the History section regarding the ongoing dispute in the area. Removal of the section of information would suggest that your motives are political in there nature. The article in its current state reads somewhat like propoganda. the area is far from peaceful. I am concerned from the contents of this page that you seem to commonly engage in edit wars with those who do not share your viewpoint. That is not wikipedia is for. You are censoring. - Gnarlyswine —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Reference now added for newspaper article (talk) 18:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)Gnarlyswine216.75.172.53 (talk) 18:04, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see your own talk page for my comments regarding this. This isn't about "politics", it's about a potential copyright violation. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 20:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough but it also seems you are continuing to remove any information that paints the residents of akwesasne or protestors in a less that favourable light and leaving behind spurious statements such as the "peaceful protest" statements, The CBSA were told to leave by Mohawk Security as they couldnt guarantee their safety, This article does not concur with factual reporting on incidents at the station. Gnarlyswine —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:29, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Once again, I'd like to remind you that making unsubstantiated personal accusations regarding the motivations of other editors is not acceptable according to Wiki's policies regarding maintaining "good faith". If you are serious about what you are alleging is a bias within that article; why not make the changes yourself and back them up with a reliable source? thanks Deconstructhis (talk) 14:25, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Done - short summary of some conflicts with citations however noting that a number of previous cited references are to broken links so probably should remove those sections. - Gnarlyswine —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Blue Ghost Tunnel[edit]

I merely tagged it as unreferenced. Good PROD on your part. Edison (talk) 04:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, it seems appropriate. I added the notice to your talk page as a courtesy, because I noticed that you had "visited" the article earlier today. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 05:47, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

IP editor on Hunter S. Thompson and Gonzo journalism[edit]

I saw a post from an IP user on the Editors assistance request page (not something typical IP vandals would bother with) and replied there. If it's possible this person is editing in good faith, would it be useful to remove just the final warning you placed on that user's talk page? I placed there a welcoming committee-type template including links which explain how to participate, so we may see useful contributions proceed. Newportm (talk) 11:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your courteous enquiry and your willingness to extend good faith toward new editors who may not be 'up to speed' on our policies. However, the problem with the material that this editor is adding is not one of "vandalism" or a lack of good faith on their part, as the warning templates that I've personally added to their talk page reflects, this is a case of adding information that fails to provide a source for the material being offered; despite its "conjectural" nature. Doing so violates our policies against both WP:OR and WP:SOURCE, all material added to the encyclopedia must be able to be supported by a reliable previously published source. I've taken note via the link that you've provided, that apparently even the editor in question freely concedes that they have no source for this material beyond personal recollections and that the claims being made are in fact based on unsourced conjectural personal interpretation, despite the fact that the material they're offering is indeed very well composed, its addition in my opinion is contrary to the policies of the encyclopedia. In terms of your request for removing the "final warning" template that I applied, I'd suggest that contextually, the previous warnings regarding these sorts of edits were applied appropriately (and sequentially) over a one week period. Surely this is ample opportunity for an individual to take them to heart by reading the information that their links provide. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 14:59, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
There is no question that the warning templates were inappropriate. The warning templates were totally appropriate. (Note to self--stay away from double negatives when possible) Unfortunately it was not until your placement of the final warning that the editor sought clarification at WP:EAR. The possibility exists to avoid escalating this to an admin-assistance-required scenario by ratcheting back just one notch, leaving the first three warnings intact. Those warnings served a purpose. Providing last chance leeway to this new, apparently educated non-vandal editor might also serve the project. As you note, the editor sought out peer comment on the WP:EAR page and stated there he recognizes the problem. He received two clear, unequivocal, helpful replies.
Given this editor's effort to communicate and seek feedback, is keeping the editor on that doorstep of being blocked still the best option for the project? If this editor makes just one more edit--for instance, saves an entry, intending to then add a citation in the subsequent editing step--that edit could very likely be reverted and, since he's already received that fourth warning, reported (by a rollbacker with Huggle, for instance), before giving the editor opportunity to complete the intended edit. It's true that this editor could appeal a block, but it seems to me in this situation there might be the opportunity to possibly save some admin overhead, and provide this editor that final chance. Since you placed the warnings after careful, manual evaluation of the edits, I thought I would follow this up with you. Newportm (talk) 19:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Apart from what contextually appears to be a typo in your first sentence; I believe we can reach agreement on this.:) Perhaps I'm being naive in the ways of how admins handle taking a serious step like blocking an editor. I hope that they actually take more care than what's implied in your message; blocking someone based on a couple of glances, in this context, seems more draconian than what I've grown to believe is the case for the average competent administrator. As an act of good faith I'll agree to removing that final template, however I believe strongly that the onus is now on the editor in question to demonstrate likewise and provide reliable sourcing if re-adding the material. I want to make clear that I have no objection whatsoever to the material itself, any of it, it's well written. But surely an editor with this kind of superior skill, is also more than capable of realizing that without a previously published source available to the reader; anyone with those selfsame skills could readily conjure all of it out of whole cloth. I'll remove that template and thank you once again for your courteous approach. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 20:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for that; perhaps it will pay off; if not, the editor is clearly on notice. Newportm (talk) 20:57, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Legality of cannabis by country[edit]

Sorry for the wrong link, it has a long description about Ali Soilih's time and I assumed it mentioned the cannabis legalization (one of the most colorful features of his tenure) as well. But you are right, for some reason it doesn't mention it. I have restored the text with references I have checked, for the legalization of cannabis in 1975-1978 is a striking fact of Comorian history and its effects are still felt in some places of the country. Xufanc (talk) 01:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for providing those references. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 03:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Some kind of reply[edit]

Mr. Deconstructhis,

Sorry if this is a kind of "reply" regarding the talk message you left me a while ago, but all I've done is adding to the article "Legality of Cannabis by country" informations about this subject regarding Brazil. After all, I am a Brazilian citizen, and I know precisely what are the drug enforce laws in my own country. Here the drug policy do no stipulate the right amount of drug which can be considered for own consumption or drug dealing, the 20g amount is what usually policemen consider (after a long conversation and social engineering) to be not enough to arrest someone. It's a Brazil's reality, not something to be written on a Law Code.

Anyway, I'll re-edit the article with minimum information possible.


Tty666 (talk) 18:38, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I glance at this periodically to remind me what a classic case of 'personal knowledge trumps silly references' approach to editing really looks like. :) cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 18:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Andy Kim[edit]

I received the following message, which I thought I would share with you, as you had a small part in recent editing on this article. Care to reply ?

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 18:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

In reference to Andy Kim's Biography and Year of Birth: Corrections that have been made by myself are per the LIVING ARTIST Andy Kim. If anyone has a discrepancy, please contact Andy Kim and he will confirm all data. As to the various birth years... you will find from 1932 through 1952 listed in many different websites. I, for one, see no reason to get in a fizzle over a birth year... I personally feel an artist has no need to give a birth year in a biography at all. But since this is the subject, the correct year is 1952... any discussions I have seen here are assumed and not factual. Until one knows the facts about another's life, assumptions are meaningless.
Please feel free to email Andy Kim with any questions: He will be happy to answer. On a side note: Andy Kim is getting a bit annoyed with the irresponsible changes to his information on Wikipedia, especially due to some coming close to libelous. If entries can not be controlled then Wikipedia will be asked to remove the Andy Kim page and any other pages connected to the name Andy Kim. (Betbytes (talk) 16:20, 29 July 2009 (UTC)Betbytes) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Betbytes (talkcontribs)

See Andy Kim talk page. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 19:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Reassessessment of Pauline Johnson[edit]

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found a number of concerns which you can see at Talk:Pauline Johnson/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 11:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Aboriginal peoples in Canada[edit]

Great to see someone with your level of communication skills here on WIKI

A Barnstar!
The Canadian Content Award

Awarded for his contributions to Canadian articles

No problem ...thanks for info on Old Crow Flats. You are right much debate still on "Oldest" site in i can now see!!!

I think leaving the [discuss] is best to let people see this discussion...I have much reading to do on this as i see that the books i have our not complete on there info.Geological methods for archaeology

Buzzzsherman (talk) 06:02, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, thank you for the kind words. As a very interesting and fairly current popular archaeological overview on the subject of human origins in the western hemisphere I'd recommend [2]. Like any popular general introduction to a subject, it has its issues; but overall, in my opinion it's a good read and occasionally fairly thought provoking as well. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 18:47, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Aboriginal peoples in Canada[edit]

Hello my friend ..........I and a few others have re-worded things on Aboriginal peoples in Canada...Pls take a look. I came a Cross a Book About a DNA study...a mitochondrial DNA study concluded stating that the initial founders of the Americas emerged from a single source ancestral population. Buzzzsherman (talk) 19:52, 29 August 2009 (UTC)


Hi there! Just a FYI, I was cleaning up Category:WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America, so I needed to re-categorize your userpage to the member's category. Hope I didn't scare you! :) --Funandtrvl (talk) 16:46, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem. Thanks for the 'fix'! cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 20:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Karel Soucek[edit]

What is written on Karel Soucek's page is the truth. My name is Joe MacDonald and I was there on both occasions; Niagara Falls and the Houston Astrodome. I was a crew member and personal friend of Karl's. You may contact me for further information or to talk about this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by No1stuntman (talkcontribs) 18:22, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Joe, first of all thank you very much for your attempt to improve our encyclopedia in good faith, I hope you'll stick around and help put a good article together for Mr. Soucek, he deserves one in my opinion. Actually, on one occasion I visited his grave in Drummond Hill Cemetery. My reversion of your additions to the article is nothing personal, it has to do with Wikipedia's policy regarding what is considered reliably sourced information for material to be included in the encyclopedia. See WP:RELY for details on this policy. The long and the short of it is that all information added to Wikipedia has to be sourced from previously published reliable sources, our own personal recollections can't be used as a source. The problem is that even though someone like your self is offering valid information based on their own first hand knowledge, others would simply make up content and try to pass it off as real, without reliable referencing, if you think about it I'm sure you'll agree that Wikipedia would quickly become unusable; no one would be able to determine what material was 'real' and what was bogus. Mr. Soucek received a fair amount of press coverage, especially in newspapers, as long as the name and date of the publication appear, newspaper stories are perfectly acceptable as a reference in Wiki. I also noticed that he is frequently discussed in many of the more recent falls 'daredevil' books, another potential source of information. Ultimately, the best source would be if people like yourself, who have intimate first hand knowledge of the subject, decided to write and publish details themselves. If you check out the top of the article, you'll see a template in place that points out that at the moment, the article has no sources at all for the information it contains. Although it has two external links, one contains only images and the other is very 'thin' on supporting what's being claimed in the article itself. The problem only increases if even more unsourced material is added over time, which is why I'm removing your material. I hope you'll take the time to help build a well referenced article for this man, if you need bibliographical leads for locating newspaper stories, just let me know. If you reside in the Niagara Falls Ontario area, I'd strongly suggest visiting the local history collection reference desk at the main branch of their library, they maintain a large newspaper clipping collection on this subject. As I said, if you need help on this just let me know. In closing, I'd like to remind you of one more important thing when you're considering adding extensively to an article. Wikipedia articles should be written from a "neutral point of view", it might be a good idea to carefully read the following policy regarding how to do this at:WP:NPV. I'll copy and paste this to the article's talk page, so that we can stay in touch. The best place to discuss these sorts of issues is there. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 20:29, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

London skyline[edit]

StevieY19 (talk) 05:51, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, how can I get a license for this picture? The guy has given his permission for the picture to be used, it was his work, but has asked for someone to upload it for him... How can I stay up, or how would I need to label it to allow it to be used?

Foymount, Ontario article[edit]

Thanks for your kind commendation. Check out all my other photos in Renfrew County and northern Ontario articles. Maybe you could consider awarding a {{The Photographer's Barnstar}}??? -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 19:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

You don't have one already?? I'm going to remedy that shortly, it's past due. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 19:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
  • Thank you kindly! -- P 1 9 9 • TALK 03:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. You're really offering a tremendous boost to those 'tiny community articles'. It's very much noted and appreciated. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 18:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Belmont Ontario?[edit]

I think you have the wrong user. I've never even been on the Belmont Ontario page, I'm viewing World Cup Qualifiers. (talk) 17:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

What you're referring to is likely a result of a warning template that I added last May because someone with exactly the same ISP number as you vandalized the Belmont, Ontario article.[3]. Something that you should keep in mind when you're using Wikipedia is the fact that anyone who is using the same Internet service provider as you shares your ISP number. The only way to avoid getting these sorts of "false" warnings is to get your own separate account on Wiki, which is very easy to do.[4] cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 17:57, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I see, thank youABH031 (talk) 18:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome. If I can be of any help give me a shout here. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 18:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


Hi, I was trying to post an article on some research as well as patent on gin. I believed that i was following the correct method by filling in the information on the wikipedia template. I received a note from you that this was vandalism and it had been reverted. If in error I did something wrong I apologize. Could you tell me how to post something? I still have it as an un reviewed article, link below. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Derekmgreer (talkcontribs) 16:46, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

The page that you were attempting to add information to is for reference use only and has nothing to do with adding new information to an individual article. Actually, I'm somewhat surprised that the page isn't "locked" so that it can't be accidentally altered. If you want to add information to the encyclopedia, I'd strongly suggest that you do some basic reading first guiding you on how to properly submit new material. A good start might be [5].If you have any questions, after you've read the introduction, give me a shout here on my talk page. happy editing. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 17:34, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

One thing that I should advise you of right away, but neglected to do so earlier, is that no copyrighted materials can be added to Wikipedia without the consent of the legal copyright holder. I Google sampled a section of the material on gin that you were trying to add back in September, and it appears to be copied and pasted from [6]. That material is copyrighted by the American Chemical Society 2008 and so can not be included in the encyclopedia without the full consent of that organization. I forgot to apologise for applying the wrong user warning for the edit that you made. I tagged it as "vandalism" rather than what it should have been , a "test". cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 18:24, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: award[edit]

Thanks for posting the award for alma, means alot, happy editing!Ottawa4ever (talk) 20:05, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

You're very welcome, it's well deserved; I only wish that more editors would show your dedication to furthering the preservation of the memory of their own local versions of "Alma". thank you Deconstructhis (talk) 20:20, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

THe Oka Crisis Movie[edit]

I put the link for this movie here so people would be aware of it - and in the movie - it shows the blatant racism the Cdn. Gov't has towards native people.

So if you want to prevent this awareness, you have your reasons of keeping this page the way "you" want.

Nia:wen —Preceding unsigned comment added by WetFlame (talkcontribs) 16:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Iah tetkaie:ri', you are making assumptions about my motivations by guessing and without any evidence beyond what you choose to see. Tell me truthfully, who does that remind you of? tha'tesato:tat Deconstructhis (talk) 16:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Foymount/Inline[edit]

Hey, I noticed that you moved {{Inline}} from the "References" section to the top of article at Foymount, Ontario, citing "policy". Could you let me know what policy that is? I've always been confused as to whether whether it should go at the top or in the refs section, and it'd be nice to know what the actual rule is. Note that I don't disagree with your edit, I'm just policy-curious. Thanks, -M.Nelson (talk) 17:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

No problem. In the second sentence of WP:TC, we're informed that [...] "Unless otherwise noted, they should be placed at the top of the article—before other templates, images, or infoboxes" [...]. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 17:31, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

{uw-vandalism4} just FYI[edit]

vandalism4 was given to Mike2756180 for two more cases of vandalism,Buzzzsherman (talk) 19:51, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Buzzzsherman. If they show up again today or tomorrow and I happen to miss it; enter their name on [7] and be sure to mention that it appears to be a "vandalism only account". thanks again cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 20:23, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
10-4 will do :) Buzzzsherman (talk) 20:36, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Stay Puft Marshmallow Man[edit]

Please note that discussion at the Ghostbusters franchise page clearly shows that the article was merged before, split as a "birthday present" to another editor (entirely inappropriate), and that the discussions there show clear consensus to remerge same as Slimer, Vigo, etc. I have also left a note on the films project page to confirm that this is appropriate. No valid content was lost in the merge, BTW, only unsourced stuff. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 15:33, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

My concern here is that regardless of the motivation behind why the article was split initially, the fact remains; it is (or at least was) freestanding and a proposed merger discussion was underway on the article's talk page that wasn't closed prior to your edit. Your contention in the the edit summary that "#'s" don't equal consensus is correct, insofar as it's not a straight counting of "votes", but I'd suggest that numbers do indicate the tendencies of the opinions held by other editors, a potentially important factor in trying to determine if "consensus" has in fact been reached. In this case, those opinions appeared to me to be decidedly in favour of a freestanding article rather than a merger, a result which you appear to have dismissed based on what you regard as a lack of "strength" in their arguments, a singlehanded conclusion that you appear to feel outweighs all other positions. I'd also like to mention that regardless of what previous proposed (re)merge discussions have occurred, "consensus" is not locked in stone. One final point, in terms of your contention of a lack of "notability". My own addition to the proposed merge discussion consisted of a cursory search through Lexus which indicated that the subject received nearly two hundred separate mentions in major news sources all over the world in the past twenty five years, in my opinion in most cases this would constitute a more than adequate demonstration of basic acceptability according to our policies; why not in this one? When it comes down to it, my basic question is, if this is a decision arrived at through any form of consensus, why wasn't the discussion declared closed and the result posted as "merge"? It doesn't make any sense to me that a discussion is requested, contributed to, and then later simply brushed aside. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 16:38, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
The "discussion" really isn't one - its 5 years of people randomly going "no" without actually discussing it. That is why it was not closed, because it really wasn't a discussion there. There are discussions elsewhere, as noted above. Also, cursory searches through Lexis or any other search does not demonstrate notability. Notability != # of mentions, but actual, significant coverage of the character itself. Obviously the character has been mentioned in many news sources, its in the film in a key role and Ghostbusters is a long time franchise. Did you look through every last one of those to see if it was actually significant coverage, or one of many reports noting the character was in the film or the television series or the game? If you didn't actually find significant coverage, analyzing and discussing the character in-depth, it does not meet GNG. Unless and until such coverage can actually be demonstrably shown, not just leaving the article for 2+ years under some claim that "coverage is there", there is no valid reason not to have it merged. Again, no valid content was lost, so it is not as if it affects anything. It just redirects to the bigger context of the franchise, to the direct section on Stay Puft.-- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 16:53, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

Believe me, I have neither the strength nor the inclination to put forward a cogent argument in defence of an independent 'Stay Puft Marshmallow Man' article. You've indicated that you believe that the character appears in the film in a "key role" and that Ghostbusters itself "is a long time franchise", both of which it seems to me, are indicative of at least some merit in the notion of including a free standing article regarding the character. Like it or no, we're both involved in editing an encyclopedia where it is at least tacitly deemed appropriate to create independent and rather lengthy articles for the likes of "George Costanza" and "Anakin Skywalker", neither of which is likely, in my opinion, to be the subject of in depth reportage in the 'literature', but alas, apparently the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man is of a different calibre. I'm somewhat resentful of your comment that an actual "discussion" was not underway regarding a proposed merge. Acting in good faith (and clicking on a link contextually oddly titled "discuss") I offered my perspective on the subject, only now to discover that in fact there was in "reality" no such process underway. Silly me. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 17:41, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


Hi Decon, I left a few comments on my user page re the Michael Shackleford article. I also noticed [this] article today, which has similar issues to the Shackleford one. Actually I think it's worse, it appears the article has been entirely written by Scott himself (via anonymous IDs). I cleaned it up a little today but it needs a lot of work. With the exception of the black-jack coverage and a good result in one poker tournament, the article reads like Scott's personal reflections. Please have a gander when you get a chance. Regards Hazir (talk) 23:42, 13 November 2009 (UTC)


for for cleaning up around me at Cyrus Teed. Einar aka Carptrash (talk) 03:21, 17 November 2009 (UTC)


In the past week i have made 4 edits to talk pages, all of which have been true and all of which have been deleted as vandalism. I am going to go round the pages I had edited and revert them to how i edited them, and i trust you will not break Wikipedia:Etiquette#How_to_avoid_abuse_of_talk_pages again, and i hope you realise how rude deleting a talk page comment is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugarh (talkcontribs) 16:24, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

When you're patrolling recent changes in articles, as I sometimes enjoy doing, and you're trying to decide whether or not a particular change represents a joke or test edit, there's sometimes a certain amount of guess work going on, but I try to apply a set of criteria based mostly on context. For instance, when I came across this unsigned edit of yours [8], it seemed rather outside of the scope of the talk page of an article with a type of algae as its only topic; call me a stickler if you want to; but it looks like a "joke" or test edit and I deleted it. As is a common practice when patrolling for vandalism, I then checked out other edits that you'd made as well as the contents of your user page at the time: [9] to gain context. I noticed that you did submit a useful contribution back in March of 2008 in the form of a base article for Holbeche House which is appreciated, but in short, it is very difficult for other editors to take any of your edits seriously when they consist of this sort of material:[10],that was added to my talk page again, unsigned. I took note that the current version of your talk page[11] indicates that you eventually hope to become an "administrator". If you are in fact serious about that and want to make a good start toward that goal, I'd like to suggest that you spend some more time reviewing Wiki's policies regarding how to contribute to the encyclopedia, in terms of things like how to properly reference your contributions WP:CITE when you add them and perhaps just as importantly, how to properly interact with other editors WP:AGF. If you have any questions please contact me here on my talk page. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 23:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Sorry about any trouble you have experienced. My school's I.P. is blocked due to vandalism, and when i logged in on friday my friend must of seen me entering my password, and has proceeded to vandalise pages. i am sorry. We do, however know someone called Tom Lavers, and he IS related to William Perry. it's just a little outside of the pages topic. i will change my password and do my best to cover my keyboard when entering it.--Hugarh (talk) 14:46, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
You may want to consider reinstating the warnings applied to your talk page regarding this incident and adding the explanation you've provided above at the bottom. Please keep in mind that warnings are regarded as "delivered" and applicable even if they've been deleted from the page. Other editors might regard their deletion as an indication of obfuscation on your part, in my opinion you're better off leaving them in place with an explanation; it's your call. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 19:56, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I only make additions and fix spelling and grammatical issues.[edit]

Did you bother to compare the new with the old, or just see that I didn't give a reason and revert it? Anyway, point taken; from now on I will point out any obvious grammar and spelling errors that I am fixing so legitimate fixes don't get reverted for not being "constructive". If I did something wrong on accident then please be more specific, otherwise if you feel the urge to revert random stuff then don't bother sending me a message, just do it.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

I'm afraid you're going to have to be more specific regarding the particular edit you're referring to. The only interaction that I'm aware of between the two of us before today occurred on November 23, when another editor reverted one of your edits and I added a warning template to your talk page for what was in my opinion the unwarranted removal of a citation request from the Andy Kaufman article [12] without providing an edit summary[13]. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 04:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is my issue: How do you site video game content? I see my attempt was reverted. There is simply not very much official content in summarizing the content of a video game. Can't the request for citation just be removed? Why would a citation even be requested in the last bit of information in the section and not the first? Not to mention there was an actual in-game screen shot at the link.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)

Please remember to sign your posts by adding four consecutive 'tildes'("~") to the end, it may seem trivial to you, but I guarantee 95% of responsible editors take a signed post much more seriously than an unsigned one. Now to your question. The answer, is there probably is no relatively easy way to cite references in support of claims about specific elements found in video games. Not unless you can track down something that will stand up to the requirements found in Wiki policy regarding "reliable sources" WP:RELY. If you can't provide a reliable reference for something, policy tends to say that it shouldn't be in the encyclopedia in the first place. It may seem "unfair", but how else can users actually trust what they're reading? Without references from reliable sources for verification WP:VERIFY, some sort of indication of "proof" of the veracity of what's being claimed in an article, Wikipedia would be potentially useless as a source of little else but rumours and "facts" that people just make up for fun. My question to you is: how can you say with any degree of certainty that the "Kaufman Cabs" in the game *actually* is named for Andy? You point to the screen capture, which probably demonstrates that "Kaufman Cabs" is an element actually found in the game; but how do you *know* that it's named for Andy Kaufman? "Kaufman" isn't all that uncommon as a surname, especially in some parts of the U.S.. How do you know that "Kaufman" and "cabs" weren't simply chosen because they sound good together? You don't need an academic paper as a reference to support this stuff, a citation in a specific issue of a mainstream gamers magazine that backed it up might do. The gamers Wiki that you tried to use as a reference won't cut it, take note that even there it's not backed up by a reference. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 03:09, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

claim of "original research" in additions to "UFO religion" article[edit]

In reference to

Our addition to The "UFO religion" contained no "original research", merely the statement of the well-known and and universal-accepted fact that all major mainline religions are in fact "UFO religions" as much as, and in the same sense, are the minor cults mentioned in your article. Every single major religion in the world has as main article of faith that God (or Gods) live in the sky, usually on planets or around stars; and that such God (or Gods) visit our planet periodically in some sort of vehicle -- this is true for Taoism, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc. etc.

As is well-known, the minor cults which likewise accept this premise, do so simply in imitation of the major world-religions. (If there may be any fault in doing so, it is primarily the fault of the major world-religions.) This is a subject worthy of some discussion here, rather than arbitrary immediate deletion of any open mention of it.0XQ (talk) 19:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm willing to leave the final call on this to a consensus of opinion amongst a number of editors, which would probably be best served by discussing this on the article's talk page. I am strongly contesting your claim that there is an established "well-known and and universal-accepted fact that all major mainline religions are in fact "UFO religions""; I hold that this claim is patently unsupported conjecture and "original research" on your part. Regardless, this doesn't alter the status of the material you actually added to the article, which in my opinion, again, consists solely of a theoretical position that is based on personal interpretations of primary materials by the editor posting it; which is pretty close to the definition of "original research" itself. See WP:NOR. Before posting this kind of controversial material it's usually considered a good idea to discuss it first on the article's talk page, I'm hoping that's where you choose to go with this before re-adding it to the article. I'd be more than happy to discuss this issue with other editors in that forum. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 20:29, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

What would you like to discuss about the relevance of an understanding of Maitreya in Vietnam?[edit]

Smkolins (talk) 12:43, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Hello Smkolins, please begin this discussion on the the talk page of the Maitreya article itself rather than here, in order to maximize the opportunity for other interested editors to comment on this matter and hopefully to arrive at a consensus. Personally, my opinion is that although the specific topic of the article is the concept of Maitreya in general, the material you have been adding is contextually a claim regarding the purported growth of the Baha'i Faith specifically in Vietnam and would thus be more properly included in an article regarding the history of that religion in that country. As a self identified member of the faith, again in my opinion, I believe that you should try to be wary of appearing "non-neutral" or utilizing undue weight regarding the topic when editing material that relates to it. Again, please open a discussion on the Maitreya article talk page itself regarding the appropriateness of the inclusion of this material before re-adding it to the article. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 15:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your reversion at Selwyn Dewdney[edit]

That's not the only article he fact tagged when there were already references. (talk · contribs) is a sock of Marburg72 (talk · contribs), who retired after Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Marburg72 and an outburst on his talk page which led to a block. He's fringe of fringe. I'm taking the IP to SPI I think. Dougweller (talk) 21:30, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem Doug. I also took note of the rather 'cranky' (in more ways than one) rhetoric on their talk page regarding, I'm assuming, you and Wright. I'm thinking that this is the same individual that I engaged in a rather protracted 'debate' session with last autumn regarding these articles, that lead absolutely nowhere. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 21:46, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like it. I've withdrawn the SPI and Marburg72's deleted talk page was undeleted as he'd been given the right to vanish, but lost that by editing as an IP. Dougweller (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2010 (UTC)
See Selwyn Dewdney for more further discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and sorry[edit]

Thanks for reverting my edit at Space opera in Scientology scripture‎ - I had looked and seen it was from the Hubble website and assumed it was an actual image, sorry for the mixup. Ruhrfisch ><>°° 20:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

No problem at all. I didn't even notice there was issue until the IP editor wisely pointed it out. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Deconstructhis. You have new messages at Talk:Paramahamsa Nithyananda.
Message added SBC-YPR (talk) 05:33, 4 March 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Finland Girl[edit]

I did find your comment helpful and I do need to diversify. I'm trying to find where I can help out, something simple but can't seem to find where. Something maintenance perhaps.

Did you see my attempt to research Sherurcij's "Finland Girl"? The Soviets probably did have female partisans but she looks more like a civilian casualty. According to this Soviet partisans mostly targeted civilian women, children and elderly inside Finland. I'm still trying to figure out if Seitajärvellä is a feminine form of Seitajärvi. Why can't they just talk English in Finland (humour). Slightsmile (talk) 19:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)Slightsmile

"Paramahamsa" Nithyananda[edit]

I have not added any personal commentary to the article. Please understand the situation and allow the acticle to develop correctly. I have removed the honorific "Paramahamsa", which is most appropriate under the situation.  Tharikrish  20:12, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Please stop reverts in talk page. This against Wikipedia policy. I will be force to escalate the dispute. Tharikrish  20:18, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Okay, you are adamant. Let us take it in the legal way. Tharikrish  20:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
In this instance, I would appreciate it very much if you would "escalate" the situation immediately. You *cannot* imply, infer or deliberately apply (as you did in this case) terms like " sexually deviant" or "charlatan" to someone in Wikipedia; it's defamatory. Please go the talk page of the article and read the material there; there was a consensus reached several days ago regarding this matter. Please take your issues to that forum; continuing to add material of the nature that you are posting, will in all likelihood cause you to be blocked from editing. thank you Deconstructhis (talk) 20:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
Charlatan - a person who pretends or claims to have more knowledge or skill than he or she possesses; quack. I never used the term "sexually deviant", did I? You have made an wrong acquisition. This itself is an POV evidence against you. My comments on the talk page are being reverted! What more could one ask! Escalation is what that has to be done. Tharikrish  20:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I think even if you have even a quick look at core Wikipedia policies like WP:BLP you'll see that what you're trying to post to that article is well outside what is allowed. Here in Wikipedia, we try to do things by consensus. That means, if a subject is potentially very controversial (as this one is) we put material for articles together by first discussing the proposed content on the article's talk page. This is occasionally a long drawn out process, so patience is required. Trying to circumvent that process by "being bold", deliberately posting controversial material without consultation on the talk page with other editors, is in all likelihood only going to prolong the process. The talk pages of articles (particularly those of living persons) is not a "safe zone" for making defamatory or slanderous comments about the subject of the article, if material constitutes a legal slur in the main article, chances are, it's use is also not permitted on the talk page and will be removed. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 21:07, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I tried to remove the phrase Paramahansa from the article. This not equivalent of posting controversial material. Tharikrish  19:27, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

That's not the content I'm referring to in the above post; take note that I'm also in support of removing the honorific "Paramahamsa" from the title of this article. Honorifics are often discouraged for use in the title of an article about a person, except when being used to differentiate them from someone else; which I believe is the case here with the proposed use of Swami and the geographic suffix. I do however, support "Paramahansa"'s inclusion in the first line of the article as an honorific, if it can be demonstrated through reliable sources that the title is regularly applied to this person by an existing religious organization; a practice which I believe is fairly standard in Wikipedia. The statements that I'm referring to in my above posting are specifically those which were posted by you to the talk page of the article and were subsequently deemed potentially defamatory or provocative in nature and removed. See [14]. Please, from this point forward, let's communicate with each other on the talk page of the relevant article, in the context of improving it in a neutral fashion after a consensus is reached. Rehashing old problems here that have already been dealt with through consensus and the application of existing policy serves very little purpose in my mind. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 20:14, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

That has been his name on the article for some time it was altered today and I have changed it back to the long term name, there is a discussion going on and the name should not be changed untill it is over.Off2riorob (talk) 22:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


'quranist' is the term most quran alone muslims like to call themselves

thats why i'd prefer if you dropped the 'quran alone' tag from the page

thanksJigglyfidders (talk) 19:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me Jigglyfidders, it's appreciated. The difficulty in what you're suggesting, is that the article itself is named "Qur'an alone". It would surely be quite confusing to the average reader when they glance down from the title to the first line of the article and see that the term used in the title itself doesn't appear in the first sentence in definition form; including that definition is a standard practice here in Wikipedia. I'd be more than willing to re-examine the title itself as being inappropriate in this context, but I'd suggest that that change might prove controversial and should be properly discussed on the article's talk page in an attempt at forming consensus. As I mentioned in my edit summary, "Quranist" appears to be used a fair bit, but "Quran alone" also commonly appears as well in searches. In my opinion, our discussion should properly shift to the articles talk page so that other editors opinions can be included as well. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 20:01, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Qur'an claims to prove itself[edit]

The Quran claims evidence of it's divinity is that nobody can imitate even a single chapter or surah of the Qur'an. [Quran 2:23] However, there seems nothing extraordinary for example about chapter Al-Kafirun.

i have brought a reference for this article you deleted

i will now re-edit, tell me if you see something wrong

Jigglyfidders (talk) 08:30, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello again Jigglyfidders, rather than posting here, it would be much more helpful to you to make inquiry regarding these sorts of edits, in the form of specific questions on the talk page of your adopter "Airplaneman" [15]. I'm developing a concern that if you continue on your present editing path, you may risk being blocked from editing the encyclopedia. My advice to you is to immediately stop actually adding content to potentially controversial articles and seek guidance from your adopter; ask him specific questions regarding these matters. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 17:08, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


No problem, it's my pleasure.  :-) leevclarke (talk) 18:50, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Obviously another "Jumbophile". Thanks again. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 22:15, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Links that you have considered "spamming"[edit]

This organization is the most important guide in all the Western Egyptian Desert. Main point of reference for archeological researchers. The only one mentioned also in Lonely Planet Guide and other egyptian Guides (that are not advertising Books).

Khalifa Expedition is also the founder and member of Bahariya Oasis NGO.

This is an institution.

This only to underline you this matter.

Best Regards.

Nik —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:32, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The company may be "important", in the sense that they provide a valuable service that is highly regarded, but they are a commercial touring operation and as such are not permitted to advertise in the external links section of Wikipedia articles. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 15:40, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


Your edit here reverted my edit here. I trust it was an error on your part, as your edit summary did not mention that part of the change. I don't have a view on whether a mosque image should be in the section or not. But if you disagree that foreign immigration is redundant please say so. Thank you. Daicaregos (talk) 17:01, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about that. You guessed correctly that my replacement of the word "foreign" was made in error in the process of restoring the image of the mosque to the article. Again apologies. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 00:48, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
No problem, and thanks for restoring. Best, Daicaregos (talk) 08:09, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Baha'i is Abrahamic[edit]

This is an abrahamic religion, so why shouldn't it be mentioned. it has enough followers, with some figures as high as 8 million. they are widespread and are the 2nd fastest growing religion in the world, with indications it will take over Judaism as the worlds 6th largest religion by the 2030s. There is no undue weight whatsoever as you are suggesting in my opinion, and im not even a Baha'i.Jigglyfidders (talk) 18:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Before making changes in an article,please take more time to read *all* of the material and the history of an article, so that you can develop a better idea of the context that your edits are occurring in when working on it. The final sentence in the first section of the Abrahamic religions article has contained a referenced mention of the Baha'i Faith arrived at by consensus for several weeks now, indicating that "some have asserted" it's appropriateness for inclusion in this category. The phrasing alone should suggest that this issue is far from settled in a real sense; in particular in the way that you appear to be asserting it; that the Baha'i Faith should be added directly and on an equal footing as the fourth religion alongside the historically established triad of Christianity, Judaism and Islam in a listing of Abrahamic religious traditions. In my opinion, this constitutes an extraordinary claim on your part and represents the offering of a novel theory offered without supporting references, or any authority beyond your own personal opinion. thank you Deconstructhis (talk) 01:20, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
I am not claiming Baha'i Faith should be on an equal footing as the 3 basic Abrahamic religions, but it should definitely be up there and could be mentiuoned in the following way; "the world's three primary monotheistic faiths traditionally consist of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, but according to recent sources, the Baha'i Faith also shares common origins and values."

When you look at recently published religion books Baha'i is always mentioned among one of the classical faiths as is also acknowledged by as well as other major religious data compilers. this is a list of twelve classical major world religions;
   * Baha'i faith
   * Buddhism
   * Confucianism
   * Christianity
   * Hinduism
   * Islam
   * Jainism
   * Judaism
   * Shinto
   * Sikhism
   * Taoism
   * Zoroastrianism 

This is not an extraordinary claim on my part, but rather Baha'i is one of the major organized religions on Earth with their central texts and holy places. Baha'is have died for refusing to give up their faith and have been endlessly persecuted for even suggesting there should be another revelation after Islam. Thanks for reading.Jigglyfidders (talk) 09:47, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Jigglyfidders, you might want to see this discussion. Can you provide more than one (say, four or five) reliable sources to back up your claims? I'm not saying you're wrong or right, but some reliable sources need to be put forth. Airplaneman 16:45, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
Jigglyfidders, you'll have to forgive me if I feel that your statement that you're "[...] not claiming Baha'i Faith should be on an equal footing as the 3 basic Abrahamic religions" is somewhat disingenuous, when considering this edit of yours from the other day [16] in this article. Are other editors perhaps to assume you are once again "testing your limits"? [17] In my opinion, it would be foolish to completely dismiss the notion that the Baha'i religion is broadly speaking within the Abrahamic "tradition", however that being said, I believe that claiming that it should currently be categorized as holding an equal position with the other three religions is misleading, unsupported and in my opinion betrays a certain lack of "neutrality" on the subject. Jigglyfidders, I have now lost count of the number of times that other editors have tried various tacts in attempting to curtail some of your more controversial editing practices; in my opinion, despite the fact that some of your edits are fine; it seems to me that you are showing signs of actually trying to "game" the system (see WP:GAME) in order to be able to buy time in an attempt at continuing to carry on a pattern of some of your less than desirable editing habits. Many editors will consider this activity highly disruptive (I happen to be one of them) and that perhaps the only solution may be in beginning to utilize incrementally increasing blocks against your account. These blocks are not punitive in a strict sense, they are an attempt at protecting the project against "harm". I sincerely believe you are continuing to receive good advice from several quarters on these issues; however, for the most part you appear to me to be deliberately ignoring it. Once you brazenly imply to the community, as you did the other day, that you may or may not be acting in "good faith" on any given edit, I believe a line has been drawn and in truth, I can no longer extend the same in your direction. thanks Deconstructhis (talk) 21:44, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
you have real skills deconstructhis - every time i see you write i feel as if im speaking to a computer. Is there really a human being on the other side or are you programmed to speak perfectly? if you are human, this is a compliment by the way beacuse of your charasmatic lettered competent and prolific professionalism *wink*Jigglyfidders (talk) 20:16, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
Back on topic Jigglyfidders; I totally agree with Deconstructhis on this one. What will you do to address this issue? Airplaneman 00:18, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

Pigpen cipher[edit]

I started a topic in the discussion on this article. You deleted my citation of the Crown of Serpents novel which is the same as the Dan Brown citation. Same genres. Same use in a novel. In fact, Crown of Serpents trumped Brown's usage of the cipher since it was published in May 2009, well before Brown's Sept. 2009 date. I would ask that the reference to Crown of Serpents be allowed back in under your guidelines.

JakeTununda (talk) 15:34, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Pigpen cipher for my reply. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 16:27, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

Harry Palmer / Avatar[edit]

Thanks for cleaning this up. You and I both made the exact same edit at the same time just now, LOL. I know the article needs work to be more balanced maybe but this new editor (only working on this one article ATM0 is a real squirrel of sorts, and obviously is either heavily involved in Avatar or works for Palmer personally. Sorry, I do not assume good faith in cases like this. But I'd be open to them learning the rules and then playing by them. In the meantime, can we warn the user or have someone locl the article for a while? Venus Copernicus (talk) 18:19, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Unless things change dramatically, don't worry too much about locking the article; this appears to be a single purpose account doing the editing on one article. In my opinion we should simply apply the appropriate level user warnings and then proceed to AIV if it's required. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 18:26, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Hope I didn't go overboard with the MASTADON, LOL. It's hard to be objective when you see people caught up in such things and dumping their cognitive dissonance and rationalizations on WP. I'm really glad you're here to be more objective and smooth things out better than I have. Peace, Venus Copernicus (talk) 21:05, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

I appreciate your work to clean up the efforts of User: to retaliate for my reversion at Rachel Carson.--Hjal (talk) 05:49, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

No problem; you're welcome. I added them to AIV a few moments ago as well. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 05:53, 27 April 2010 (UTC)


I am not affiliated with KTUL-TV Tulsa, or any places or subjects included in the article on the station. Nor am I affiliated with any television station in the entire United States. Any information I add to a article, whether it is television or not, is either pure personal knowledge or information that I have obtained from other sources. (Tvtonightokc (talk) 04:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC))

Thank you for your response. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 05:27, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Hello !![edit]

Hello there been some time its me Buzz!! I have added a few refs to the Indian question on the Aboriginal page think they explain the falling out of use of the term Indian ?? [18] [19] ...just wanted to make sure your ok with this as you are the person i have always turned to about this!! ...your old friend Buzzz now -->Moxy (talk) 16:28, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I saw yuor last edit ...did you read the ref?? The term "Indian" is considered outdated by many people, and there is much debate over whether to continue using this term. The Department, following popular usage, typically uses the term "First Nation" instead of "Indian," except in the following cases:

   * in direct quotations
   * when citing titles of books, works of art, etc.
   * in discussions of history where necessary for clarity and accuracy
   * in discussions of some legal/constitutional matters requiring precision in terminology
   * in discussions of rights and benefits provided on the basis of "Indian" status
   * in statistical information collected using these categories (e.g., the Census).

Moxy (talk) 16:36, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

"English Ontarian"[edit]

No problem. I suspect that they will be back again. If either Bearcat (talk · contribs) or I am around let us know and we can block and revert again. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 17:21, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I was in the process of contacting Bearcat, when I checked back for the correct spelling of the sock's name and saw that you had already dealt with the situation. Thanks again, I'll try and keep an eye out for this. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 18:26, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot[edit]

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Georgian Bluffs, Ontario
One London Place
Nottawasaga Bay
Alison Jolly
Wandel Sea
Heinz Vollmar
Woco Group
Masonville Place
C. E. Gaines Center
Forest City Velodrome
Manfred Zielonka
Kasha Terry
Gerhard Strack
Khamis Mushait
Gulf of Sidra
East Siberian Sea
Brantford City Council
List of cities and towns in Saudi Arabia
German Union
Wasaga Beach, Ontario
English country music
Laval East
Cologne Cable Car
Add Sources
Gulf of Cádiz
Alboran Sea
Bay of Biscay
Europe and the People Without History
Expense Ratio
Opus (play)
Jean-Claude Van Damme
Ernst Benda

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 06:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Cannabis status in the Netherlands[edit]

Can't agree here. It's not illegal when you may buy it and smoke it in socalled "Cannabis coffeshops". Yes, the article about the drug policy in the Netherlands ALSO says this. I think you can give up your things here! Konstruktiv II (talk) 14:32, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Please see your own talk page for my response. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 19:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


I would like to consult you seeing you are familiar with Qur'an alone. There is currently a user User:Abd r Raheem al Haq who is editing this page beyond comprehension. for example

  • removal of external links here
  • Undue weight and bad layouts here.
  • His talk page suggests there is a conflict of interet too as his reasoning for deletion of external links was to minimize 'Rishad Khalifa' POV. Either way, there is no evidence that the external links are Rashad Khalifa or United Submitters websites.
  • here he is also adding a website called Free Minds to the list of sub-sects
  • Then we have the most outrageous claim that Quranists face towards Jerusalem rather than Mecca here and make pilrimage there. Then goes on to say that "Quranists often outright reject beliefs that are fundamental to orthodoxy." without reference.
  • The very definition of "Quran alone" means without hadith, but in this edit summary he says that Quranists DO follow hadith.
  • He also added "it is not uncommon for Quranists to derive their own personal approaches to prayer" which is untrue and without reference.

He has also added many unreferenced passages and obviously doesn't know anything about Quranists. I have left some warnings on his page but am currently considering calling an administrator now that he doesn't seem to learn and is unwilling to read wikipedia policy guidelines, for blocking or page protection. Thanks for reading. Iwanttoeditthissh (talk) 16:50, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

WMAQ Edits[edit]


Everyone was ok with my edit of WMAQ until you. It has been that way for nearly a year without any changes. Many users have complemented me on how thorough and accurate it was. It had answered several users' questions about former on-air personalities. Please revert back to the way it was because no one else seemed to have a problem with it before you did. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Please see current ongoing discussion regarding this issue at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Lists of non-notable "past employees" of television stations? cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 15:47, 19 June 2010 (UTC)


Wikipedia Reviewer.svg

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Wikipedia:Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. NativeForeigner Talk/Contribs 17:29, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

WJLA, et. al.[edit]

Please take this discussion to WP:TVS, WP:ANI or another page and establish consensus there. At present, consensus has been established for these lists to be on Wikipedia. What you are doing is against consensus and in cases of reverting, edit warring. I ask that you stop editing these pages, establish consensus and then move on from there. - NeutralHomerTalk • 17:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello Neutralhomer; I want to make it clear that I will cease these edits immediately and will not be reverting any of your edits until I gain a clearer understanding of the situation. I'd also like to apologise to any editors who were caused distress by my edits; they were not intended as a negative comment on any of the time or good faith they extended in compiling and checking the information in the first place. However; I'm in a bit of a quandary as to how to apply WP:NLIST in these instances and how to deal with the stringencies of BLP material being offered up without references as well. I've been attempting to track down past instances of consensus on specifically exempting these lists from WP:NLIST and BLP requirements and I'm not having much luck. I've found analogous examples mentioning similar circumstances in general in other categories, but so far, nothing specifically exempting "lists of past employees of television stations". I'd appreciate it if anyone could help me out there. I'm going to be fairly busy over the next 24 hrs. or so; but I'll definitely be posting an inquiry regarding this issue to both of the venues you mentioned Neutralhomer as soon as I get a chance. As I mentioned before, I will not be engaging in editing any of the articles you reverted today, until I can obtain clarification in the form of an expression of current consensus from the wider community. Thank you for your time. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 18:50, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
Hello again Neutralhomer, I apologise in advance for the prolonged delay in posting a proper response regarding this issue; however it's provided me with the opportunity to check the archives once again and rethink the situation. Despite your assertion that a "consensus has been established" in regard to allowing the addition of unreferenced lists of non-notable former employees to television station articles, I have only been able to locate two examples regarding this specific type of list material that approximate a consensus, both of which appear to draw the opposite conclusion of your own. The first, from March of this year,[20] which included you in the discussion, resulted in the labelling and removal of this type of list as an unreferenced "laundry list" of non-notable entries and appears to exclude these lists on the basis that the required notability and verifiability of the entries have not been established, either through the addition of reliable referencing in support of their inclusion; or the prior existence of articles in the encyclopedia demonstrating verifiability and the individuals notability. In my opinion, both of these stipulations appear to satisfy the requirements of WP:NLIST; the advice put forward in "Uw-badlistentry" [21] and also potentially offer the protection demanded when dealing with BLP type material. The second instance of consensus that I was able to locate that centred on the addition of this specific type of list, occurred within the past couple of weeks [22] where the inclusion of this type of material was rejected by other editors (I was personally involved in this discussion) for similar reasons and was subsequently removed. In this instance, at least one editor was eventually short term blocked for "repeated addition of unsourced content"; when they persistently attempted to re-add this specific type of list to several Chicago area television station articles.[23] I've taken note that your own attempt in this instance to re-add this type of unreferenced list to an article on June 30th was subsequently reverted by an administrator; a decision that was supported by several other editors at the time as well.[24]. For these reasons, I now intend to act "boldly" and once again remove this type of material from the circa twenty five articles that you mass reverted on June 30th, utilizing Twinkle, and request that until you can justify the presence of this type of material in articles according to our existing policies and guidelines or establish that consensus has in fact changed WP:CCC, that you do not revert it again. My intention is to once again only include unreferenced entries that are at least "verified" by having a previously existing article in Wikipedia. I've taken note of your continued valuable contributions to our maddening beauty of an encyclopedia and continue to maintain that you are attempting to act in what you think are in the best interests of Wiki; however, I hold the sincere belief that both policy and consensus are running against you in these circumstances. Should you continue to believe otherwise; I openly invite you to take this matter to task on an appropriate noticeboard. If you do decide to do that, please keep me informed of any such posting(s) in order to provide me with an opportunity to offer up a defence of my position. I'd appreciate it if you would inform me here on my own talk page if you decide to do that. I'm going to post this to your talk page as well so that you can be informed as to what's going on. Feel free to respond either here or on your own page, which I'll put on watch. If I'm just plain wrong in all this, I'm prepared to take my "lumps" and will of course abide by any consensus. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 18:21, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
Due to ongoing pain associated with dental surgery I had on Friday (7/2), I just don't have the energy to fight you on this. As such, I ask you remove the "former personalities" sections from all television station pages, not just some (to be complete in the work). I personally feel the consensus is there, but again, the energy isn't there to argue the point or find the information to do so. I will, though, be available for any questions you have, but give me more than normal time in responding as I am moving quite slowly. - NeutralHomerTalk • 20:57, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
You may want to see this list (and the links that follow) for easier finding of the many (MANY) television stations in the United States. Also, you can view this template for all the state pages and providence pages in Canada where television station pages are listed. - NeutralHomerTalk • 15:11, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello again Neutralhomer; I hope your recovery from dental surgery is progressing well. The CIA Factbook indicates that there are approximately 2,366 television stations in the U.S. and Canada as of 2006-2007; a sizable number to be sure, but if the numbers of these unreferenced lists containing BLP material continue on a percentage basis as at present; "only" about one in three contain the type of extensive unsupported lists of past employees that I'm trying to focus on. I meander geographically from time to time, because I've been noticing editing patterns; it appears that some editors, more than others, are attentive to the addition and maintenance of this kind of material and so occasionally I simply look at their edit histories to locate relevant articles. Neutralhomer, I've noticed that both here on my talk page and also in the discussion which you were involved in March on this issue,(which is linked above) you seem to be inclined toward arguing for the inclusion of this material based on the simple fact alone that so much of it already exists in Wikipedia. You seem to me to be implying that because that is the case, that no attempt to work at remedying that situation is warranted. I'm not quite sure what to make of that; could you perhaps help me to understand what you mean? You also appear to me to be suggesting that it's a case of "everything or nothing" ie that unless all of this material is dealt with simultaneously, that somehow it's removal piece by piece is "illegitimate" in some sense. In my mind, the opposite of "everything" in this regard isn't "nothing"; it's "a little at a time", until the material meets the requirements of our policies and guidelines. Setting aside those two potential problems for a moment; I'd like to ask you a direct question. Personally, I'm of the opinion that this type of material has several associated problems barring its inclusion in Wiki, but I'd like to get a response from you pertaining to one specific policy. Why do you feel that these lists are inherently excluded from having to comply with WP:NLIST? cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 20:13, 6 July 2010 (UTC)
I feel, since these lists are actively updated for several users, across many stations and states, the information isn't just "throw up there" and left, but is updated and kept up-to-date. So removing it would be something that would be bad for the project not good. I think though if part of it were to be deleted, it will just pile back on, so the whole section should be deleted to prevent more "non-notable" (as people say) reporters/anchors/etc. from being added. - NeutralHomerTalk • 20:32, 6 July 2010 (UTC)


You need to explain what you mean. I'm sorry, up the rest, that are former staff. There are some that were on the list, if you look at it, that said that they're still presently there. I'll take those people up. But, the other people need to be up there, who were former staff. For now, I'm adding one more person to your notable staff list for now, until the other one is fixed. Just wanted to let you know that the staff list that was up there, needs to be put back up, once it's fixed. I'll have the old one in my sandbox, if you'd like to fix it to how you think it should be. (JoeCool950 (talk) 05:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC))

Look at my sandbox and let me know what was wrong with this, so that I can fix it. Explanation didn't make since as to why you took these people off. There ones on the list, that said that they're still presently there, I took them off. What's in my sandbox is an updated former staff list for KGET-TV. Let me know why this can't be up? I think it should. If you don't see anything wrong with this, I'm putting what's in my sandbox back up. I did for now add someone to your notable staff list that you fixed up, if there's a good reason for the other one. Just need to know. Thought it wasn't right to take off what you add fixed, but added one person to your list. But, do give me an explanation please. If not, I'm fixing what's in my sandbox a little bit more and putting it back up. (JoeCool950 (talk) 06:09, 7 July 2010 (UTC))
I'm getting sick and tired of you changing what was on there, so you need to not take off the names. I will be asking the WP:TVS. If they say it's o.k. then I will report you for vandalism. (JoeCool950 (talk) 20:12, 7 July 2010 (UTC))
With just the two names, that needs to be taken off, until you stop changing KGET-TV. (JoeCool950 (talk) 20:24, 7 July 2010 (UTC))
I'm sorry that you feel that way JoeCool950; my intention isn't to disrupt the encyclopedia; it's an attempt at improving it, although you might have a difficult time seeing it that way at the moment. I'd like to gently suggest that you take a careful look at the discussion between Neutralhomer and myself on this issue above. Check out the links that I've provided to them regarding my reasoning for making these changes and let me know what you think. It's was my intention to respond directly to you later on this evening on these matters; but I think it would be a good idea if you carefully read what I've posted above first, so that you have a better idea of my intentions and reasoning. If, after doing that, you still feel there's a need to post an inquiry to WP:TVS, please do so. I had already decided that for clarity sake it would probably be good to do that anyway, as well as a couple of other noticeboards as well; in an attempt at further measuring existing consensus. I apologise for delaying my response to you directly but I wanted to spend a little time thinking it through. Also, please always remember that it's always a good idea to extend "good faith" when interacting with other editors. Hopefully we are all hoping to improve the encyclopedia; each in our own way. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 20:32, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
I went ahead and posted it on WP:TVS, just because the issue needs to be brought up. Nothing against you, just need to know. There's another station that I might fix up how you did KGET-TV, just in case they don't like the one in my sandbox, or think the one in my sandbox is appropriate. You can give your input to on that. The more, the merrier. By the way, I didn't want to just take off what you had on KGET-TV, or that could be vandalism, I would think. Thanks for responding back on the issue. (JoeCool950 (talk) 21:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC))
I fixed up KERO-TV kind of how you have KGET-TV because it was the same thing, until the issue gets resolved. Just wanted you to know, and left the comment on why I changed it that way. Just wanted to update you. (JoeCool950 (talk) 21:26, 7 July 2010 (UTC))
Thanks very much for your courtesy JoeCool950, it's genuinely appreciated. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 05:45, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Lists of TV personnel[edit]

Hi. Can you please point me to the consensus rejecting unsourced lists of former television station personnel? Thanks. JTRH (talk) 16:41, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm specifically asking because of your large-scale deletion at WCNC-TV of a lot of material which I contributed. Thanks. JTRH (talk) 16:42, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Hi again. I restored the material you deleted and tagged the section as unreferenced. This gives me and other editors a chance to locate sources and make some editorial decisions rather than having almost the entire list deleted as unreferenced and apparently non-notable. Thanks JTRH (talk) 16:51, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I might, if I can, do the same thing with KGET-TV and KERO-TV (tag the secion as unreferenced). I can see what sources I can locate for the past former staff, that should be notable on the sight, and the ones that I can't find, won't be on there. I put each list in my sandbox and work on them, then that way, KERO-TV and KGET-TV has a good list of notable people on there. I'll work on KGET-TV, so if you see the reference tag, means I'm working on it. I'll put the updated one, once I get it done, up on KGET-TV and KERO-TV. (JoeCool950 (talk) 15:48, 11 July 2010 (UTC))
JTRH message begins below, not related to the anon posting immediately above this line
I found my way to the Village Pump discussion on June 20. It seems that there were seven people agreeing with your suggestion that these lists should be deleted or significantly scaled back, and only one in favor of keeping them (not counting the blocked user/sockpuppet TVFAN24). I'm not sure seven people qualifies as a "consensus" when there are far more people (including myself) who've worked on those articles and were not made aware of the discussion. I'm not claiming ownership of anything, and I'm not unilaterally opposing deletion of anything; when I created the Former Personnel list at the WCNC-TV article that I mentioned above, it was limited to those whose whereabouts and professional notability I could verify. Someone (who apparently used to work at the station and knows many of these people personally) came through afterwards and added a larger number of names whose stated current whereabouts are neither verifiable nor notable ("Now an NBC News anchor" is one thing, "lives in Centerville, OH" is quite another). Again without claiming ownership, I would also suggest that someone who has contributed to these pages is more familiar with the subject matter, and thus potentially a better judge of an individual listee's notability, than someone who's never worked on the page, is not familiar with the station in question, and whose only criteria for judging notability is whether the person has his or her own Wikipedia article. So I'd like to encourage past editors to participate and use some editorial judgment rather than subjecting everything to a wholesale and somewhat arbitrary weed-whacking.
Your contributions list shows me that you've greatly trimmed down these lists for quite a few stations. May I suggest the following: Could you please suspend your trimming-down work until you've posted your concerns on the articles' talk pages, created a more accessible forum for this discussion, and made other interested editors aware of it? I had no way of knowing about the Village Pump discussion, and would have participated if I had known about it. Someone on the Village Pump page suggested an RFA; that's fine with me, but I'd like to see if we can work this out ourselves. Thanks for indulging a rather long-winded rant on my part. JTRH (talk) 15:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello again JTRH, no need to apologise for a "rant"; the more information that we both have in regard to these matters, the more likely we'll have a positive outcome. I do apologise for any "miscommunication" that may have occurred as a result of me failing to repost a link to the circa June 20th discussion thread that occurred at the Village Pump surrounding this issue. I posted one earlier here on this page in conversation with Neutralhomer and made the false assumption that you'd likely spot it in that context. I'd like to suggest that it might be "profitable" if you have a read of anything on this page appearing below the section titled "WJLA, et. al."; as it all contains information directly related to what we're discussing. In particular, you might find my comments, links and 'food for thought' in response to Bband11th useful, which I posted earlier this evening in the section below titled "July 2010". Rather than re-invent "The Wheel" (sorry, I couldn't resist :)) each time I post, I believe that a review of previously posted material here may aid you in understanding exactly where I'm coming from and forestall boring you with constant repetition. I believe that the basic heart of my argument can be found therein. The hour is growing late here, so I will attempt to be as succinct as possible; with apologies in advance if I sound rather "blunt"; it's not intended that way. The answer that I'm truly looking for here is the following: why is it that you believe that lists of former employees of television stations should be exempt in some way, from the requirements imposed by the policies and guidelines outlined in my response to Bband11th below? If you could perhaps provide me with a specific reply in regard to each of them, I'm sure it would greatly help me to understand your reasoning. It might also be useful for you to make inquiry with the small group of editors and administrators who have also recently turned 'thumbs down' on the proper inclusion of these types of lists as well. Two or three administrators during the past several weeks have actually followed through and actively blocked editors for persistently re-adding these unreferenced lists to articles. Perhaps you might find it useful if you were to inquire with them regarding the reasoning behind that. As a sign of good faith, I will agree to cease expanding the number of articles in which I'm engaging in the "trimming down" of these lists at present; however, be advised that my intention is to continue to reject and appropriately warn when unreferenced material derived from original research is re-added to these lists found within articles that I have already worked on. Until I am instructed not to do so by an administrator, or obviously a new consensus has been formed, it is my intention to continue the practice. As I mentioned to Bband11th below, there has been a discussion initiated at [25] in regard to this issue and I'd like to invite you to contribute your ideas. I can readily understand why this issue has the potential to eventually end up in some form of arbitration; but like you, I believe there may be a way to avoid that through negotiation. Contrary to my own advice to others, I am currently editing while exhausted and so shall call it a night for now. Please feel free to contact me regarding any questions you might have on this matter. Apart from brief periodic 'vandalism checks'; real world commitments may curtail my responses until perhaps Monday. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 06:50, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Thanks for your thoughtful and constructive reply, and your invitation to participate in the linked discussion above. I'm certainly not insisting on an exemption from WP standards for these lists, and I certainly agree that many of the names on those lists fail to meet standards of either verifiability, notability, or both. I'm just asking for a "stay of execution" until a wider group of people has had a chance to participate in the discussion. Might I ask that you post a link to the discussion on the talk pages of those stations where you've edited the lists, so that people whose work is being undone can understand your reasoning and have a place to respond? Thanks. JTRH (talk) 17:57, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
PS: What I'd like to eliminate as unverifiable trivia is the sections on many station pages listing which channels they appear on on cable systems in the market, and the cable/satellite availability of the station outside the market. Can we add that to the discussion? TYA. JTRH (talk) 18:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)


I am sorry, I had my suspicions that user was a sock of TVFAN24, but wasn't sure. I also didn't want to accuse someone of something they weren't. You might want to keep a close eye on the Chicago television station pages. TVFAN24 has a high interest in those pages. Again, sorry, I should have caught that. - NeutralhomerTalk • 22:12, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Not to worry Neutralhomer; I had my suspicions regarding that editor beginning on Wednesday evening myself, but was in the same position as you, "suspicions" but no hard evidence without the ability to check. It appears that there are several of us with the Chicago stations on our watch lists and I'm reasonably sure each and every one of us in the back of our heads fully expects this person to show up again...shortly. Hope your recovery is continuing to progress well. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 04:27, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
The Chicago stations are out of my perview, but I was watching the user's contribs and when I seen that and the posts here, that is when it struck me. But I agree, they will be back sooner or later (perferably MUCH later), but it is good to know people are watching the pages, so the vandalism and disruption will be minimal at best.
Healing is going quite well actually. Pain is down considerably. Seen my dentist today for my one week follow-up and he was quite pleased with how things were progressed. So much so, he took out all the stitches and will let everything heal on its own without the help of stitches and didn't see the need for a second follow-up, so I am done with that doctor and move on to getting dentures. That will come in August. The dentist and I both agreed that gives everything more time to heal before plunking a plate down on it. Thanks for checking up on me, I apperciate that. :) Take Care...NeutralhomerTalk • 04:41, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

July 2010[edit]

Re: In general, a person or organization added to a list, as on KCBS-TV, should have a pre-existing article to establish notability. If you wish to create such an article, please confirm that your subject is notable according to Wikipedia's notability policy. Thank you. Deconstructhis (talk) 01:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Why don't you remove the ones on KABC-TV, for example? Let's be consistent. There are tons of subjects not following the "notability policy" and not cited. Besides notability is very subjective. In this case, Mark Coogan spent 43 years in the market. Bband11th (talk) 02:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure that individuals on these lists have to be "notable"--they certainly don't need to have an existing article. It depends on what makes the station article more encyclopedic: WP:N#Notability_guidelines_do_not_directly_limit_article_content, WP:BIO#Lists_of_people. I think that a list of every anchor for the evening news on a notable TV station makes sense, just as a list of headmasters at a public school does. For most such people, a brief annotation on such a list is better than a separate article, even if there are verifiable, reliable sources for them. I'm not sure that adding all of the reporters and engineers makes sense.--Hjal (talk) 04:11, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Hello Bband11th, I absolutely agree that our policies should be evenly applied, what's "good" for KCBS should be utilized in regard to the KABC article as well. After 43 years in the market, I'm somewhat surprised that Mr. Coogan doesn't already have his own article here in Wikipedia; I would think that it would be relatively easy to compile a reliably sourced one; after that amount of time he probably received any number of awards and mentions in the local print media. You might want to give it a try yourself. At the moment, the whole issue of whether or not unreferenced lists of "former employees of television stations" should be included in station articles is being debated by the community. In my opinion, there are potential problems here that go beyond only determining the "notability" of an individual in these circumstances. Our ability to "verify" WP:VERIFY the information that's being added to the encyclopedia every day is critical; in fact, the premise itself is one of our core policies. Lists of people (especially lists of "living persons" WP:BLP) are not exempt from the same policies and guidelines that are applied to other information found in an article; for information on that, please see WP:NLIST and WP:Source list). The issue of verification also arises when it comes to how the information being added to an article is derived in the first place. If the information itself is being obtained only through "private" sources; ie "personal knowledge", "word of mouth" or "station lore"; rather than reliably documented sources that can be cited; the problem of "no original research" WP:OR also becomes relevant. Many of these lists are quite long; because of how potentially problematic it might become to provide several references for each "unlinked" individual entry to satisfy the demands of the policies I've mentioned above; a "compromise" has been proposed by several editors and administrators. In keeping with "Uw-badlistentry" [26], it's been proposed that entries in lists of former employees of television stations should be restricted to contain only those individuals who have demonstrated basic notability and inherent verifiability through already being the subject of an existing article in the encyclopedia. I'd be happy to try and answer any questions you might have regarding this. I'd also like to encourage you to participate in this process by perhaps contributing to a current discussion that's been started on this topic at [27]. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 04:17, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Your Message[edit]

I think this is meant for MuZemike, as I did not edit the SPI but he did. Perhaps was this meant for him? - NeutralhomerTalk • 22:22, 11 July 2010 (UTC)

Oops. lol I meant this edit [28]. thanks again, cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 22:29, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
OK, just making sure. :) I had just woke up when I seen that so I was a little "stern" in my post. I will show MuZemike that other user who is already editing the Chicago television stations. Probably another sock. Might need a range block on that one if it is. - NeutralhomerTalk • 22:33, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
They may want to have a look at these kinds of edits[29] where it appears that as the first account begins to accumulate user warnings and drawing attention to itself and such, they appear to begin to 'tag team' by bringing in a new account. With no way of checking it's difficult to be definitive, but given previous patterns; I'd suggest it's worth a look. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 23:05, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I figured MuZemike has all the Chicago stations on his watchlist, so he is probably seeing that, long before I posted probably. :) I wouldn't doubt they are one in the same and there will probably be another SPI. - NeutralhomerTalk • 23:08, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
I just copied and pasted the further info to MuZemike's talk page for expediency sake; although I'm sure you're right about their thoroughness, they'll catch this fairly quickly. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 23:12, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
Per this, one confirmed (good call) and one unrelated. - NeutralhomerTalk • 00:06, 12 July 2010 (UTC)

Re: sockpuppet[edit]

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. This is actually a sockpuppet I have tangled. Dingbat2007 has plauged Wikipedia, particually television station pages, for years. This, does though, bring up a new problem. The user was adding (via an IP before making the sockpuppet account) "slogans" (think "Live. Local. Latebreaking" or "On Your Side") to television station pages. These are all unsourced fan cruft and should be removed on sight. So in your travels around the Wiki, I would ask you to removed those while you are removing the "former on-air staff" sections. This will be a big help to me. - NeutralhomerTalk • 18:10, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

They appear to be a fairly prolific puppetmaster if you check out their track record [30] [31].In terms of my "travels around the Wiki"; I'd have to say there's a process of sorts going on here already and I intend to abide by it. Apart from dealing with obvious vandalism; I won't be widening the number of articles beyond the ones I've already edited containing those lists until the way is clear to do so. I made a deal and I'm going to stick to it; however, as I said before, I will be keeping those articles on my watchlist; remove any re-addition of unreferenced BLP material in lists of past employees and warn the editor as is in my opinion appropriate until a settlement of some sort is arrived at. My main question continues to be: why should lists of former employees of television stations be exempt from things like WP:NLIST and WP:Source list? What about BLP's stringent requirements? Some editors only seem to pay attention to the "notability" aspect of this; it's much wider than that; in my opinion verifiability is the the real sticker. Also, it appears to me, what seems to get lost in the shuffle a great deal is the notion that it's not just about the "personal" notability of the individual that's on the list. As has been pointed out before WP:UNDUE asks us to consider how "notable" the persons themselves are in relation to the subject of the article itself, the television station. As I mentioned, I have all the relevant articles I edited on watch and so far, there have been surprisingly few reversions to the removals, almost all that did occurr happened in the context of 'other edits', and almost zero reactions on the article talk pages themselves. In fact, other edits are now accumulating after my removals; to me, this adds up to at least a weak form of "consensus" as well. So far, the few counter arguments that are in view, all seem to be based on a premise that somehow "WP:NLIST" and "WP:Source list" don't apply in this specific case somehow; without saying why. I've taken note that the talk page on the television station project is a little used page; of course discussion completely properly placed on that page; but I'm thinking that perhaps by the weekend I should look for a 'higher traffic' venue for my questions. Although I agree "there is no deadline"; WP:DEADLINE; that essay also points out the fact that sometimes it's better to 'move along'. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 20:31, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of John Melady[edit]

Ambox warning pn.svg

I have nominated John Melady, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Melady. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.
Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Claritas § 19:20, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know; it's appreciated. I'll be posting there later on. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 20:32, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Apparent Vandalism[edit]

This looks like Vandalism to me. Just names that were made up for the station. I know for a fact that these people do not work for KGET-TV. You can read what I told this this guy Special:Contributions/ (JoeCool950 (talk) 06:49, 14 July 2010 (UTC))

Good catch Joe. Someone at this IP's past editing practices[32] indicate that they're very fond of adding names and tweaking statistics within lists of persons. There's no doubt we should exhibit "good faith"; but if the changes being made in lists aren't verified through any kind of source when they're added (not even an indication of where the information was obtained in the edit summary) how are readers supposed to be confident that it's all not just 'made up'? Especially in a circumstance like this, where there's an indication already that an IP editor with the same address is capable of doing just that. Keep up the good work Joe, happy editing. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 13:36, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


Let me try to work with her a bit and see if she can learn to be a productive Wikipedian. I hear where you are coming from, I see what you see in what she's saying. The hammer has been used with her let me try the apple for a while please. Thanks. --Wgfinley (talk) 13:54, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

No problem. They say "faith can move mountains"; let's see how "good faith" does in relation to this particular chunk of granite. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 14:34, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Peve Aire 157[edit]

The thing to be aware of is that I do occasionally get some blowback from the "references don't matter, everything that exists should always have its own article" crowd when I redirect places. It's just a matter of reminding them about Wikipedia policy, as well as the fact that a redirect (or even an outright page deletion) doesn't make it impossible to recreate a better article at another time. But yeah, I'll continue to keep an eye on this as well. Thanks for letting me know about it. Bearcat (talk) 18:05, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Regarding Harpurhey, though, all classes of settlement, even ghost towns, are considered sufficiently notable to be a potential topic for a properly referenced article — so notability's not the issue with that one. It can still validly be redirected to the parent municipality if you wish, but it's not so much about notability as it is about the quality of the article itself. In fact, the reference that's present in the Harpurhey article actually has enough good information about the community to support a much more detailed article if someone were to take the time to write one — although of course we do have to evaluate the quality of the article as it exists today, not the quality of our perfect fantasy article. Bearcat (talk) 18:26, 16 July 2010 (UTC)


Thank you for wellcoming me, I have put sources I could find, some of them are in Arabic, as I could not find something relevant in english. Atheerkt (talk) 17:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

TV stations[edit]

Hey Deconstruct, I just saw this go by. Kudos. I see you've also had a discussion with NeutralHomer about this sort of information and its value in WP articles; Homer and I, after some disagreements he and I, it seems, have settled on a consensus--see the section Discussion on my talk page. I had also left a couple of 'status updates' on his talk page. WIAT is one of the articles that may reflect that consensus. I personally wouldn't want all that directory stuff either, but the names in that article are verified from the station's website at least. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 04:30, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Chicago Stations Former Staff Lists w/ Reference Tag Added[edit]

Hey Deconstructthis, I hope all is well with you. I wanted to ask if I could have your permission to do the following. I have left the 5 Chicago stations alone but I got to thinking that a lot of former employees who spent many years at the stations are missing from the list who deserve to be included. All I would like to do is add the list back w/ a reference tag so that can allow me and other editors time to weed through who belongs there and who doesn't something similar to how it is on WCNC's site. Let me know and I would be more than happy to do it. Thanks a lot, take care and happy editing. TVFAN24 (talk) 20:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello TVFAN24, I'm pressed for time, so you'll have to forgive me if I sound somewhat curt. The specific unreferenced material that you're requesting to re-add to the Chicago television station articles was rejected by a consensus of a half dozen editors a little more than a month ago[33], in fact, you were personally blocked for persistently attempting to re-add the material at that time [34]. In my personal opinion, nothing has changed; including your seeming reluctance to accept that other editors disagree with your position that unreferenced lists of people containing BLP material derived from original research through personal knowledge do not require any form of verification. In fact, I have yet to see any solid evidence that you've grasped the importance of verification as one of the cornerstones of our policies nor the concept of consensus; it appears to me that you have it 'stuck in your head' that as long you personally deem a particular entry to be "notable" (although unreferenced) that is all that's required. I would strongly suggest that you continue to seek guidance from your mentor on these matters. Also please keep in mind that the presence of "undesirable" material in an article, as is the case in my opinion in the WCNC article, is not a licence to perpetuate the existence of similar material in other articles. One last thing; please DO NOT under any circumstances attempt to "badger" me here on my talk page on this issue; in the past I've endured my fair share of "all caps" communications (in edit summaries and otherwise) originating from you and will in future regard all such "messages" as a form of harassment, remove them from my page and take appropriate action according to our existing policies. thanks Deconstructhis (talk) 22:25, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism Revert[edit]

Thanks :) - NeutralhomerTalk • 00:42, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

TV pages (WCAU)[edit]

Thanks for noticing and coming to the discussion at WCAU. I was totally unaware of the discussion at the Village more interesting behind the scenes place to add to my Watchlist, I suppose. It does appear that you had consensus (less one editor). One thing that I felt was missing from that discussion was that the places one would normally look to to verify the information, like Linkedin, Facebook, etc., don't normally count as reliable sources any way, as they're not only WP:SPS, but also they're SPS where it's nearly impossible to verify that the person posting is in fact the person they claim to be. I mean, just because there's a Facebook, etc. page for a "Tom Tucker" doesn't mean that 1) Tom Tucker really exists and 2) that the person making the page is actually Tom Tucker.
I think I'm going to keep ahead with these edits. When it's not challenged, it's pretty easy work that I can do as a rest from either debating contentious topics or researching/writing significant prose. Did you have a methodology for "finding" stations? Like I mentioned there, an arbitrary but at least exhaustive way for me was to just use List of NBC television affiliates (table). If this is work you're still tackling, it saves us time to not overlap. I mean, it's of course obvious when a stations been edited, but not all stations have had this "alumni" creep, so it saves a little time. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:09, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I honestly apologise for the terribly extended wait for this response, the real world does have its demands doesn't it. I believe I'll post this here and on your talk page as well, for your convenience; if you want to respond, it's your choice, either here or there. If you're experiencing any "verifiability shock" when you look at television station articles; it's perfectly understandable. I have about eighty of these articles on my watch list at the moment and they're a perennial circus when it comes to *not* providing sources for lots of relatively often changed material; not just lists either. I'm discovering that the more frequently ignored 'notable past employees lists' are not as "harmless" as some editors would like to believe. Completely unsourced and abysmally sourced allegations of things like serious criminal activity and suicide aren't common; but they're out there. Just to warn you: it can be particularly disheartening when you remove some of exactly that sort of material; along with other unreferenced stuff, and another editor deems it necessary to restore everything; including the potentially extremely libellous content. Here's a current example, [35] check out the "Mike Longman" entry; BLP unreferenced, not even an edit summary when it was restored. This list is also an average example of the types of "vanity" and "promotional" entries that pop up in this context. The Facebook account link approach to referencing this type of BLP material is a non-starter in my opinion. There also appears to me, to be a fixation by some editors, dealing with this type of material; on the notability of the individuals themselves when it comes to matters of deciding inclusion. To me; that's only half the battle. The subject of the article is the television station; when you start looking closely at this type of list material; it's easy to get the impression that a lot of these entries are really not very notable in terms of their importance to the television station itself and vanity, promotion or "memorial", raises its head again. On what I think is the more "positive" side of this "paring" down of unreferenced BLP lists in these articles; out of the circa 80 stations I've worked with so far; apart from 'drive-by IP edits' and a nasty encounter with an entire stable of sockpuppets; there have been perhaps only a half dozen "serious" objections to what I've been doing; none of whom addressed the question of why they believe these lists are exempt from things like WP:NLIST and WP:Source list. I've rambled on long enough; I certainly don't want to discourage you from doing this kind of editing; I honestly believe it's a genuine service to the whole community; I hope you hang in there. If you do decide to 'keep going' and have any questions or comments; please feel free to drop me a note. This weekend, I'll be enduring the excruciating tortures of having to spend my evenings on an island in Georgian Bay watching sunsets; someone's got to do it. I'll be back online on Monday. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 17:52, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
This is the worst one I've seen so far. Care to take a whack at it when you get a chance? I'm not familiar with the station or the Buffalo area, so I'm not a good judge of notability. It's not only unsourced trivia, it's long and badly written unsourced trivia.JTRH (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
A great example of what I call the 'social networking/promotional tool' TV station former employees list. Unreferenced gossip and promotional tidbits regarding what are presumably considered to be inherently notable entries (both personally and in regard to the television station itself) that apparently hasn't been much improved since the material was tagged two and a half years ago for lack of sources. At least there weren't any unreferenced accusatory claims of sex crimes levelled in this one; that's something I guess. In my opinion; two and a half years is an adequate amount of time to establish suitability for unreferenced (and perhaps "unreferencable") material. I think that everything in that list should be pulled; apart from the entries that have pre-existing articles or present a reliable source alongside them; even one. The more you edit these lists, the more you realize that in many cases; there's never any real intention of ever substantiating a lot of these entries. The material is OR based on station lore and the truth is, there aren't any reliable sources available; that's why they stay 'blank' and the templates are ignored; for years, in some cases. As I mentioned above; what I find kind of galling is the ease with which some of these lists are re-added with a casual total disregard for what's plainly the case: they're re-adding challenged unreferenced BLP material with the implicit claim that somehow; it's the editor who's challenging the inclusion that's responsible for providing a reason for removing it; not the other way around. Totally ridiculous. I'll have a good look at this Buffalo article when I get back on Monday. Please feel free to take a shot at it yourself; if you're so inclined. Now where's that sunscreen. :) cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 19:43, 5 August 2010 (UTC)
One last horribly long winded comment. I want to make it absolutely clear, that I am completely *not* against the properly sourced presentation of 'social history' material in regard to TV stations; including in list form. What I am dead set against, is the inclusion of lengthy lists of unreferenced BLP 'water-cooler' content and the sometimes apparent feelings of "ownership" over that content that some editors seem to be implying they have. In my opinion, a lot of this material should be simply plucked from the articles and moved to another page for 'development'. When it's ready, it should then be placed in the article; the same sort of process that occurs elsewhere in the encyclopedia. Because this involves BLP; we should be especially vigilant. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 20:08, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Happy Deconstructhis's Day![edit]

Featured article star.svg

Deconstructhis has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
so I've officially declared today as Deconstructhis's Day!
For being a great person and awesome Wikipedian,
enjoy being the star of the day, Deconstructhis!

Signed, Neutralhomer

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, click here. Have a Great Day...NeutralhomerTalk • 04:10, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words Neutralhomer; they're sincerely appreciated. Real world commitments are keeping me hopping this weekend; I'll be be back to regular "duties" on Tuesday. cheers and thanks again! Deconstructhis (talk) 06:00, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
You're Welcome! :) No worries, we will "hold down the fort" til you get back. Seems everyone is on vacation, moving or doing something last week and this week. Keeping me busy, I like that. :) "See" ya on Tuesday. - NeutralhomerTalk • 06:08, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Native American Peoples[edit]

I have found that my text was erased in the article for the Native American peoples. Your reason was that I used a personal opinion in order to write it. It is not a personal opinion, but a conclusion on the analisis of many facts concerning to what "american" demonym should be, why indigenous peoples of the Americas are not called as is, and the reason why it has its current use. Should it be in a dictionary or a published book to be taken on account? Are not those analisis made from the perspective of the authors? —Preceding unsigned comment added by AeoreCR (talkcontribs) 00:56, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Hello AeoreCR, please carefully read the important sections in our policies regarding "original research" WP:OR and "verifiability" WP:V for the answers to your questions. I would strongly suggest that it's probably not a good idea to edit the encyclopedia before you understand what these sections are all about. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 01:41, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Back Monday[edit]

I'm off for a pleasant weekend lakeside; I'll be back Monday; hopefully to at least get to a few responses that I 'owe' some of you folks. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 20:28, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Just need an opinion[edit]

I just need an opinion, for the Single-market local news TV stations, it's tuff to get a good list for notable former staff. Some are not notable enough for an article, but are notable from being at the station, and I feel they should be included on the list. Just want your opinion. I would make some more changes, because I read a response from someone, not on my user page, but on a TV page, and see why you've been doing this, and want to back you up, just want an opinion. I would make changes to some other ones, but don't want to get in an argument with someone in disagreement. I might try one and see how that goes. (JoeCool950 (talk) 21:24, 5 August 2010 (UTC))

Lauren Cohn[edit]

Hi Deconstructhis, I added the linkedin reference to Lauren Cohn's article, so I dont feel its necessary to have on WLS-TV's page. Thanks. TVFAN24 (talk) 19:48, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It appears to me that you didn't put it in because you were having a difficult time trying to figure out how to set up a reference link; that's why I re-added it. It is relevant, because it substantiates her employment with the station and in my opinion these television station articles can use all the verifiability in the form of sources help they can get. At the moment I have about 80 of them on my watchlist and unreferenced material is swapped out for more unreferenced material in a lot of them every day. Verifiability is constantly ignored. Remember, when you're adding material about living persons, BLP WP:BLP also applies and lists are no exception. Again please see: WP:NLIST and WP:Source list. thanks Deconstructhis (talk) 20:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)


I made the edits to the notable former employees. All the information is from the 1 source already listed at the bottom of the page, I didn't think I needed to cite that again, sorry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnhartb (talkcontribs) 15:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I just sampled a few names from the list of former employees that were re-added on August 1st, before I once again removed those that didn't have pre-existing articles, and I wasn't able to find any of them on the linked web page you're indicating is a reference for the list. ( That appears to conflict with what you're saying in this post. thanks Deconstructhis (talk) 17:48, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

A couple of really useful essays[edit]

A couple of very illuminating essays regarding "lists" and "new articles". Check out the talk page on both of them for alternative perspectives: WP:LISTV and WP:WTAF. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 20:14, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Dont undo my talk page stuff please...[edit]

I don't really care if you undo my edits, you're just doing your job. But undoing talk page conversations (whether they are relevant or not) is rude. You do know says not to right? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:33, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

I didn't intend it to be rude; if it came across that way, I apologise. However, I think you should read the 'fine print' regarding "undoing talk page conversations whether they are relevant or not". WP:TPO, the guideline you're citing also indicates that "[f]ormerly it was not uncommon to simply delete off-topic posts, but this has led to disputes from time to time, and it is generally better to move such threads to an archive page." I'd suggest that the use of "generally better" here is a heads up to those who are inclined to see chatty general discussions of a topic on an article's talk page as somehow sacrosanct in terms of non-removal. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 00:34, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Interesting take on BLP material (yes, that includes lists)[edit]

"(Written in response to a comment referencing Wikipedia:There is no deadline at the RFC on Biographies of living people)

Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of the living people about whom we write. There is a deadline for them: it is the moment that Google puts our article about them in their top-5 results. That is something that was never contemplated at the time that Wikipedia was created. We must be responsive to changes in circumstances; this is about as big a change as can be. This is part of Wikipedia maturing and becoming a responsible citizen of the information world; when we were small and unnoticed, we had almost no impact on the life of an article subject. Now, what is published in our pages can (and sometimes does) cause long-lasting harm. Why do you think Google now crawls our articles incessantly to ensure it reflects the most current version of a page? We are no longer a little upstart in a distant corner of the Internet: we are now a top-10 website whose words, whether they should be or not, are taken as relatively accurate if not entirely authoritative. Not a day goes by that someone being interviewed on radio or television isn't confronted with a question that starts "I looked up your Wikipedia entry and it says..." The failure of individuals to recognise this collective responsibility to get things right about real people does more to harm the reputation and credibility of this project than any other error that is made. —Risker (talk) 03:02, 21 June 2010 (UTC)"


Thanks. Could you possibly look at Talk:European colonization of the Americas‎ and see if you can make any sense of what he's trying to say there? Maybe a language problem, he says he's part French. I also reverted a jokey edit he made to a BLP. Dougweller (talk) 18:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Problem has been going on for a long time. Exactly 2 years ago, for example, at Norse colonization of the Americas. Also at several articles about accomplishments of historical Arabs. Hero skates on thin ice, usually getting away with it. Lots of OR. Strange arguments in edit summaries. Won't tolerate corrections of grammar etc. (I've managed to avoid him lately. Dealing with him is very frustrating.) --Hordaland (talk) 19:57, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't think French/English language competency issues are what's going on here Doug; actually I'm leaning somewhat toward the troll hypothesis at the moment; especially in the context of postings like the one you linked. Something that is clear, is that this editor; although only marginally active, has been approached in various ways over time by well meaning others attempting to steer them in the right direction on several important policy requirements and they've either been rebuffed or ignored; as evidenced by examining InternetHero's talk and history pages. It's becoming increasingly difficult for me to maintain good faith; that's a certainty. Minimally; in my opinion, this editor must be held accountable for any continuation of them adding unreferenced personal analyses to articles, or attempting to substantiate one of their own personally synthesized "theories" by using things like links to YouTube videos and the like. Purportedly removing six references from an article and entering the word "bitch" in the edit summary and (in my opinion} "punking" other editors with baffle gab on talk pages is a no go from my perspective. It's up to them. I strongly believe they have been "adequately warned" in all these matters. Let their own next actions speak for themselves. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 20:28, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

This might be a good time to apply "The bottom line" from WP:COMPETENCE: "At the end of the day, it doesn't matter much whether someone's disruption is due to mischief or incompetence. Don't spend much time trying to figure this out, because many of our trolls do their trolling by feigning incompetence. There's no point trying to distinguish between fake or real incompetence – disruption is disruption, and needs to be prevented. Give editors a few chances, and some good advice, certainly -- but if these things don't lead to reasonably competent editing within a reasonable timeframe, it's best to wash your hands of the situation. Not every person belongs at Wikipedia, because some people are not sufficiently competent." cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 20:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

User:InternetHero was blocked for disruptive edits on 20 August 2010. He/she has not edited since the expiration of the block. --Orange Mike | Talk 23:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes, I noticed that as well a few days ago; I've also taken note that they took a six month hiatus between their last bout of shenanigans and their most recent one, so I wouldn't be entirely surprised to see them rise again. As I mentioned earlier, I believe they've already set the tone themselves for how they should be received if the disruptive stuff should begin again. Obviously, blocks aren't punitive; but I think both ample "warning" and patience have been extended numerous times in the past; if disruptive behaviour does start once gain; it should be nipped in the bud immediately through a block. Thanks for the time you've put into this Orangemike; it's genuinely appreciated. cheers Deconstructhis (talk)

Vandalism warning[edit]

Hi, just to let you know that I undid this edit of yours that added a final warning to an anon ip's talkpage. The user hadn't edited since their previous warning, so a final one wan't appropriate. I presume it was just an oversight, but just wanted to let you know why I'd undone your edit! --BelovedFreak 09:24, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 01:04, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

WXIA/WTAE Ratings Edits[edit]

I brought that user's edits up here prior to your reverts. Just letting you know if you want to chime in. - NeutralhomerTalk • 03:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about that Homer. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 03:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
Sure, no problem :) - NeutralhomerTalk • 03:46, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I see you dotted your "i's" and crossed your "t's". lol In case you're wondering; my reasoning in actually removing that material from the talk pages, was that allowing the same dozen open ended question like that one to stand on twelve different article talk pages was simply an invitation for others to engage in responding to them, thus perpetuating the "forum" cycle. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 04:03, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I completely understand. I personally would have reverted them, but I wanted to have an admin look first. Once I said something, all edits stopped, so my opinion, is this is probably a troll or a sock. I could be wrong and I hope I am for once, but that is my belief at the moment. I will wait and see. - NeutralhomerTalk • 04:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Amir Kabir[edit]

Hi, can you comment on the Talk:Amir Kabir page. There's a Baha'i editor trying to push a very pro-Baha'i non-neutral stance on the figure. I've tried discussing the issues with him, but he just doesn't listen, and an outside editor would be very helpful. Regards, -- Jeff3000 (talk) 04:23, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello Jeff3000, I left a note for Kmehrabi on their talk page and on the article talk page as well. They definitely should not be removing sourced material. If that practice continues; I'd suggest moving this toward a formalized dispute resolution. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 06:09, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me here. First of all, there is no undue weight. I gave simple fragments about these figures to provide a bare minimum of context for the reader. I'm sure we can agree that that is not just fair but necessary. Second, I simply provided a framework to suggest at least some portion of people are affected by Amir Kabir's record to regard him negatively, as opposed (and this is the key) to a hero for which he is more generally considered in modern Iranian circles. I believe that is necessary for a fair representation. As for a reference, these are broad historical retrospectives of a prominent historical figure, in as much as it is sufficed to say without reference that Hitler was liked by many and hated by many. Kmehrabi (talk) 06:43, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Re: Thanks[edit]

Hey, no problem :) --Confession0791 talk 03:47, 15 September 2010 (UTC)


You made a couple of edits on this article. If you have any interest it's now nominated for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bonnie Nettles Wolfview (talk) 19:08, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to let me know; it's appreciated. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 17:57, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

/* Notable people from Niagara Falls */[edit]

Kinda new with editting wikipedia content.

As my last edit was done without my signing in, (I signed in afterwards) then saw the messages from you in regards to editting etiquette, I thought maybe this method was appropriate.

Please note my editting of the 'notable people' of the Niagara Falls page, is in my opinion justified. A couple pieces of music in a video game doesn't justify 'notable people' for the user 'deadmau5'. Unless wikipedia for some strange reason recognizes 4chan 'notoriety' as fame?

Lucidry (talk) 18:48, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! Don't worry about little things like forgetting to sign in; everyone does that once in a while. Much more important here is making sure that our editing choices comply with policies regarding things like supplying proper referencing when we add material to the encyclopedia; explaining the reasoning behind our editorial choices in the edit summary when we make any sort of changes; trying to remain neutral in our handling of materials; that sort of thing. You'll get the hang of it. As important to our policies as anything else is the concept of "good faith" in our dealings with other editors; which in my opinion also embodies the notion of not trying to blow smoke up other editor's skirts. You'll get the hang of that as well; it all takes time. Now, to the issue you're talking about regarding Zimmerman. It appears to me that you're approaching this backwards; challenging Zimmerman's basic notability for appropriate inclusion in the encyclopedia should be tackled at the level of his own article first deadmau5. It indicates that he is from Niagara Falls Ontario and that he is the recipient of a number of major Canadian music awards (Juno's) and has been nominated for Grammy's in the U.S. in the past as well. In fact; after a cursory examination of the references it appears to me that Zimmerman meets and exceeds all of the criteria necessary to establish notability for inclusion according to WP:NMG. Perhaps you should copy and paste this dialogue to the talk page of his article itself and you can have your concerns addressed there by editors who have more depth of knowledge on this subject. Good luck on that one. Deconstructhis (talk) 20:36, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Steven Truscott article[edit]

No problem. I was just checking it out. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 19:08, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I thought at first that perhaps Bearcat 'overreacted' a little; but I thought about it and he's absolutely right; a literal and conservative interpretation of BLP is genuinely needed in the context of that article. I'm really hoping that re-trial by Wikipedia isn't going to break out on the talk page; what we don't need are a lot of somewhat illogical, completely speculative unreferenced claims, that are truly unrelated to the improvement of the article. Would a template at the top reminding everyone that this is "not a forum" be profitable here? cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 19:51, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
I also don't want to see a bulk amount of that sort of speculative material copied and pasted into the talk page from somewhere else. ;) cheers again Deconstructhis (talk) 20:02, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
It might be useful to add the "not a forum" template. Enter CBW, waits for audience applause, not a sausage. 05:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced lists of former employees[edit]

In regards to the earlier note, the unreferenced lists of former employees were already there before I edited them; all I did was organize them in alphabetical order and in the WCBD-TV article, added a backlink. In other words, other registered and unregistered users added the names of former station employees that don't have any background articles, I only organized them in alphabetical order. (TVtonightOKC (talk) 23:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC))

Collingwood Famous people.[edit]

Please stop removing my entry's, I personally am from collingwood and the 2 people i added are indeed from collingwood born and raised, I even went to school with them. Sorry there is no articals list there home town as collingwood but as soon as there is i will add ref to it but for now can you leave the entry's in place

Found one Cannes Film Festival (talk) 23:37, 21 October 2010 (UTC) If you want to contact me about this use

Hi--I'm what's called a "talk page stalker", which means I watch the talk pages of other editor's I've worked with. The issue here is with two of Wikipedia's core policies: WP:V, which requires that all information on Wikipedia be verified, and WP:BLP, which requires that we be especially careful on Biographies of living people. To be able to add those people to the list, it's not enough to say "Take my word for it, I know them, I've lived here all my life." If we don't have verification, any editor can remove that information; this is especially true for information about living people. It is not enough to "trust" another editor--the information must be published in a reliable source. If that info hasn't been, then you need to keep the information out of the article, and the person off of the list, until such time as the information can be verified. I know this may sound strict, and, in fact it is--Wikipedia would rather be certain our information is verified, even if that means we need to be missing information until it can be verified. I hope this helps clarify why Deconstructhis is removing the unsourced info. (posted by User:Qwyrxian)
I repaired the coding for Qwyrxian's posting above; so that it would display properly on the page. I have nothing to add to what they're saying apart from pointing out that according to our policies, the onus for providing a source for materials being added to the encyclopedia that are challenged, is *always* on the editor who is adding (or re-adding) the material. I'd like to suggest to that they take any concerns they may have regarding this issue to the talk page of the Collingwood, Ontario article, where I have already opened a discussion. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 16:22, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

WITI edit by[edit]

Actually that one was true; Mr. Adrian ended his run on the station last week so I did restore that one. Didn't mean to step on your toes on this one but for once the IP was correct (though I did correct the date). Nate (chatter) 05:55, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Deconstructhis asked my opinion on this point; xe and I both work on removing unsourced entries from the former staff lists of TV stations (and other lists). The key issue is that living people w/o Wikipages need to have sources to remain on a list. In this case, luckily, I found one--Fox6 themselves has a little tribute video to him on their website, which I believe constitutes a reliable source in this case. I'm going to add the source. In the future, this is the key--people on any alumni/resident/"famous people from" list need a reliable source indicating 1) that the person meets the criteria of the list and 2) is somehow more notable than the average person who "could" be on the list. In the case of TV stations, it means they can't, for example, have been a commentator who appeared a few times a year; for a former resident, they need some sort of "claim to fame." Obviously, the exact standards that would qualify one for inclusion are a matter of editorial judgment; in the case of Adrian, being on the same channel for 28 years clearly qualifies. I'll add the full citation now. Qwyrxian (talk) 07:17, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Ahh, I wasn't sure, and you are definitely right (as a loather of listcruft myself) that a source should definitely used before adding it, and I commend anyone who is really taking the effort to clean this stuff up. Thanks for the clarification of the reasoning for the edit removal; I understand completely. Nate (chatter) 08:52, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

Removal of Notable Former Staff Lists[edit]

I just reverted another editor, User:Bfern8788, who was outright removing these lists entirely from several different TV stations. As much as I don't like clutter and unnecessary lists (and, of course, unverified items on lists), I do think that, properly maintained, they should be kept. I mentioned you and your/my work on improving the lists, so I thought I'd let you know in case you wanted to add your opinion to his/her talkpage. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:44, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Your Response Sir?[edit]

Talk:Bruce County municipal elections, 2010 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Earl Andrew, you have not referenced your source of the dictum "Facebook cannot be used as a reference". Please do so.

You know Earl, it's ironic that Facebook cannot be used as a reference in wikipedia. I'm a lawyer and a certified teacher. When I talk to other teachers they say that Wikipedia cannot be used a reference.

It begs the question, can wikipedia be used as a reference in wikipedia?

   I never said that, what are you talking about? -- Earl Andrew - talk 14:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I apologize Earl, the e-mail should have gone to Deconstructhis, who made the change.

(cur | prev) 16:18, September 20, 2010 Deconstructhis (talk | contribs) (5,246 bytes) (→Arran-Elderslie: Facebook cannot be used as a reference) (undo)

From what you said, can I take that Facebook can be used as a reference on these pages?

I put all of the candidates for Arran-Elderslie (on the Bruce County municipal elections, 2010 page). Then because I'm running (not because I particularly expect to get elected, which I don't) I then added a link to Facebook page that I've created for the election. I would hope other candidates would add their campaign page, whether Facebook, or others. It seems a good use of wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmtooke (talk • contribs) 13:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wmtooke (talkcontribs)

KYW (August 2010)[edit]

Hi. I was the original poster for former meteorologist Doug Kammerer's leaving KYW-TV in Philadelphia, which you duly edited under the "wikipedia is not a crystal ball" provision. I, however find fault with this designation as the date was not a crystal ball projection, but was confirmed in press releases by KYW- TV itself and on-air by staff at KYW, including Mr. Kammerer himself. I did state in my reasoning for the change that the date had been confirmed by KYW and was therefore not engaging in any speculation or "crystal-balling" as to the facts presented. I do not wish to supply false information to Wikipedia, and have not done so in any form, and I do happen to know the Philadelphia market, especially the media, as I live in the area and work for the media of the market. Please check your sources in future, as I always verify information before I post. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brasseye (talkcontribs) 20:56, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

(A very late response) I believe there's a basic misunderstanding going on here. Our policies and consensus are very clear on the idea that any editor who adds material to an article are themselves specifically responsible for providing a reliable reference to substantiate the appropriateness of including that material in the article; the onus is on the person who adds; or re-adds that material. Even though we may in fact be a recognised expert on a given subject (or have "inside" information), it does not detract from the requirement that all material in the encyclopaedia must be verifiable, including 'list' material. No one person's independent unpublished opinion; no matter how "sure" they are of their facts, is appropriate according to our rules, in terms of substantiating the material's validity. We need published reliable sources to support what we're contending here. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 22:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
I should have specifically addressed something you've brought up Brasseye, and failed to do so. There are definite "difficulties" associated with some of the other types of sources you're mentioning, that go beyond a general consensus stipulating that "personal authority" alone, in different forms, is sufficient to satisfy our requirements for verifiability. A link to a press release which was issued by a mainstream media outlet through responsible channels, for instance, would in all likelihood be sufficient in most cases; however, personally I'd be very hesitant to say the same thing if that press release was being issued through a website where there's an opportunity that anyone can set up an account, call something a "press release" and then proceed to make up anything they want and distribute it. They're out there. If the information was actually mentioned on air during a broadcast, in my opinion, a minimum reference would be at least, the name of the program and the date that it was aired, in the form of a citation. A properly sourced link to video/audio containing the material is ideal many times, but of course not always practical or necessary. My point here is that the potential ability for an encyclopedia reader to reference any material that they encounter here to a reliable source is one of the cornerstone policies of Wikipedia. In the end, this goes beyond how either of us might quibble back and forth about what truly constitutes a "valid source"; overarching it all is a clear directive issued through both consensus and policy, that this material must be properly verifiable in order to be validated for inclusion; we're not about innovation around here, from a certain perspective its more like "clever parrots". cheers, no intention to offend on this end Deconstructhis (talk) 19:11, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Keep it up![edit]


Keep up the good work! You have been extremely helpful to us newbies on Wikipedia such as myself! Thank you, and once again, keep it up! User:Cp72 (formerly Serafino bueti) —Preceding undated comment added 20:36, 22 March 2011 (UTC).

Thank you very much for the encouraging words; they're genuinely appreciated. Happy editing, take care. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 22:28, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Deleting Former On-Air Staff at TV Stations[edit]

I take issue with your deleting the former on-air staff at TV stations. The former on-air staffs (notedly reporters, anchors and co-hosts) are part of any particular TV station's history. Wikipedia is all about histories. Previous on-air personalities were part of the station and part of the communities, and are part of the station and the histories of those communities.

I agree with you about not listing the corporate management of large companies, although I have seen that in several articles on Wikipedia.

I do not feel this is an issue that you alone can arbitrarily decide... the executive editors at Wikipedia need to decide this, and if you are going to wholesale delete the former staff entries, start with the Number One TV Market, New York City. Go to WABC-TV, WCBS-TV, WNBC-TV and WNYW-TV and start deleting their staffs that don't have previous articles written about them. It will sound like selective editing. But again, start with New York City, and work down through the hundreds of TV markets with your delete key. Don't just start on a few stations in Tennessee.

It will be interesting to find out what other editors of TV station articles around the country think of your idea. Perhaps I can contact some of them, and let them know to be mindful of your rationale.

If the public demands it, I have a feeling those listings will be back. Csneed (talk) 01:29, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, Deconstructhis is not the only person who does this (I do as well, although I haven't done much recently). Furthermore, this was not decided by him alone--it is a part of both our policy on biographies of living people and as a part of our guidelines on lists. Furthermore, it was discussed by the WP:Wikiproject Television Stations. Deconstructhis can start and edit anywhere he likes (I don't know how he chooses an order, but I usually just use one of the lists available of television stations). The reason why these people must be removed is that, while you claim they are a part of the station's history, there is not reliable evidence of that. I mean, I could conceivably go to any TV page and add me and my friends there, without a reference, by your logic. Furthermore, just because the person worked there doesn't mean that they are notable enough for inclusion on these lists.
I think that part of the problem is in your statement that says that these people are "part of any particular TV station's history, which is the purpose of Wikipedia." The problem is that that is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Our purpose is to provide encyclopedic level coverage of subject, not to list every single fact that is potentially true of them. This is especially true for unreferenced facts. If you wish to object to the removal of the names, you're certainly welcome to either ask at the article's project page, or pursue dispute resolution. However, it's not must a matter of what you think Wikipedia is for or what is important--it's about following our guidelines and policies.
(ec): In response to your addition: If you want to contact "other eitors of TV station articles", the correct place to do that is on the Wikiproject. And no, the public's demands have nothing to do with the issue. WIkipeia is a privately owned organization, and includes or excludes information based on it's own choices. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I have a couple of concerns about the deletion practice, although I've done some of it myself on the station articles to which I've contributed. My first concern involves the fact that wholesale reduction of several lists was initially done by someone who had never previously contributed to the article, claiming that it was a "consensus" that it "must" be done. (I don't recall whether the editor was Deconstructhis or someone else.) The discussion which produced the "consensus" was apparently at the Water Pump and involved a grand total of seven people. It's common courtesy (if not specifically a Wikipractice) to make the existence of the discussion known to those who've contributed the material which is being questioned. I knew nothing of the existence of the Water Pump (much less the discussion there) until a sizable chunk of my work had already been deleted. Before this practice continues in large scale, a substantially larger portion of the community needs to be informed of the discussion and allowed to participate.
Second, I'm concerned that someone who has no knowledge of the station or the area it serves has no basis on which to judge the "notability" of individual personalities who've worked there. At one point, the notability criterion was the existence of an individual Wikipedia article on the person. That seems almost tautological: You're not notable enough to be on this list because you're not the subject of a Wikipedia article, but you're not the subject of a Wikipedia article because you're not notable enough to be on this list. If the practice is going to continue, there has to be a better definition of "notability," and that judgment shouldn't be made by people who don't know enough to make it. That's not to point out the shortcomings of any individual editor; I myself have offered WKBW-TV in Buffalo, N.Y., as appearing to be one of the most egregious examples of "anyone who ever worked there is on the list"; however, I have never been to Buffalo nor watched the station, so I have no informed way to judge who's notable and who isn't. I'm sure many of the people on the current list don't need to be there, but I'm not qualified to judge which ones. Thanks. JTRH (talk) 03:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
Actually, it's not really notability, but rather verifiability that is usually the issue. Per WP:NLIST, "Inclusion in lists contained within articles should be determined by WP:Source list, in that the entries must have the same importance to the subject as would be required for the entry to be included in the text of the article according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines (including WP:Trivia sections). Furthermore, every entry in any such list requires a reliable source attesting to the fact that the named person is a member of the listed group." Focus first on the last sentence: it states, unambiguously, that every single person on the list must have a reference stating that they were, in fact, an on-air personality at that TV station. This isn't an option, it's not a judgment call, it's a very simple requirement. For me, if I see a valid, reliable source (note that per the guidelines, things like LinkedIn pages or corporate bios don't count) that says the person worked at the station, I generally let the entry stay without considering the issue of notability. The only time I've ever pulled out sourced entries is when the people include were not on-air staff (office workers, etc.), as those people are unlikely to rise to the level of notability required by the first sentence quoted above. Similarly, if I see a wikipage, I usually just presume that the wikipage itself has reliable sources--technically, I should check, and anyone is welcome to do so, but I'm willing to settle for "better" for now, worrying about "best" once the easier, unambiguous stuff is removed. So, in essence, both I and you are easily qualified to determine who belongs on the list, at least the easy part--if they have a wikipage or reference, keep them in except in special cases, if they don't, take them out.Qwyrxian (talk) 04:11, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Explanation observed. Since there obviously will be selective editing on articles and a selective, biased observation on history, I see no further reason to contribute to articles, nor any reason to include information that I have contributed in the past. So noted. Csneed (talk) 01:40, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I see that my talk page has become an exceptionally busy place in my absence. :) Hello again to Qwyrxian; thank you for your input. Greetings once again to JTRH and a fresh hello to Csneed. I'm afraid I don't have much to add to Qwyrxian's interpretation of our policies and what I also believe constitutes consensus surrounding the practice of adding unreferenced material in list form to articles. I believe I've witnessed a mixed crew of perhaps a couple of dozen editors and administrators, in various venues, deal with the issue over the past 6 months or so (I actually just returned from a wikibreak owing to real world job demands) and perhaps apart from perhaps three or four editors last autumn, I have yet to encounter anything that would indicate to me that there is support in the community, for altering existing policy which specifically excludes unreferenced list material from the encyclopedia; I would suggest that that probably goes double for material being added that contains biographical material; because of its more potentially 'sensitive' nature, we are particularly asked to "edit conservatively" in that context. I agree with Qwyrxian, in that in my opinion, notability is actually secondary to "verifiability" in these instances; verifiability is in fact one of the cornerstones of the project and insistence on it is, in my view, universally 'enforced'. Actually, its kind of easy to see why. Along with the policies that Qwyrxian mentions above, specifically insisting on its implementation in list material, the core policy WP:VERIFY lays out the following: "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth: whether readers can check that material in Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true." That doesn't leave much 'wiggle room' for any of us.
JTRH, to address one of your specific concerns, for instance, imagine if what you're saying regarding the need for some sort of ultimate "local approval" (or at least "local vetting") of unreferenced content in the encyclopedia was extended across the board to all content and made mandatory. In other words, editors would be required to defer the removal of unreferenced material in Wikipedia, until in each instance, a geographically local editor; *without the use of reliable references*, had made the final call on whether or not the material was 'locally notable' enough to remain in the encyclopedia based on the fact (again sans sources) that they could claim to live "nearby". I'm not suggesting for a a moment that local editors can't make highly desirable contributions to article subjects in their own backyard, that's obviously not the case. It's their ease of ability in accessing locally available (perhaps more obscure) previously published reliable material, that might otherwise be missed, which gives them that 'leg up'; not their own personal "authority" sans those sources. We always have to keep in mind here, that sourcing has nothing to do with personal expertise or inside knowledge and authority on a given subject; in other words our own ability to personally "vouch" for the veracity of material being added. We need specific reliable references to substantiate what we're adding to Wikipedia; or at bare minimum, be able to provide the reader with a means to obtain those references. That's why, I will often 'soften' my interpretation of these requirement for direct references, if the material can be substantiated through the support of a previously existing article on the subject in question.
Also, I just want to make clear, that in no way, are only certain cities or stations being "targeted" in these matters. Over the course of the past 6 months, I have personally removed unreferenced lists of former employees of television stations, whose entries did not include preexisting articles to support them, from in excess of 100 television station articles across North America and each of them are on my watchlist. That's roughly the equivalent 5% of the TV stations on the continent; all by myself, and I'm also aware of several editors who have been doing this as well, utilizing the same rationales. As I mentioned, I've been away for awhile, but I've been surveying my past edits and out of all those station articles, over the course of the past half year, apart from a tiny number of 'driveby' anonymous edits, I can count the actual objections to this practice on the fingers of one hand. Surely, combining this with the discussions that have focused on the topic on the television station project page itself, the village pump and the administrators noticeboard, it indicates at least a minimum of some sort of substantiation/"consensus" for continuing the practice? It appears to me that the vast majority of potentially concerned parties in this matter are in agreement with the removal of the material; insofar at least that they have allowed all of those removals to stand as is. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 06:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
A side note to Csneed. I took note of the New York City stations that you mentioned in your posting and came up with the following. WNBC-TV's listing of former employees consists of all entries having already existing articles to substantiate their inclusion in the list; the same is true for the WCBS-TV article as well. WNYM-TV, apart from three 'redlink' entries out of 50, are all supported by existing articles. Apart from WNYM-TV, all of these were already on my watchlist. WABC-TV is a different story and I intend on "correcting" that situation shortly. JTRH has suggested that a Buffalo station is in a need of a look; actually I'd suggest that there are at least 3 Buffalo stations that require attention and I will get to them ASAP. Csneed, this is not about singling out small market stations for abuse. I've personally edited these lists in many of the major markets, including New York, Chicago and Los Angeles. It somewhat saddens me that you have indicated that you are willing to abandon the entire project because of this. As Qwyrxian has indicated to you; if you object to this situation as is, wouldn't it be more constructive to work within the existing dispute framework instead? If you require more information regarding that, please contact me directly here on my talk page. I'm sure Qwyrxian would be willing to extend a hand as well if you ask them. Hang in there, try not to become too upset, it's nothing personal I can assure you. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 06:32, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


Hey Deconstruthis, I was wondering at your earliest convenience if you could do me a favor and add all of the Season 12 Dancing With the Stars Contestants to this page [36], usually its done by now but no one has seemed to do it. I would but I am afraid I will screw it up. The reason I am asking you is b/c I know how much you like to edit things on Wiki. Thanks so much. TVFAN24 (talk) 22:50, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Sure; just as soon as you can provide me with a complete list of them, with each one accompanied by a reliable reference demonstrating their appropriate inclusion. :) Just kidding. I think it would be better in this instance, if you tracked down someone who has been more involved in working on the article in the past. Sorry. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 23:04, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Well thanks for getting back to me. Glad to know we are still friends. :) TVFAN24 (talk) 23:08, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Although; there is still one thing that kind of upsets me about something you edited. That is the Access Hollywood and ET page. They really aren't even that long of a list. I am in the process of finding articles for those names that are not credited for. The news stations I agree on you with. They were entirely too long. May I per your permission (since your the only person that seems to find issue with them) re add to those two pages w/o you getting mad and I will add the sources just as soon as I locate them given I work full time. Thanks so much. TVFAN24 (talk) 23:12, 1 April 2011 (UTC)
First of all, you don't require my "permission" to edit any article; what you do have to do however, is to try and abide by the policies and guidelines that apply to all of us. That includes the ones that stipulate that all material in Wikipedia must be referenced to reliable previously published sources and that....once again...means lists as well. Especially lists containing information about "living persons". It has nothing whatsoever to do with how "long" or short the lists actually are; the requirements are exactly the same in both instances. My suggestion to you is to follow the practice that was suggested to you by your mentor several months ago; that is, set up a page (or modify an exiting one) where you can compile the names you eventually hope to add; then compile a corresponding reliable reference for each of those. My personal editing practice is if they already have an existing article pertaining to them, I'm less apt to be stringent about the necessity of having a separate reference for each one. Others may not be so "merciful". Don't try and put 'the cart in front of the horse' TVFAN24; I continue to advise you to properly prepare the material first and then add it to the article. There is no rush; you can save yourself a lot of potential grief and anxiety by going slow and getting it 'right' in the first place, before you take any action at all. Deconstructhis (talk) 23:32, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Hey do you have a personal e-mail that I can have so that any other discussions we have I can just e-mail them directly to you. I feel like I do need your permission b/c the minute I make changes, you redo it immediately. No one else seems to care. So that's why I feel like I need your permission and I am even afraid to edit anymore b/c of that. Its a shame b/c I really did enjoy editing on wikipedia even though I'll admit I am a little OCD about certain things and I am afraid about you blocking me. On the Soap Opera pages, there are countless numbers of actors that have no articles or a wiki page and they are still listed. I also ageee with you about not wanting to bother my mentor. I don't want to bother him either. He did all he could do and I feel this is more between you and I and a simple disagreement that I am sure we can work out. TVFAN24 (talk) 01:04, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

No thank you. In my opinion there's no reason to contact me directly at all. I've actually lost count of the number of times both administrators and other editors have attempted to steer you in the right direction specifically on the issue your talking about; it just doesn't seem to sink in; and frankly, I've also stopped trying to decipher why. All information in Wikipedia must be properly sourced from reliable references, including list material. The fact that you can point to examples of that not being the case in some articles, is no more of an excuse for adding similarly unsourced material to another article, than someone attempting to justify their breaking the law by pointing to the fact that someone who lives down the street from them broke the law, so they should be able to do so as well. Until such time as the community decides through consensus that reliable references are no longer required for biographical list material, you should fully expect that the present policies designed to exclude it from articles will continue to have an impact on editors who choose to add it. Please; there is no need to keep re-stating here the same points regarding your personal rejection of the present referencing requirements for lists over and over; if you have a problem with my editing practices in this regard, please seek resolution through our established dispute resolution procedures or seek advice from your mentor. Please do not contact me here again regarding this issue unless you do either of those two things first. thank you Deconstructhis (talk) 03:09, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Donna Gregory[edit]

I see that your PROD on Donna Gregory has been removed without explanation by an anonymous (IP) editor. you may like to take it to AfD. JamesBWatson (talk) 16:36, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for picking that off JamesBWatson, it's appreciated. I posed the question to Neutralhomer a while ago, regarding what to do in instances like this, where a PROD is removed without any edit summary or talk page comment; especially by an anonymous IP. How can we differentiate an action like that from straightforward "vandalism"? Oh well, if AfD is the solution, I'll head over there later on. thanks again for your helpfulness in this regard. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 17:04, 3 April 2011 (UTC)
I have never been entirely happy with the way PRODs work. The answer to your question is that we can't differentiate it. Unless someone actually uses an edit summary announcing that the PROD removal is done for a wrong reason it is virtually always required to accept it, and frequently the result is a waste of numerous people's time with an unnecessary AfD discussion. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:15, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Going to find sources[edit]

That's right... (talk) 05:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Excellent; thanks for doing that, it's genuinely appreciated. I'll check back in the morning. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 05:53, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


WCCO-TV is in need of assistance because one editor thinks its okay to add unreferenced material/names to a list, despite guidelines and BLP issues. I need your help on that article. I tried explaining the issue on the talk page but he/she isn't buying it. Thanks! --ḾỊḼʘɴίcảTalkI DX for fun!• 20:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC) 20:00, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I reverted their edits and advised them to take it to article talk page. Personal attacks on other editors in the article itself crosses way over the line; it's completely inexcusable. I now have the article on watch and I'll keep an eye for postings. Even though this editor has been around since 2009, if they don't already have a "welcome" template on their talk page explaining the basics to them, they should be given one. If you need anything more, just give me a shout here. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 20:25, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
Thank you so much. It is nice having other editors to help with this kind of issue. You may also want to watch WCCO (AM) as the same editor added some vandalism like material to it which has since been reverted. --ḾỊḼʘɴίcảTalkI DX for fun!• 20:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC) 20:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

One of the former WCCO-TV people that I added and someone removed is Ann Rubenstein, who went to NBC. She is the second wife of Andrew Tisch and is now known as Ann Rubenstein Tisch. Mr. Tisch has a Wikipedia page and Ann is included there. Mr. Tisch is the co-chair of Loews Corporation, the company founded by his father and uncle. Together with his brother, James S. Tisch, and his first cousin, Jonathan Tisch, Andrew oversees a holding company involved in hotels, oil, and insurance. Ann Rubenstein Tisch co-founded an all-girls public school in Harlem. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1814K (talkcontribs) 20:52, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Please re-post this on the article talk page, so that we can keep it in 'one place' and other editors have a chance to comment as well. I have no problem saying yes to material that can be properly referenced, if they have an existing article already that's fine too. But until that can be established, please take your comments and questions to the article's talk page and please do not re-add the material without discussing it first. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 21:03, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

This is too confusing me for me. I went to the WCCO-TV talk page and I do not see a way to post anything. I find it fascinating that people who do not seem to have any connection to the Twin Cities feel it is necessary to remove accurate information that I have posted. 1814K (talk) 22:55, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

(talk page stalker): The talk page for that station can be found at Talk:WCCO-TV. To try to help clarify, the point is that information on Wikipedia has to be verified. That is, we need some sort of "proof" (we call these reliable sources) that 1) Rubenstein worked at WCCO-TV, and 2) that Rubenstein is herself notable (that is, important, more special than average, etc.). Her being married to a notable person (Mr. Tisch) doesn't count. Her co-founding a school is probably enough. But you need to provide a source that verifies that. Regarding "having a connection to the Twin Cities"...well, that's irrelevant. I don't have a connection to 90% of the articles I edit, which is fine, because all that matters is that we write about what our sources say. I (and, I imagine, Deconstructhis) believe you when you say you think that the information is correct; the problem is that we need evidence that it is correct. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:22, 19 April 2011 (UTC)



You recently sent me a warning regarding vandalism from my IP address. I forgot what you said it was on. I just wanted to let you know that I am not vandalizing anything. I have never heard of any of the sites I have been warned about and I wanted to let someone know before I was blocked. This IP address is registered to my phone if that helps. Could it be possible there is a duplicate address out there? I'm not that goof with technology. Please let me know what you think ASAP because I love Wikipedia and would never vandalize it.

Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

IP numbers are not usually "registered" to a single source as you've stated above; they are correlated with a given geographical area instead. There are quite possibly a number of people who live in your area and share the IP number and are also editing Wikipedia. If a vandalism template was applied to your talk page recently, it wasn't by me, although this edit [37] indicates that someone who shares your IP number actually did commit some minor vandalism not too long ago. If you want to avoid this kind of confusion in the future, my advice is to set up your own account; it's actually quite easy, it's free, and only takes a few minutes to get going. [38] cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 17:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Mass TV station edits[edit]

FYI. This is strange. I'm not quite up to speed, but is this one of several IPs doing this and not responding to talk page communications? If so, is it one person, and should sock tags start to fly?

CC: Qwyrxian, Deconstructhis

Best, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 01:36, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

Jesse Imeson[edit]

Hi. I posted Jesse Imeson for deletion under notability standards. Please feel free to contribute to the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jesse Imeson. --Lyncs (talk) 13:37, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about that; it's appreciated. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 05:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Reference for KERO-TV[edit]

Don't understand what was wrong with the reference that was added for Jack Church? Please explain to me. It's reference to what happened with Jack Church. If you don't think it should be on there that he's no longer with KERO, because you took that off. That should at least be noted. (JoeCool950 (talk) 06:04, 10 May 2011 (UTC))

Hello again JoeCool950, sorry for not getting back to you today. I'll do so later on this evening. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 05:19, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Back to you JoeCool950, sorry for the delay. There are a number of reasons I removed the material. It's important to remember that any information that is added to an article that involves a "living person" must be handled with a great deal of care because of the potential impact that it may have on that person's life. This is especially important when it involves the addition of negative information regarding a person's career, such as in this case, where their alleged dismissal from a job is included. Sources for these kinds of allegations must not only be especially solid; the value of the addition of the information must be weighed in terms of their overall importance to the subject of the article itself as well, which in this case is KERO-TV, not Mr. Church. People are dismissed from their place of employment every day; unless there is a reason to believe that an alleged dismissal is a significant event in the history of the station, I believe that including it in the article is probably not a good idea. Also, I noticed that the source being offered in this case appeared to be relying on a purported Facebook posting to support its conclusion; not a good sign in terms of determining reliability according to our policies. Hope this helps. Feel free to get back to me if you wish. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 16:29, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Formal mediation has been requested[edit]

Formal mediation of the dispute relating to Former On air Talent has been requested. As an editor concerned in this dispute, you are invited to participate in the mediation. The process of mediation is voluntary and focuses exclusively on the content issues over which there is disagreement. For an explanation of what formal mediation is, see Wikipedia:Mediation Committee/Policy. Please now review the request page and the guide to formal mediation, and then, in the "party agreement" section, indicate whether you agree to participate. Discussion relating to the mediation request is welcome at the case talk page.

Message delivered by MediationBot (talk) on behalf of the Mediation Committee. 12:41, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

I looked at the above and the short version is that User:TVFAN24 took you to MedCab because you are removing the non-notables from the Chicago pages. Since it is voluntary and TVFAN24 has been repeatedly warned on this issue, I wouldn't even address the MedCab, but that is just my opinion, not something I am telling you to do. - NeutralhomerTalk • 13:01, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
I've looked this over, and apart from the fact that their description of the situation itself contains factual inaccuracies; it appears to me that this editor is once again simply "gaming" us in an attempt to circumvent both policy and consensus. If they'd actually accepted guidance from their mentor last year and attempted to abide by things like our requirements for verifiability; instead of ignoring the advice they were given, this wouldn't even be happening. This appears to me to be a real time waster by an editor who perpetually deliberately ignores all forms of advice offered to them and still seems to think that all they have to do to avoid abiding by the rules, and the consensus of other editors, is to perpetuate a personal grievance they have toward me. Enough is enough. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 13:28, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, I would consult you "local neighborhood" admin since the user is causing problems, not editing constructively (it seems) and has an indef block under their belt for these very same actions. - NeutralhomerTalk • 13:31, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
You know what NH, I don't even want to eat up administrator time (or anyone else's) on AIV regarding this issue. Enough 'ink' has already been spilled on the matter. I'm hoping that the person who reviews this request will simply dismiss it based on the existing ample evidence. My advice to TVFAN24 is to take the original advice of their mentor, return to the sandboxes that were set up for them and get to work remedying the situation. I'd also advise them NOT to start this up again here on my talk page. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 13:48, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Okie Dokie. :) On a slightly related note, I was thinking about wiping out the "News Titles" and "News Slogans" sections on all the television station pages, so we can just revert them immediately when the Jacksonville guy comes back. - NeutralhomerTalk • 14:12, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
Is that really okay? I'm worried you're going to get in "trouble" for that. Technically, station slogans don't need a secondary source, since the broadcast itself is a sufficient source to "prove" that the slogan existed. That is, it's not original research or a violation of WP:PRIMARY to look at a TV station, note the exact words of the slogan, and add those to Wikipedia. This is just like the fact that we don't provide a secondary source for the plot of movies--the movie itself is the source. We're removing the "localized" versions because we have reason to believe that the information is inaccurate. But do we have some reason to believe the non-localized versions are not accurate, especially if there were added by editors other than the Jacksonville editor?
Regarding the mediation's not even formed properly--if TVFAN24 wanted you and others to participate in mediation, he needs to inform you and the other editors; I agree that it looks like he's trying to use a secondary system to get around the very clear policy here, but hasn't even done it correctly. That is, I don't think xe really wants mediation, but that xe thinks that by starting that page there xe can get some other "higher level" editor to "overrule" you and others. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:15, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
@Q: See the problem with that is, most of those were never used. Like the CBS "It's All Here" campaign, it was just given to stations for filler, inbetween commercials or just never to air. We can't confirm these have ever aired on the station. Plus, the Jacksonville editor is likely one of three socks we run into all the time around here, so that makes any content they add removalable without question. Third, the site they are getting this information from, is just a second-hand original research site itself. There are no sources, may never have been aired, sock problems, and second-hand OR.....I say remove it. - NeutralhomerTalk • 01:23, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────It seems the spat between you two has been stirred up again. Contrary to what Neutralhomer is suggesting (and his suggesiton is a dick move in my opinion) I think mediation would be a good venue for the dispute about these issues to be resolved. She seems to make some efforts but she also has areas where she slips up. She exerts a lot of ownership over these things, they are all valid topics for discussion in mediation for it to be worked out. If you don't want to participate that is up to you, but you should respond stating you don't want to participate and why would be nice as well. Otherwise this just continues with more edit warring. Continuing to revert her edits and ignore her request to mediate wouldn't reflect well on you. --WGFinley (talk) 02:50, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

...and calling me a DICK doesn't reflect well on you. If you want to deal with an editor who was previously blocked for this same behavior, you be my guest, but I won't and I will continue to revert TVFAN24 as they are not doing anything constructive in my view (and I edit in the same circles). What DT wants to do is up to him, but I stand by my recommendation. - NeutralhomerTalk • 03:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I didn't call you a dick, I said that your suggestion was a dick-move, that is, if he ignored a request to resolve the dispute and continued in the dispute anyway, that's pretty much M:DICK. --WGFinley (talk) 03:25, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, by calling someone's post a "dick move" you are in essence calling them a "dick", but whatever. I am wondering...being the "dick move" comment and this here, exactly what the problem is? You seem to be highly pissed off that two editors are a little sick and tired of playing cleanup for your "mentee". If you should be pissed off at anyone, it should be TVFAN24. They have run amouk while you were on wikibreak, caused problems, made a mess of articles and is now trying to game the system into getting "permission" to supercede consensus. I see where you would be take it out on TVFAN24, don't take your problems out on me with your "dick move" comment and this here. Because doing so, it just doesn't reflect well on you. - NeutralhomerTalk • 03:55, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
Oh no; am I going to have to "mediate" on my own talk page? : ) Let's cool our jets, shall we? Please stop implicitly, explicitly, "potentially" or "hypothetically" calling people "dicks" on my talk page, okay? In my opinion, it doesn't expedite anything except the possibility of even more "drama" and rancour. I see myself as a bit of an individualist; and although I appreciate the concern expressed by both of you, I can assure you that any decision that I reach on responding to this will be exclusively my own, while listening to the *opinions* of other editors. Wgfinley, I can't help but notice that out of the dozen or more editors that have 'pitched in' on this issue in several venues, you and TVFAN24 appear to be the only contributors to the discussion who appear to consistently attempt to exclusively boil this down to a personal "spat" (as you describe it) between TVFAN24 and myself. What both of you seem derelict in addressing directly are the opinions of the dozen or so other editors who have also weighed in on the matter (again, in several different venues) and appear to see it differently. I'm interested in hearing your thoughts on that. It's my understanding that last autumn you took the time to set up a series of sandboxes for TVFAN24 into which you pasted the unreferenced list contents from the several Chicago area television station articles whose inclusion was being disputed by a number of other editors. It's also my understanding that at that point, you were encouraging this editor to work on remedying the situation by obtaining references for those entries lacking them, after-which they would be reinserted into the article. In my opinion, that's quite a commendable approach and would have solved this situation months ago. However, after doing some back reading, I've taken note that that approach appears to have been abandoned by that editor. I understand that "mentoring" is an advisory capacity not a "compelling" one; but I'm wondering why it seems that you also appear to have abandoned that approach as well? Last autumn, here on my talk page, you requested that I give you some time to "work" with this individual on issues like verifiability; which I believe I complied with, at which point you implemented the regime that I mentioned a moment ago. If you saw merit in that approach six or seven months ago, why does it now appear to have lost its "shine"? Once again, I want to remind you to please refrain from using language here on my talk page that unnecessarily antagonizes other editors or appears to exhibit bad faith. thanks Deconstructhis (talk) 04:32, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
I can't make her change the way she edits and I have acknowledged that she has had some issues and told her so myself. I think mediation would be a good place to discuss the issue as a group and maybe she would better understand where she's going wrong with what she's doing. I doubt there is little to be gained than to just continue to edit war across several articles. Yes, this is your talk page but I'm sorry, I will invoke long standing WP traditions when I like. Having a completely valid call to mediate what is clearly a dispute and clearly a long-standing one is not unreasonable. Ignoring it and continuing to edit war is. You can either take meaningful steps to try to end a dispute or you can continue to escalate it, your choice. If you refuse you are just giving her green light to go to ARBCOM where she will file she tried to engage in mediation with you and you refused. That won't look good. I am staying out of this from here on in, up to you to decide and I hope you will just give it a chance so that maybe it can be worked out without going further. --WGFinley (talk) 13:01, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
  • The whole thing is now moot as the MedCom request has been closed by AGK. You can read his response at the request page. - NeutralhomerTalk • 21:40, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected[edit]

The request for mediation concerning WBBM-TV, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible for this dispute to proceed to formal mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Questions relating to the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list. For more information on other available steps in the dispute resolution process, see Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.

For the Mediation Committee, AGK [] 21:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
(Delivered by MediationBot, on behalf of the Mediation Committee.)

Personal comment on the request for mediation notice appearing[edit]

I want to add a personal "closure" comment to this publicly for "the record". I intended on disagreeing with the basis of mediation in that context; so in the end, barring anything else it would have been rejected; and I'm willing to take that on, however it may have "reflected" on me. My contention is that the editor who filed was in actuality "forum shopping" WP:ADMINSHOP. Mediation is an attempt at consensus building, not an avenue to attempt to circumvent consensus after it's occurred and you personally reject the outcome. At one point, TVFAN24 was blocked last autumn, specifically for rejecting that consensus and continuing to add unreferenced BLP material to articles. Given that context and others as well, in my opinion I think it's both fair and possible that a reasonable person might develop some doubts regarding "good faith" in this matter; which is another basic prerequisite for any success in the mediation process. All in all, in my opinion, this was a frivolous waste of editing resources and in this context was in no way a "good issue" for the type mediation being requested. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 20:52, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I would broadly agree with your opinion, and did so at the time that I wrote the formal rationale for the rejection of the mediation request, but I did not think it was appropriate to cast doubts, in my capacity as a representative of MedCom, on whether the request was in bad faith. Regards, AGK [] 20:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
I'm somewhat embarrassed at the moment. I actually intended to post this on my own talk page beneath the bot notice and I'll move it there later tonight, apologies to NH. No worries AGK; I understand that there are strictures that apply when you're acting in the capacity that you're working within and that they're in the service of "fairness", which is a good thing. Once again, apologies to neutralhomer and I'll get this out of here shortly. In my mind, good mediators deserve respect. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 21:10, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Hey DT, sorry to respond so late, we have had some thunderstorms move through, so everytime I went to respond to this, I had to turn the computer off....again. No worries that you posted the above on my talk page and you didn't have to remove it. It was cool. :) My talk page is always open and I don't mind if people have conversations there until I get there. :) - NeutralhomerTalk • 05:23, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


The revert was an administrative one, not evaluating the content. He called it vandalism, it clearly wasn't, I reverted it. I further told him that and invited him to revert it for content reasons if that's what he was going for.[39] --WGFinley (talk) 05:05, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

That's fine. My edit summary comments were based on what contextually I think are the rather staggering implications of what were presented as the original rationales for removing the entry in the first place.[40] thanks Deconstructhis (talk) 05:15, 17 May 2011 (UTC)


A matter which you are involved in has been taken to ANI. See here. - NeutralhomerTalk • 07:58, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Personal attack against you...[edit]

Hi, letting you know editor csneed has posted about you on TVFAN24's talk page and it looks to be a personal attack. He thinks he can "thwart your edits" by adding links directly to former television personalities instead of Wikilinks. Also, csneed apparently thinks its okay to add himself to articles. Doesn't Wikipedia have a policy against a person editing their own article or creating something related to them as a means of self promotion? Anyway, just wanted to let you know I stand with you on this issue. If it were me, I would have reported him for a personal attack for his choice of words. --ḾỊḼʘɴίcảTalkI DX for fun! 02:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

I've left a comment on that TVFAN's talk page. Technically speaking, if the user does provide a valid reference, then the entry can stay. I mean, there's notability/importance, but that's harder to assess and I think we've mostly been focused on the low-hanging fruit of verification.
Also, DC, you probably know that Neutralhomer has retired from Wikipedia. This means more burden falls on us (especially you, since you deal with this much more than me) on former staff lists and station slogans. Please let me know if there is something specific I can do to help. I only have a few dozen of the TV stations on my watch list (quite randomly chosen), so if there's specific ones that you need particular help monitoring, let me know. It's not really a fun job, but I hate to think of you having to manage it entirely on your own. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Just FYI[edit]

I see you haven't been on in about 10 days, but just in case you come back, I wanted to let you know that I am no longer fighting to keep off those station slogans. It's not worth my time to keep fighting with the person, given how determined they are, the (small) possibility that some of the slogans may be correct, and the fact that nearly everything else on most tv pages is unsourced. I will keep the pages I already have on my watch list, and continue watching for the addition of unlinked/unreferenced Former Staff, as that actually matters to me (and is less frequent), but on the more. We either need a more robust solution or it's just not worth it. Qwyrxian (talk) 22:29, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

A little bit of note...[edit]

Hey there, Denonstructhis, I wanted to let you know that a user was trying to re-add a personality that was already deleted (possibly by you). See the KGO-TV article's talk page for the notice (it is just above your notification of adding unreferenced employees section). I have added additional important notice to the associated talk page, so to let you know. Thank you for your understanding. (NOTE: If you want to respond here, please click here beforehand. Thanks!) CHAK 001 (talk) 04:54, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

FOLLOW UP: I have addressed concerns on attempting to re-add unreferenced entries of former personalities. See the KGO-TV talk page for more. CHAK 001 (talk) 08:48, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

TV station vandal[edit]

We've come up with a simple plan. Please see User:Anna Frodesiak/Black sandbox. Cheers, Anna Frodesiak (talk) 08:49, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Would You like to Help?[edit]

Hi, I am starting Wikipedia:WikiProject Ravidassia. I would like to get help from people who are interested. You may sign up for the project on the [[41]]. McKinseies (talk) 15:36, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Requesting your opinion[edit]

Hi. You've participated in discussions on KCAL-TV. Can you offer your opinion about the inclusion of material in an article that's taking place in this consensus discussion, in which the reliability of that source is one of the issues that was raised (among others)? It would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 18:16, 3 November 2013 (UTC)