User talk:VQuakr

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from User talk:Jminthorne)
Jump to: navigation, search


Wiki Loves Pride[edit]

You are invited! Wiki Loves Pride

You are invited to participate in Wiki Loves Pride, a global campaign to create and improve LGBT-related content at Wikipedia during the month of June, culminating with a multinational edit-a-thon on June 21. The project is being spearheaded by two organizers with roots in the Pacific Northwest. Meetups are being organized in some cities, or you can participate remotely. Wikimedia Commons will also be hosting an LGBT-related photo challenge.

In Portland, there are two ways to contribute. One is a photography campaign called "Pride PDX", for pictures related to LGBT culture and history. The Wiki Loves Pride edit-a-thon will be held on Saturday, June 21 from noon–4pm at Smith Memorial Student Union, Room 236 at Portland State University. Prior Wikipedia editing is not required; assistance will be available the day of the event. Attendees should bring their own laptops and cords.

Feel free to showcase your work here!


If you have any questions, please leave a message here. You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Oregon-related events and projects by removing your name from this list.

Hello! There is a DR/N request you may have interest in.[edit]

Peacedove.svg

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The discussion is at BlackLight Power. Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! --Guy Macon (talk) 12:59, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Sending "Welcome to Wikipedia" Messages[edit]

It is important that all editors be treated with respect, fairness and the assumption of good intentions. When an experienced Wikipedia editor receives a "Welcome to Wikipedia" message, how do you think the recipient might interpret the intent of the sender? When do you think sending such a message is appropriate? --Zeamays (talk) 18:20, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

This was a standard warning template, Template:uw-ewsoft, in response to your behavior at Email and the associated talk page. Since the warning template was mostly motivated by your demand not to be reverted (you only actually reverted in article space once IIRC), I used the softer template. Per your request above, I have replaced it with Template:uw-ew. By "experienced" I assume you mean, "has been here a long time." We usually gauge experience levels by competence and knowledge (not chronological age of the account), and you demonstrated ignorance of our editing procedures by edit warring - hence the introductory level warning. VQuakr (talk) 18:58, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Let's see. I edited an article, email, to add well-documented new material yesterday. Overnight it had been reverted without any discussion, so I reinstated my edits with a request for discussion on Talk:Email. The other editor did discuss, but he then reverted most of my edits in a sequential series of edits. I have been actively involved in debating the edits, which is the spirit of Wikipedia. Now, for no apparent reason, you have accused me of "ignorance" of "our editing procedure" (as though you have a superior position). I request you to delete this message and language. I repeat, it is the philosophy of Wikipedia that all editors be treated with respect, fairness and the assumption of good intentions. --Zeamays (talk) 19:19, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Overnight it had been reverted without any discussion, so I reinstated my edits with a request for discussion on Talk:Email. Hence the warning for edit warring. VQuakr (talk) 20:17, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
One reversion is not an edit war. I do not think it is appropriate to refer to other editors of "ignorance". Please be courteous. Please delete the unwanted notice, or I will do it for you. --Zeamays (talk) 23:32, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
One reversion, combined with the insistence that your edits must stay. You demonstrated ignorance of our editing practices by doing so - that is not an insult, just an observation. The correct response is to inform the editor of proper editing practices. Feel free to remove notices from your talk page once you have read them, per WP:BLANKING. VQuakr (talk) 23:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
Done. Wikipedia is a group effort that benefits from discussions and "bold" editing, as the policy describes it, not by deleting good faith edits of others. Obviously we differ on what is polite and courteous discussion. You describe my requests as demands, my efforts to foster discussion as edit warring. But more than our disagreement on policy and etiquette, there is a practical problem with allowing deletions of good faith edits without discussion. That is, it plays into the hands of entrenched interests who patrol articles and delete anything that disagrees with their "party line". They waste our time in endless discussions, and the articles never are edited to include the material that doesn't suit their POV. I have seen this happen before. --Zeamays (talk) 00:33, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Wow. WP:AGF much? Anyways, yes WP benefits from bold editing, but not reckless editing. It seems that you wish our policies said something different than what they do - that is fine, but WP:VP/P is thataway - you do not get to change our editing practices simply because it suits your preference. This is a demand, not a request - and it constitutes edit warring. VQuakr (talk) 16:57, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
I tried to explain why I requested discussion, and for that, you call me "reckless"? You use language that implies you own Wikipeia, and you "demand" changes? Please relax a little. I was attempting to describe my experience with certain editors, not you, please don't think I meant that. But you yourself need to refrain from using aggressive language with other editors, so you might want to re-read WP:AGF and meditate on it. I don't claim to own Wikipedia, but the articles cited in reckless refer to really, really contentious matters, not a sedate technical matter of priority in the history of technology. --Zeamays (talk) 18:54, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

SSM[edit]

Hello - you recently sent a message to my Talk page discussing "Edit Wars". Thank you, though - in this case - it was a bit premature. The Talk page of SSM was engaged during editing. Given the topic can be controversial and often "passionate"? The effort on my part is strictly to attain and maintain neutrality while honoring other editor's POV. Easier said than done in some Articles vs others. So, we move forward in good faith and offer dignity to all.Integrityandhonesty (talk) 13:29, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

@Integrityandhonesty: au contraire, your additional WP:3RR violation after the warning could easily have resulted in your being blocked. The admin chose to lock the article to prevent all edits instead. VQuakr (talk) 03:16, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
Well, we see this differently. As the Talk page demonstrates it is clear as day it was engaged with earnest, respect and in good faith. A difference in POV is not a valid reason to block an Editor. If one breaths they have a POV. Now, attempts at vandalism, disrespect and so on is, of course, Wikipedia policy to block such behavior. All the bestIntegrityandhonesty (talk) 03:35, 3 September 2014 (UTC)
@Integrityandhonesty: The 3RR is a bright-line rule, so it does not matter if you are discussing on the talk page at the same time. This is not a matter of opinion; the warning was simply to notify you of the policy. VQuakr (talk) 05:01, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Nor, is this a valid reason to block an Editor. This happens by chance thousands of times a day on Wikipedia. So, I really don't see your point at all. It's best we end it here.Integrityandhonesty (talk) 11:31, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

Feminist+Queer Art Wikipedia Edit-a-thon: Saturday, September 13, Portland, Oregon[edit]

Art-and-feminism.svg

You are invited to the Feminist+Queer Art Wikipedia Edit-a-thon, to be held on Saturday, September 13, 2014 from noon–4pm at the Independent Publishing Resource Center (IPRC), located at 1001 SE Division (97202).

Prior Wikipedia editing is not required; assistance will be available the day of the event. Attendees should bring their own laptops and power cords. Female editors are particularly encouraged to attend, but all are welcome. Hope to see you there!

If you have any questions, please leave a message on the talk page.
You can unsubscribe from future notifications for Oregon-related events and projects by removing your name from this list.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:59, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Move review for Anti-Semitism:Requested move[edit]

Hi, I have asked for a move review, see Wikipedia:Move review#Anti-Semitism, pertaining to Anti-Semitism#Requested move. Because you were/are involved in the discussion/s for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page/topic, you might want to participate in the move review. Thank you, IZAK (talk) 08:48, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014[edit]

Warning icon Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to put POV spin on the article Moon landing conspiracy theories, with no real sources to back up the specific statements, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you. VQuakr (talk) 07:21, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Stop impugning my motives, and stop calling my edits and removal of POV spin and unsourced statements "disruptive editing". The point is that source does not back up that last sentence, and the sentence doesn’t even get Percy/Bennet’s point. It’s just pro-Apollo apologist spin and POV. They KNEW it could never be “broadcast live”...either for real or as a hoax. But said that the government DID NOT WANT it broadcast live. (And in their view for the reason of too high a risk etc...) The distinction is important, and is sloppily overlooked (apparently by POV Apollo apologists)...the statement is sloppy inaccurate and unsourced. That webpage does not make the point made in the sentence. It’s just POV spin and synthesis. No warrant in that paragraph. I wrote on the article talk page, please click right here. And see what was said. Gabby Merger (talk) 18:00, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

WP:3RR. You know the drill... --NeilN talk to me 18:43, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

RT not Reliable Source?![edit]

Claiming that RT, an internationally recognized News Station is not RS is a bit strange to say the least. Can you point me to a rule here on WP that clearly states that RT is not RS, and if so, I assume that Al Jazeera, Al Arabiya, CNN, FOX News, MSNBC, CBS, BBC are not RS either? 212.181.160.22 (talk) 23:04, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Again RS nonsense[edit]

You did not even read the document, did you? If Theodore Postol, a renowned MIT Professor and author of the document/report, is not a Reliable Source, then nothing is. And Brown Moses/Elliot Higgins and Sayerslle/Dan Kaszeta definitely isn't. 212.181.160.22 (talk) 17:35, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Well, you could review the third paragraph of their article. Frankly, the source is so far from reliable that it is silly to even respond. Best of luck, and please note that your next revert on that article will likely result in a block. VQuakr (talk) 01:17, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

SP[edit]

I must ask what you consider trolling about the IPs comment. Nothing about it screams trolling to me.

By the by I also must ask you to not template the regulars. It is unhelpful and frustrating to receive a message telling to me to avoid attacking people especially when I did not do anything of the sort. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 11:40, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

@Taylor Trescott: the IP is implying another editor only respects WP:BLP when it comes to male subjects. This is unsubstantiated trolling, and a thinly-veiled personal attack against her. It should be removed per WP:TPG. By restoring the material you, in my opinion, took ownership of the attack hence the template. I subscribe to WP:TTR regarding "templating the regulars"; seniority does not convey privilege here. I will however do my best to respect your wishes unless impractical. Kind regards, and thank you for your follow up and consideration. VQuakr (talk) 19:10, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Problem on Graham story[edit]

There have now been arrest and charges in that event. According to Wikipedia this now changes person of interest to "suspect" and allows naming. I can understand if IP cannot remove the blp, but it needs removal. Also person of interest header needs to be changed to "suspect."00:43, 25 September 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.74.119 (talk)

Please quote the exact policy that leads you to believe that a person being charged changes the guidance at WP:BLPCRIME. Feel free to make changes to the article that do not violate BLP - I only object to removal of the hidden reminder to keep the name out and addition of the name of a person who has not been convicted. VQuakr (talk) 00:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

About the references on the Means End article[edit]

Hi VQuakr, you recently edited a Wikipedia article about Means End that I created. I'd like to know why the Youtube and Facebooksources were removed. Without them, some of the information on the page has no evidence. I'm new to Wikipedia as you may know so I'd just like some clarification. JAGuar96 (talk) 13:26, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Because they are not reliable sources. VQuakr (talk) 19:06, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Luc Montanier's stance on homeopathy[edit]

On the Luc Montagnier page -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luc_Montagnier -- I'm amazed that you restore a link like this- http://web.archive.org/web/20140413144840/http://www.cbc.ca/marketplace/episodes/2011-episodes/cure-or-con , and it suffices as a source to repeat what is disinformation about the opinions of a living Nobel-prize winning scientist. 41.215.151.113 (talk) 09:21, 2 October 2014 (UTC)41.215.151.113 (talk) 09:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.215.148.231 (talkcontribs) 41.215.151.113 (talk) 09:22, 2 October 2014 (UTC)Mrsip

You seem to have it backwards. The source provided that you link above appears reliable, while the source provided for its removal, here is a blog and is in no way reliable. VQuakr (talk) 01:07, 30 September 2014 (UTC) ETA - the author of that blog is Dana Ullman - to quote our article quoting Time, "the leading proselytizer of homeopathy." VQuakr (talk) 03:24, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi VQuakr, "Your" (for lack of a better word) link leads to a TV show episode. The episode is premised around debunking homeopathy. This episode is used as evidence that "Montagnier disputed any such support [for homeopathy]", as claimed by some homeopaths. I watched this TV show. The narrator doesn't even use the name "Luc Montagnier". They refer to him indirectly, calling him "a Nobel prize winner", and they show on screen for a few seconds a picture of what appears to be a journal article by Montagnier and many colleagues. The narrator says "none of the experts we talked to agree the studies prove anything. And that Nobel-prize winner tells us he's done some work on high water dilutions of DNA fragments but 'cannot extrapolate it to the products used in homeopathy.'"

This link is extremely weak to use as a reference that "Montagnier disputed any such support [for homeopathy]". Firstly, the quote the TV show uses is not even a full sentence from him! Your entire evidence that "Montagnier disputed any such support [for homeopathy]" therefore, is a completely decontextualised and partial quote from a not explicitly named scientist, that has been reproduced on a TV show with an explicit bias towards debunking homeopathy. If that's not weak, I don't know what is.

Secondly, the quote refers to extrapolating Montagnier's work to 'products', and not to the practice or theory of homeopathy. This is a critically important distinction. Montagnier is not disputing homeopathy here, although he perhaps disputes using his work to support homeopathic products. These are the actions of a good scientist!

Thirdly, it is disturbing and suspicious that the narrator does not actually attribute the quote to Montagnier by name. A good source does not consist of a decontextualised, partial quote. For example, the TV show could have said to him, "We have a woman here who claims she can cure breast cancer with a homeopathic remedy called 'ABC 12x'. She claims it works, and that your research on high water dilutions provides evidence that it works". In response, Montaginer could have written, "Yes I've done some work on high water dilutions, but I cannot extrapolate my findings to the products used in homeopathy."

If this were the actual context of the exchange between the TV show and Montagnier, would you still be comfortable claiming that Montagnier has "disputed any such support [for homeopathy]"?

Your link to the TV show is extremely weak on its own; but even more so when the assertion it supposedly backs is compared with Montagnier's comments to the peer-reviewed journal 'Science'. You can find these quotes from my link, which is to a blog post written by a professional on the Huffington Post's blog section. The blog publishes direct quotes from the 'Science' article, and it is these quotes- from a peer-reviewed journal- that provide evidence against the assertion that "Montagnier disputed any such support [for homeopathy]".

The peer-reviewed article referred to is the following: Enserink M, Newsmaker Interview: Luc Montagnier, French Nobelist Escapes "Intellectual Terror" to Pursue Radical Ideas in China", Science, 24 December 2010). Article is found here- http://www.scribd.com/doc/47426344/Luc-Montagnier-French-Nobelist-on-homeopathy.

To quote the 'Science' article directly, Luc Montagnier told Martin Enserink-

"Q: Do you think there’s something to homeopathy as well? L.M: I can’t say that homeopathy is right in everything. What I can say now is that the high dilutions are right. High dilutions of something are not nothing. They are water structures which mimic the original molecules. We find that with DNA, we cannot work at the extremely high dilutions used in homeopathy; we cannot go further than a 10(-18) dilution, or we lose the signal. But even at 10(-18), you can calculate that there is not a single molecule of DNA left. And yet we detect a signal."

and

"Q: Aren’t you worried that your colleagues will think you have drifted into pseudo-science? L.M.: No, because it’s not pseudoscience. It’s not quackery. These are real phenomena which deserve further study."

From these quotes can see that, in sum, Montagnier lends more support than dissent to homeopathy. These quotes therefore provide evidence directly against the already weakly-backed assertion that "Montagnier disputed any such support [for homeopathy]."

Please note that I am not making an assertion on the wikipedia page: I am disputing an existing one because it has a weak source, and because there is evidence from a strong source ('Science') that contradicts "your" weak source (which is a TV show with an explicit bias). The link that I provide in my comments is not intended to be published as a source on the main wikipedia page; it is intended to highlight that the claims being made about Montagnier on Wikipedia contrast markedly with the quotes published in a peer-reviewed journal. My link reproduces those quotes.

In addition to the above, the sentence on the Wikipedia page- "He did admit that he wasn't working with the very high dilution levels normally used in homeopathy" should also be deleted because it is blatantly false. Montagnier was working within the dilution range normally used daily by homeopaths, for example, 10(-12) is a common homeopathic dilution. He says that they "lose the signal" at the "extremely high" end of the scale. Homeopathy uses dilutions both at the levels Montagnier was using, and higher. Montagnier found signals at some of the dilutions homeopaths use, but not at all the levels. That is what he was saying. Stating that "he did admit that he wasn't working with the very high dilution levels normally used in homeopathy" is an outright false statement. It would be far better to leave the direct quote from 'Science' as a full, unbroken quote, and remove the silly opinion that has been inserted in the middle of it that breaks the quote up and misrepresents the true meaning of Montagnier's words.

The following statement must also be removed from the Wikipedia page on Luc Montagnier- "When asked by Canada's CBC Marketplace program if his work was indeed a theoretical basis for homeopathy as homeopaths had claimed, Montagnier replied that one "cannot extrapolate it to the products used in homeopathy".

There is no evidence at all that Luc Montagnier was asked by the TV show "if his work was indeed a theoretical basis for homeopathy as homeopaths had claimed", like the wikipedia article falsely states. Once again, I refer to to the contents of this TV show itself: please watch "your" own links. The narrator says this: "None of the experts we talked to agree the studies prove anything. And that Nobel-prize winner tells us he's done some work on high water dilutions of DNA fragments but 'cannot extrapolate it to the products used in homeopathy.'" At no point does the TV show pose the question to Montagnier "Does your work provide a theoretical basis for homeopathy as homeopaths have claimed?" or anything even remotely like this.

The changes that need to be made are thus as follows:

1. The introductory paragraph on Luc Montagnier currently reads, in part: "In 2009, Montagnier published two controversial research studies[3] that some homeopaths claimed as support for homeopathy. Although Montagnier disputed any such support,[4] many scientists greeted his claims with scorn and harsh criticism.[3][5][6]"

It should be edited to read: "In 2009, Montagnier published two controversial research studies[3] that some homeopaths claimed as support for homeopathy. Many scientists greeted his claims with scorn and harsh criticism.[3][5][6]

2. The body of the article on Luc Montagnier says: "When asked by Canada's CBC Marketplace program if his work was indeed a theoretical basis for homeopathy as homeopaths had claimed, Montagnier replied that one "cannot extrapolate it to the products used in homeopathy".[4]"

This entire sentence should be removed, since it is demonstrably false.

3. The body of the article on Luc Montagnier says: He was also questioned on his beliefs about homeopathy, to which he replied: "I can’t say that homeopathy is right in everything. What I can say now is that the high dilutions are right. High dilutions of something are not nothing. They are water structures which mimic the original molecules." He did admit that he wasn't working with the very high dilution levels normally used in homeopathy: "We find that with DNA, we cannot work at the extremely high dilutions used in homeopathy; we cannot go further than a 10−18 dilution, or we lose the signal. But even at 10−18, you can calculate that there is not a single molecule of DNA left. And yet we detect a signal."

This should be edited to read: He was also questioned on his beliefs about homeopathy, to which he replied: "I can’t say that homeopathy is right in everything. What I can say now is that the high dilutions are right. High dilutions of something are not nothing. They are water structures which mimic the original molecules. We find that with DNA, we cannot work at the extremely high dilutions used in homeopathy; we cannot go further than a 10−18 dilution, or we lose the signal. But even at 10−18, you can calculate that there is not a single molecule of DNA left. And yet we detect a signal."

VQuakr, I would like to draw your attention to the wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons: "This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons". " Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous".

"To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies."

I therefore request that you please make the changes as I have detailed above, or else provide a suitable source for the claims being made about Luc Montagnier.

41.215.151.113 (talk) 09:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)MRSIP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.84.226.127 (talk) 20:47, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Feel free to take to the article talk page, but you might want to review WP:FRINGE and WP:MEDRS first. You'll probably also want to work on brevity. BLP is not being violated by quoting a popular source that says the subject does not support the extrapolation being done by homeopathy supporters. VQuakr (talk) 21:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi VQuakr-

1. You need to actually watch the source that you are restoring. Please, watch the TV show, and then come and tell me where they ask Montagnier this question: "When asked by Canada's CBC Marketplace program if his work was indeed a theoretical basis for homeopathy as homeopaths had claimed..." --> The truth is that the TV show never put this question to him. You are allowing blatantly and demonstrably false information to stand. Where is your intellectual integrity?

2. This article is making false claims about a living person. The TV show quotes a few words without any context, and you think this is a better source than direct quotes published in 'Science'? Again, where is your intellectual integrity?

3. "Popular source"... I'm sorry, but what does that even mean? Is it an official wikipedia term I am unfamiliar with?

4. How can you think that a block quote from 'Science' quoting Montagnier is better off when a polemic opinion containing demonstrably false information is inserted in the middle of it?

5. I'd like to point out that if Montagnier has in fact disputed homeopathy, then surely there would be a better reference than 8 decontextualised and unattributed words on a TV show. Surely! The fact is that Montagnier is a controversial man in large part precisely because he has not disputed homeopathy.

Once again, I'll point out that I am not advocating any additions to this article, I just want to remove that information which is not true. But it seems that you are not interested in raising the standard of this article.

I'd like to ask another editor to review the decisions that you have made on this article. I don't think you have acted within the Wikipedia guidelines, and I think this is serious because this article involves false information about a living person. Please advise how I may do this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.215.151.160 (talk) 19:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC) 41.215.151.113 (talk) 09:18, 2 October 2014 (UTC)MRSIP

1. I did watch the show; it is an adequate source for the material in the article. Your presumption is not automatic fact, and it is unrealistic of you to expect others to simply believe your say-so.
2. You have not supported your "false claims" statement.
3. No, just a "VQuakr" term. I meant a general interest source, as opposed to a peer-reviewed source.
4. "Demonstrably false" is your term and has not been supported. The quote you provided was from an interview (not a peer reviewed article), and the quote is not at odds with the content of the Luc Montagnier article.
5. Verifiability, as "truth" tends to be easy to subvert.
Yes, you have multiple avenues available to bring this before a wider audience. Your first step should be the article talk page, here, which I linked in my previous reply. WP:DR has a list of all dispute resolutions available, but all presume the article talk page avenue has been exhausted. VQuakr (talk) 03:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Hi VQuakr:

1. The TV show does not ask Montagnier this question. How can Wikipedia say it does, when it does not? This is easily proved by watching the TV show.

2. The false claims are that he disputes homeopathy. I have supported my argument very well, for which you took me to task for my lack of brevity. Yet again I remind you that since I am not making a published claim, I do not have to provide a source; I provide both an argument and a source ('Science') nevertheless. Take it as a bonus. The onus is on you to provide a source that Montagnier disputes homeopathy.

3. Thank you for the clarification of your term "popular source".

4. The quote is at odds with the claim that Montagnier supports homeopathy. It is a strong source ('Science'), and Montagnier's comments therein provide far stronger evidence that he supports homeopathy, than your TV show link provides evidence that he does not.

5. I'm not sure what you intend to convey by your point number 5. If you intend to claim that one can verify that Montagnier disputes homeopathy, then I'll strongly disagree and say that I think I've written enough on this point already.

As a newb, I do not wish to get into an editing war, since I'm at a substantial disadvantage technically and process-wise. Nevertheless I have made the changes I think necessary (I have detailed these three changes above) on the article. I have only deleted words, I have not added any. I have supported my changes by way of arguments on the talk page. These arguments are the same I used here but, as you suggested, in a shorter form. Thank you for the guidance you have offered, to take it to the talk page. I hope more people will weigh in.

41.215.151.113 (talk) 09:14, 2 October 2014 (UTC)MRSIP

Thank you[edit]

Just dropping by to say thank you for your input on the John Walsh article. I appreciated your thoughtfulness and consideration of the actual issue. Montanabw(talk) 05:15, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

No one involved in the edit warring on that article came out looking great. I hoped Msnicki would respond better to me given our civil interactions in the past. No such luck it would seem. Actions speak louder than words, though, so hopefully they will balance their ungracious talk page bluster with greater care in article space. If not, for borderline cases such as this one I suggest using WP:BLP/N rather than repeated reverts. For unambiguous cases, cite BLP in your edit summary (reversions of BLP violations are exempt from WP:3RR) and be prepared to explain yourself at EW/N. VQuakr (talk) 06:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Noting BLP in the edit summary is good advice that I shall remember. I had too many shitstorms hit me on totally unrelated topics all at one this past week (phase of the moon?) and I was getting pretty worn down. But I prevailed on this one, so I'm happy enough. Montanabw(talk) 00:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

About the article that was previously deleted[edit]

I was trying to get the old article but I coppied it wrong and then dang you deleted the thing right when I got it! It has a really long and odd history also. Wgolf (talk) 03:37, 2 October 2014 (UTC) Here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khursheed Khan (Co editor)-I keep on messing it up since it has a completely different name! Wgolf (talk) 03:39, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

That AfD was closed as G4, but I do not see where one on him was ever actually closed as delete. Consider nominating for speedy under G5 or G11 instead and reporting the sockpuppet at WP:SPI (the original really should have a SPI page anyways). VQuakr (talk) 03:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Well check out the sock puppet report I just put for the user-apparently there are tons of them (and now accidentally is under 3 different ones by me as I was trying to root it to the original and kept on failing) Wgolf (talk) 03:54, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

-BTW sorry about that but yeah it is strange I put up a AFD only to discover that part then, I don't know what to say now considering how many sock puppets there seems to be. Wgolf (talk) 04:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)