User talk:Older and ... well older/Archive 1

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

Welcome!

Hello, Older and ... well older, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- Kendrick7^talk 12:33, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Dawiki

It appears so. I've fixed it back. Thank you for telling me about my mistake. It goes to say that one must be cautious when out editing in other Wikipediae. bibliomaniac 1 5 02:22, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Re:Second Amendment

Nope. "Should be dismissed" is either a statement of opinion or a statement of prophecy (or attempt thereof). You should wait for the verdict to be issued before making such a statement. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 18:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Second Amendment

Hi -- sorry it took me a while to respond to your comments on the Second Amendment -- I did now (at Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#More_than_two_versions). Joriki (talk) 14:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Celestra -- thanks likewise for a constructive discussion. I like the result; it's clear and concise and gives the proper weight to the versions. Joriki (talk) 16:25, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Your obstructionism in removing minority opinion from the Second Amendment

I don't need consensus to remove a minuscule minority opinion from the article. Minuscule minority opinion do not belong in a wiki article. That is a wiki rule. Period end of Conversation.

You ask how I know know it's minuscule? There has been a standing offer on the Seconds Amendment talk page. All that anyone needs to do is find a second source for the "civic right" interprtation that does not reference Cornell an I wills stop trying to remove that minuscule minority opinion.

So far nobody has been able to do it!

Care to try?141.154.12.116 (talk) 20:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

And it's spelled "consensus" as I've had it pointed out to me. BTW, mr. 141..., you're wrong. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 20:58, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

My typing sucks! Sue me and that plus $2 bucks will get you a cup of coffee.

and I am not wrong on whether a minuscule minority opinion belongs in an article. See below.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:NPOV

The principles upon which these policies are based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus.

If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.141.154.12.116 (talk) 21:39, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It was Celestra's spelling I was speaking to. You might or might not be preaching to the choir and your points might or might not be valid, but your strategy for getting your point across is nonproductive. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 22:47, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the spelling error, Nukes. I know it when I see it, but it helps to be able to spell it, too. Celestra (talk) 01:10, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

Stubs: Presentment Clause; New Jersey Plan; Sarah de Leeuw; Contract Clause; United States v. Salerno; List of U.S. state fish; United States v. Cruikshank; Christopher Dodd; Large capacity magazine; Emperor Go-Fushimi; Browning Arms Company; Sarah Neufeld; Looting; Félix Rodríguez (Central Intelligence Agency); Americans for Democratic Action; Shadow congressperson; Gun Owners of America; List of U.S. state dances; Drug Enforcement Administration

Cleanup: Glock; Gun safety; Cowbell
Merge: Daedalus class battlecruiser; Batmobile; Sarah Palmer
Add Sources: Preemption (law); District of Columbia Voting Rights Amendment; Establishment Clause of the First Amendment
Wikify: Jenny Kwan; Thomas Todd; Norm (sociology)
Expand: Sarah McLeod; Sarah May; Article Five of the United States Constitution

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 ForteTuba, 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) 19:45, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Sarah Palin

Hello! Thanks for your advice about the change made by my bot RibotBOT, I verified it and I should conclude the change was correct, I will try to explain it: Before bot changes ru interwiki was Пейлин, Сара (like now) if you follow this link you will see it's a redirect to Пэйлин, Сара Луиза, so the bot must change the link from the redirect to the true article. It seems ruwiki changed the transliteration, so any other bot will do the same changes. Regards. --89.131.2.178 (talk) 18:18, 3 April 2009 (UTC). Sorry. I was disconnected from internet. --Loupeter (talk) 18:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Tigers, Siberian tigers, Caspian tigers, and others

Thanks for the response Celestra,

Thanks for the review - "The editsemiprotected template is just a way for someone to help you insert your changes into a semiprotected article. You have to detail the exact change. For less specific suggestions like these, engaging an interested editor on the talk page is probably the way to go."

I thought that I was very specific. I listed four changes for the Tiger page, three with specific text that needed to be substituted for current text and one a suggestion to substitute a different picture if possible.

Thanks for the suggestion - to find an "interested editor."

Where can I find an editor interested in making changes?

Much of what I posted could be looked over and implemented, and surely in half an hour I could probably put it all together and have it ready - and I'm squeaky new at this - but I don't have the access, nor the clout to protect the pages. So, what I need is a group of interested editors to form a group and make this a project, to repair the tiger pages to a state of accuracy - and then protect them. I was hoping one might come along...

I went to the WikiProject Cats - but I can't find a way to contact the group there. I looked for a suggestions/article suggestions/project suggestions box on their page... but to no avail. There is a place where they have listed their suggestions for projects, but I can't find a way to alert them about mine. In fact there is no way, from what I can tell, to alert anyone to the fact that on certain high profile pages, that are central to their group and pertinent to multiple groups, that there are gross errors in accuracy.

If you can help me, by suggesting a place where I can alert the multiple concerned WikiProjects so that those who can effect changes can put their heads together and hammer out a reconstruction team - please suggest that place. I'm so busy, as I am sure that you are, that I can't believe that I'm taking the time to write this note - but I could use a friend here. I am genuinely concerned about Wikipedia - because I use it, love it, and I don't like to see it - well, so vulnerable to mockery regarding accuracy. I mean these are pretty basic pages here; everybody knows their basic zoo animals - and how many kids will have seen these pages the past few days (months), and have relied on them for accurate information?

Thanks again (Altalaya (talk) 21:57, 30 April 2009 (UTC)).

Zodiac Killer - You added a link I proposed called "Solution to Zodiac Map Code". Someone else has taken it done. How do we get a defintive ruling on whether it should be added or not? I think it is an article that the majority of visitors to the topic would find very interesting and informative.Akwilks (talk) 14:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Clara Barton

Didn't see the pop-ups: I have them so thoroughly blocked that I don't even see when a site tries. You can go ahead and delete the links, but it's no use reverting: the existing link is to essentially the same content on GeoCities, and will be dead by year end.—Kww(talk) 15:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Protection for Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen

I was wondering if you know why the protection went away for the Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen page. It was so nice, and now that it has been lifted, I've spent all day removing false and uncited rumors from the page. There must have been 20 or 30 edits which had to be removed today. Can the protection get put back on until the film comes out and the speculation dies down?Mathewignash (talk) 12:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Iranian Election

Thanks again!

Lotze (talk) 00:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Dogs on Acid

Celestra, can you please explain to me why Dogs on acid http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dogs_on_acid is up for speedy deletion. I keep creating this page but it just gets deleted again.

I would like not to see this page be deleted for a third time, so i would be happy if you could explain how we can avoid this

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jayflux (talk • contribs) 12:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Haunted Forest and titles

Re [1]: Sorry, that's not my understanding of the naming conventions, nor of Wikipedia:Disambiguation or other related guidelines and policies. A disambiguator in parentheses is only used when the page needs to be disambiguated, i.e. if other articles with the same name do exist or are likely to be created in the future. Otherwise, it is generally not done.

If you truly believe that there are other notable topics with the name "Haunted Forest", please create a disambiguation page at Haunted Forest. (Not at Haunted forest, since it will most probably be a title, not the generic term. NB: MediaWiki automagically redirects between different initial capitalisations for otherwise identical page names.) The only other thing called "Haunted Forest" I found via a quick Google search is the Haunted Forest attraction at Algonkian Park in Sterling Virginia.

You be the judge, but the page at Haunted Forest must contain one of two things: Either a disambiguation page, or the page Haunted Forest (film) must be moved there. Those are the two alternatives according to Wikipedia P&G. Please trust me, I know what I'm talking about. 87.79.175.179 (talk) 00:56, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

(Better reply here because my IP address changes quite frequently, I'm watching your page.) I had in fact read Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision)#Rationale and it's a horribly ambiguous wording (npi). Wikipedia:Disambiguation, like most guidelines, is formulated in the positive stance. It lays out when to disambiguate, not when not to disambiguate. There really is no decision to be made other than to determine whether there are other notable topics of the same name or not. I looked and found nothing, and it seems highly unlikely for now (and we don't look into the future). Btw, the page title is really just a leftover from the WP:CSD#R1 deletion of Haunted Forest (deletion log). The page should have been moved back then, somebody just forgot and everybody else has overlooked it so far.

Ach, this is so tiring. Look, do as you please, that's what you're going to do anyway. I'm absolutely correct, guidelines agree with me and I with them, but people like you get in the way all the time. This is the essence of what is wrong with Wikipedia. I just try to inform of a very simple, 100% uncontroversial maintenance task. And I get someone who thinks they know their way through Wikipedia when they don't. Just like those Huggle-powered mindless revert robots. There's not enough vomit in the world. This is no fun. Thank you. 84.44.254.222 (talk) 05:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I also started at Wikipedia:Disambiguation, but found it only discussed, not surprizingly, disambiguation. That led me to look elsewhere and I found Wikipedia:Naming conventions (precision), which appears to be on point and explains the original author's choice of names. I could be wrong, but you haven't said anything that helps me see where I am wrong; just that you are "absolutely correct" and other people disagree "all the time." (Thanks for letting me know that I am not uniquely unaware of your perfection.) You would do well to examine those interactions with a little less divine truth and a little more reasonable disagreement. Goodbye. Celestra (talk) 15:52, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Re:Removal of scare quotes

Actually, in this case I removed the quotes more because it was a section header. In my opinion, quotation marks in a section header, correct or not, look grainy and excessive. I have no problem with including scare quotes aroung "Bridge to Nowhere" within the text for the reasons you mentioned, but I have an aversion to them in headers. Also remember that excessive use of scare quotes become annoying and can convey the wrong meaning; they should not be used for more than the first couple instances. Cheers, Reywas92 ^Talk 19:48, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Adding "Cajun and Gospel" to the list of WWOZ genres, and adding "Americana Roots" to the list of WTUL genres

Thank you for your reply. But this doesn't make sense to me within the context of Wikipedia's guidelines. The list of genres that are listed for these two stations contain no citations and they are not hyperlinked. Therefore I ask: On what basis do you believe that the writer of these lists of genres more qualified than I to state a fact regarding what those radio stations play? To leave out the three aforementioned genres is unarguably a breach of accuracy. If you have lived in New Orleans, you know that everything that the author originally wrote is correct, and what I tried to add is also correct. Where are the citations in the original? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Worldrimroamer (talk • contribs) 23:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC) Worldrimroamer (talk) 23:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

July 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to United States Order of Precedence, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources, please take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you. TheWave (talk) 18:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors, which you did not do on User talk:TheWave. Thank you. TheWave (talk) 19:07, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to User talk:Celestra, you will be blocked from editing. TheWave (talk) 20:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith in your dealings with other editors, which you did not on User talk:TheWave. Assume that they are here to improve rather than harm Wikipedia. TheWave (talk) 20:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

EXSCUSE ME

Don't criticize me because I'm new. I have a lot of experience already. Don't try to coach me here. That warning was nescecarry. If you looked at one of the links, it does not list your edit as true. Please don't revert my revert of your unsourced content. --TheWave (talk) 19:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC

Don't talk down to me .. I've done more for Wikipedia then you have. Don't be a wise ass.

Bonita Vista High School

Thanks for the support. --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 10:53, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Order of precedence

I did some research via Google on the order of precedence issue. According to the sources, it's clear that Hillary Clinton would take Bill Clinton's precedence if Bill Clinton is present. I wonder, though, would Hillary Clinton also keep a higher order of precedence even if her husband were not there? The reason I ask this is because Laura Bush would have precedence without her husband in specific situations. XCD (talk) 18:43, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Original research is substituting my own unpublished research as a reliable source. Google is an acceptable way of searching for reliable sourcing, so long as the source is cited, as is required for any reference work. XCD (talk) 20:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Please comment on why you feel the source cited is not reliable. It is numbered 6 in the article, IIRC. XCD (talk) 20:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I know, not just from source #6 but from other sources, that a First Lady with her husband has his order of precedence. I also know that widows of Presidents have a precedence lower than a Secretary of State, but high up there. What I don't know is where a first lady not with her husband, who is still alive, would be. The thing that is interesting is that the author, I believe he has written a book, states that Laura Bush would be below a current Secretary of State. This seems to imply that perhaps a First Lady takes the order of precedence of a widow without her husband? Again, I don't know. XCD (talk) 00:13, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I really don't want to have to buy this author's book to find out, but I think that would be a definitive source. A library might have it? I could check on WorldCat. XCD (talk) 00:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

My library has it! I'll check it out. XCD (talk) 00:27, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm at the library reading Honor & Respect by Robert Hickey, but it doesn't say anything we don't already know. It does not say where First Ladies not present with their alive husband Presidents would be in the order of precedence. XCD (talk) 22:39, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Farah Damji article

I am only just getting the hang of Wikipedia. I do have to agree with that other fellow that the current Farah Damji article does seem lacking. The lady's most recent convictions have been reported recently in the Press Gazette. So what is the problem with including this new information in the article?

http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=44039 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flyingbantams (talk • contribs) 15:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with adding content, or with recommending the article for deletion. I read the article and it seems neutral to me, covering both her earlier crimes and her book. I am previously unaware of the subject and the article informed me without either condemning or praising the subject. The article is quite short and reasonable people could argue the subject lacks notability beyond the one event, but what is there seems NPOV. My friendly caution to you was due to the mismatch in our opinions ("In not mentioning these, the article reads like a vanity piece. Damji is famous for her criminal conduct, beyond that, she is not notable.") and the urgency your posts place on adding this content. You can judge your own objectivity, though. If you want to add content, you just need to be specific about the content to add (your own words, reflecting content in the sources, pointing out sources is not sufficient). Unless it violates some Wikipedia policy, someone will add it when they service your edit request. Cheers, Celestra (talk) 16:20, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

http://toolserver.org/~diberri/cgi-bin/templatefiller/?type=&id=

I have been using the tool at http://toolserver.org/~diberri/cgi-bin/templatefiller/?type=&id= to format references. And, yes the default ref name generated by that tool is unnecessarily long. I just accepted the default and should have neatened it up. I welcome your help fixing that problem, thanks. SaltyBoatr (talk) 20:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Al Megrahi

Thanks for looking into this. I am unhappy with your arguments, however.

"The source, Aljazeera.net, does not state that the FBI asserted this; it states that the prosecutor described him this way." Yes, precisely. I claim that this source does not say that he is a Libyan intelligence officer and you say the same thing. So, at present the Wikipedia accusation, that the accused denies, is unsourced.

Desired situation: Wikipedia describes as precisely as possible the facts: "the accused is alleged to be a Libyan intelligence officer, he himself denies".

You ask for references. Google is not such a good mechanism - all over the net Wikipedia is quoted, so Google mostly retrieves information that is copied from the Wikipedia article. One needs good reliable news sources.

NYTimes: http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/abdel_basset_ali_al_megrahi/index.html At the time of the bombing, Mr. Megrahi was head of security for Libyan Arab Airlines, the state carrier. But an F.B.I. investigation concluded that his job was a cover for his work as an intelligence officer for the Libyan intelligence service, which Mr. Megrahi denied but which the court accepted in finding him guilty.

BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/7728434.stm He described himself as the former director of Libya's Centre for Strategic Studies, a role which - the FBI claimed - gave him cover to act as an intelligence officer for the Libyan Intelligence Services. Despite Megrahi's denials, this was accepted by judges who tried him.

http://en.allexperts.com/e/a/ab/abdel_basset_ali_al-megrahi.htm "He was alleged by the FBI to be a Libyan intelligence officer"

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2009/08/2009819143226391461.html He has insisted he was an airline executive, but prosecutors at his trial described him as an intelligence officer for the Libyan Intelligence Services, which the court accepted.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-19214/Al-Megrahi-The-Lockerbie-bomber.html Al Megrahi was said to be a former director of Libya's Centre for Strategic Studies, and chief of airline security for Libyan Arab Airlines. The FBI alleged that was a cover, and that Al Megrahi was in fact a Libyan intelligence officer

Should I repeat the request for an edit of this semiprotected article? Barbara81 (talk) 19:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

You answered on a different page. Confusing to have question and answer on different pages.

I understand that your POV is that if the FBI says that something is true, and a judge does not contradict this claim, then it is the absolute truth. (The claim does not occur in the verdict, btw., it is not a claim that was repeated by the judge.) Your POV would make most of the rest of the article superfluous. A large part of the content is the discussion of whether this perhaps is a miscarriage of justice. If all the prosecution came with must be regarded as facts, then there is nothing to discuss. A somewhat strange POV, but it is clear that my NPOV is not yours, so let me leave this here. Maybe someone else will pick this up. Barbara81 (talk) 23:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I answered on your page. If you find this back and forth confusing, I would encourage you to respond on your page or take it back to the article page. Celestra (talk) 00:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, then back and forth it will be. I can accommodate.

I wonder whether you understood the request. If you did, I am unable to understand your reaction:

"fringe theories do not have to be treated equally to findings in a court of law. Your edit request itself would move us away from NPOV and toward a fringe POV that he has somehow been wrongly convicted."

The request was: to follow the NYTimes, to follow the BBC, to follow the prosecution in this case, and attribute this claim (that Al Megrahi was a Libyan intelligence officer) to the FBI. I hope you do not think NYTimes, BBC promote fringe theories. They are careful and reputable news sources. Since there are people who express uncertainty, like Scottish judges, and deny, like Al Megrahi, and since the judge in the final verdict did not state it as a fact, or even mention it, it is difficult to see in what way Wikipedia can claim this to be an established fact.

This is only vaguely related to the question whether he is actually guilty. The judge considered it proven beyond reasonable doubt that he was the person who bought the clothes in which the bomb was wrapped. And concluded to his involvement. No job description was needed to reach this conclusion.

Barbara81 (talk) 14:23, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Not sure whether you answered the previous comment. It is not easy to see what belongs to what if you write question and reply entirely different places. Anyway, I see that a conflict was started, where the wild CyberFox and the reluctant you are making changes back and forth. Why not calmly quote NYTimes and BBC, add "(according to FBI)" and be happy?

Just for fun I did some Original Research. A reliable source, Wikipedia :-) Abdul_Majid_Giaka reports "His testimony was used to determine that Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi, a LAA employee working in Luqa airport, was an officer of Libyan intellegence." - bad that the author cannot spell, but apart from that, there are also other sources that state the same thing. A messy source is http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/cia-agent-gives-lockerbie-evidence-698514.html See also http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/08/22/world/main226769.shtml See also http://en.allexperts.com/e/a/ab/abdul_majid_giaka.htm So, if we do not quote NYTimes / BBC then we can quote less reliable sources perhaps closer to the truth and say that "(according to the CIA double agaent Abdul_Majid_Giaka)".

In all cases it is completely unreasonable to just regard this as an established fact. Barbara81 (talk) 20:01, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

VERIFIED Products Pitched by Billy Mays, Jr.!

"Celestra," are you an admin. here, or something, so you act like you have more authority than I do? If you really are, then I guess that's fine. But if not, then what gives you the idea to act like that? Are you an admin., then?

Why is it that the fact that the show SHOWS Billy putting a product on an infomercial and SAYS, RIGHT ON THE SHOW, that he and Anthony, along with the backing by an investor (usually TeleBrands) sent the infomercial out across at least several states, "not enough proof," according to you, that Billy really did pitch those products? How is what we can plainly see right ON the show somehow "not verifiable"? How can't someone verify something if they can just watch the show in some form or another? What, do you think the show is going to lie about that? Do you think they're making that up out of nowhere, or something like that? Apparently you haven't seen the show, huh, or you wouldn't be claiming that these things supposedly "aren't verifiable" as Billy having pitched them, right?

And why do you insist on removing "Omni" from before "DualSaw," when it is perfectly verifiable, both in PitchMen and on the infomercial itself (which actually runs within PitchMen anyway) AND on the WEBSITE, that the company name is Omni?

And you're welcome for the correction of your typo. I was being civil. How is it that you believe it supposedly "wasn't civil"? Have you ever heard of HUMOR?

Yeah, it's important that the Simoniz product is mentioned as being a dent repairing device because they only show it being used on vehicles. Do they not? So doesn't it make sense to specify that the products are for dent and scratch removal on VEHICLES, rather than just in general?

Also, why are you trying to word things exactly the way the cite mentions them, when it's obvious that not all the things in that list are worded exactly that way?

VERIFIED Products Pitched by Billy Mays, Jr.!

"Celestra," are you an admin. here, or something, so you act like you have more authority than I do? If you really are, then I guess that's fine. But if not, then what gives you the idea to act like that? Are you an admin., then?

Why is it that the fact that the show SHOWS Billy putting a product on an infomercial and SAYS, RIGHT ON THE SHOW, that he and Anthony, along with the backing by an investor (usually TeleBrands) sent the infomercial out across at least several states, "not enough proof," according to you, that Billy really did pitch those products? How is what we can plainly see right ON the show somehow "not verifiable"? How can't someone verify something if they can just watch the show in some form or another? What, do you think the show is going to lie about that? Do you think they're making that up out of nowhere, or something like that? Apparently you haven't seen the show, huh, or you wouldn't be claiming that these things supposedly "aren't verifiable" as Billy having pitched them, right?

And why do you insist on removing "Omni" from before "DualSaw," when it is perfectly verifiable, both in PitchMen and on the infomercial itself (which actually runs within PitchMen anyway) AND on the WEBSITE, that the company name is Omni?

And you're welcome for the correction of your typo. I was being civil. How is it that you believe it supposedly "wasn't civil"? Have you ever heard of HUMOR?

Yeah, it's important that the Simoniz product is mentioned as being a vehicle dent repairing device because they only show it being used on vehicles. Do they not? So doesn't it make sense to specify that the products are for dent and scratch removal on VEHICLES, rather than just in general?

Also, why are you trying to word things exactly the way the cite mentions them, when it's obvious that not all the things in that list are worded exactly that way?

Thanks for your response. So why is it that according to you and your "team," the verification content has to be something that's written down, but not something that's explicitly mentioned in a TV show that anyone could watch and hear them speak the facts as the show plays? How can that be considered the "original research" of one of us editors, when anyone can watch the show and hear them verbalize those explicit statements?

Check out page http://www.dingking.tv/Ding-King-Twist-A-Dent-Kit?leadsource=PS112&s_kwcid=TC-1331-7976654521-S-1075636521 about the Ding King and notice the line that says, "Remove small and medium sized dents on cars, boats, RVs, motorcycles, and more!" Now can you see why it doesn't need to be limited to just the "car" type of vehicle? Trucks, vans, SUVs, and buses are also not cars, and we could use this on them. So what's so "wrong" with using the word "vehicle" there just because it might not be there in the PitchMen part of the Discovery website? And you weren't so picky about the Simoniz thing (just calling it a scratch remover, not limiting it), so why would you be so picky on this?

Now with the Simoniz thing: check out the website www.Simoniz.com to see that the kind of scratches it tries to fix are on painted sheet metal surfaces such as what are on vehicles, only. (There are pictures of only vehicles being worked on.) It isn't for fixing scratches on wood, glass, or plastic, etc. So if you were so picky about the wording of the description of the Dent King, then why not be a little more limiting with this one, too? When ya put these logic bits together (about not being so picky with the one, but being pickier with the other), then they average out to just not being too picky or lenient with either of them. Right?

Also, what about my question to you of why you thought I "wasn't being civil" when I used humor on you about the typo? Why did you think I wasn't being civil there? Also, why didn't you recognize that as humor?

And why are you so itchy about removing the list altoghether? Why shouldn't a biography of a pitch-person show people the major items the person pitched (and by "major," we understand that they'd be verifiable, which I asked about above)? And why are you more picky about Billy's list than you are about Anthony Sullivan's or Offer Vince's? Why don't you go over there and try to shoo away their lists, too, then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by MaxxFordham (talk • contribs) 02:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Largest cities of Brazil

To determine which cities and municipalities were the largest in Brazil i simply checked the populations of the cities and listed them in order of largest populations (I did make sure these had accurate citations). If you click on each city and then look at the population of said city it will match the population count that i posted on the template. The bottom was actually supposed to say 2008 the whole time but i accidentally left 2006 when i first created it, as i based this template on the Largest cities of China template, which was sourced from 2006. Sorry if i caused a problem. Rahlgd (talk) 18:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Celestra, thank you so much for your sound advice re. my Shinto edit and the ARC site. I shall endeavor to improve my editing promptly Laurajanejackson1984 (talk) 09:03, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

SBS response

On my talk page. -- Foofighter20x (talk) 00:41, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Archiving

Dear Celestra, It might be useful if you had a look at Help:Archiving_a_talk_page. Resetting your talk page by blanking it removes discussions that could have been useful - in particular, I was looking today at your end of your recent discussion about User_talk:XCD#United_States_order_of_precedence. Classical geographer (talk) 15:33, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm aware of archiving but I prefer to rely on the history to serve that purpose. Were you able to reconstruct the conversation? I'm curious about your interest in that old conversation. Celestra (talk) 16:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

And, obviously, I changed my mind. Celestra (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

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