User talk:Reflex Reaction/Archive2

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

Contents

re: Hfstival formatting[edit]

Thanks so much for your help with those tables — that was what I had wanted to do originally but I couldn't figure out the coding so I used columns instead. It looks a lot better now. I think I'm going to take up HFStival as my new pet project, maybe write a proper history section for it; I noticed from your user page that you're from the WHFS area, so if there's any information that's missing or wrong that you can fix, or anything you want to add, go for it. --keepsleeping quit your job! slack off! 22:24, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and finished the tableization, but I'm stuck on a stylistic point: for the years 2000 and 2002, I want to swap the sizes of the "Main Stage" and "Street Stage" cells (right now, Street Stage is bigger than Main Stage and I'd like it the other way around) and I can't kludge out the code properly. Think you can fix it? --keepsleeping quit your job! slack off! 04:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about the revert, my brower had cached the old version so that was still loading
Yeah, I'd assumed that was the case. I've continued to play around with the article. It actually had a bunch of bad links in it (probably a cruft effect): the same names linked multiple times; a lot of redirects from names incorrectly capitalized or missing "The"; and stuff like Cracker (a disambig) instead of Cracker (band), Bush (another disambig), even 311 (which links to the year!). I put a to-do list on Talk:HFStival if you still want to do any work on it. --keepsleeping quit your job! slack off! 06:41, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Newspapers used instead of blogs[edit]

I would like your feedback on the use of newspapers as a source instead of blogs. In the case of the Robert Clark Young article, I have found newspaper sources that cover much of the same material as the blogs that have been used in the article. When I replaced the blog sources with the newspaper sources, Alabamaboy reverted every single one of my edits. Also, very strangely, he accused me on the discussion page of being Mr. Young himself!

This is the Wikipedia Guideline I am trying to follow with my edits:

"Publications with teams of fact-checkers, reporters, editors, lawyers, and managers — like the New York Times or The Times of London — are likely to be reliable, and are regarded as reputable sources for the purposes of Wikipedia. At the other end of the reliability scale lie personal websites, weblogs (blogs), bulletin boards, and Usenet posts, which are not acceptable as sources."

Thus, I have replaced the blog sources with newspaper sources. Again, let me stress that this has not led to much change in the text of the article itself--what I'm trying to do here is change the nature of the sources so that they themselves comply with Wikipedia Guidelines.

Could Alabamaboy and I get some feedback on this? I wonder if you could go over to the Robert Clark Young history and compare both versions of the sourcing--the one using newspapers, and the one using blogs. Thank you. Berenise 01:48, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

First off, I apologize for Berenise's comment being spammed upon so many user's talk pages. However, since Berenise already placed it here I wanted you to be aware that there are three reasons the article was reverted: 1) Berenise made the changes despite a lack of consensus and my objections on the Talk:Robert Clark Young. In short, the online references are refered to in the newspaper and print articles, making the online sources primary sources. The article also has many print sources which complement and add to the online sources. 2) The edits made the article less NPOV b/c they removed opposing viewpoints. While these references may be online, they are from credible named sources who are considered experts in their respected areas. 3) There is a strong possibility that Berenise is Robert Clark Young. Young previously edited the article about himself and most of Berenise's edits since coming to Wikipedia have been to the Young article. I'm trying to clear this up with Berenise; once she proves she is not Young I'd love to get opinions from other editors about this situation. For full details, see Talk:Robert Clark Young.--Alabamaboy 01:54, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Careful[edit]

Thanks for the oversight. I agree that removing the "A league of their own" link was a bad change, but I disagree with your other comment. All I did was remove redundant links. I removed the links to Adam 12 (just a redirect) and Adam-12 (1989), but left the link to Adam-12. I removed the link to Adam Adamant Lives (just a redirect), but left the link to Adam Adamant Lives!. - ApolloCreed 01:44, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Pruning notable films list[edit]

Thank you for the kind remark! I'll try not to disappoint. Anyway, this seems to be fun work (and it looks like lots of fun is needed :-)) AdamSmithee 09:15, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Weekly focus[edit]

Ah, I hadn't been looking at it that way! That makes sense. Thanks. And thanks also for the condolences. That's okay, I can simply focus on other tasks - like the hotlist! – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 17:46, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Yes! I've actually started this week with the University of Cincinnati as a computer programmer. Good job, great benefits! Thanks for asking. – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 15:45, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

RE: Discussion at disambig of TV shows[edit]

Thanks for your note. Don't worry! Agreeing to disagree is not a bad thing: it should enable us to find and settle on consensually beneficial options, which currently don't exist. No offence intended and none received. :) E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 20:04, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Hi again! I hope you're well. I noticed your additional edits and subsequent poll regarding this topic. Good work! I'll weigh in shortly ... stay tuned. Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 00:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Hello again. Forgive my silence — I've been swamped. I'll comment and vote soon. Thanks again! E Pluribus Anthony | talk | 05:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Post horn[edit]

You made an edit to Post horn and left the note, "Expand as part of Missing encyclopedic articles." Tell me more about this project. Is post horn listed somewhere in the Missing encyclopedic articles? --Dbolton 19:46, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Separating blue and red links[edit]

I am looking for help for a project that I am doing and I noticed that you list yourself as a computer programmer with javascript and html skills. I have left a message with the Computer help desk but have yet to receive any replies or comments. Any help you can offer would be wonderful.

I am looking for an easier way to parse and separate red and blue links at the missing encyclopedic articles project so that valid blue links can be removed and article that need to be created can be grouped together. See this edit (before and after) for the kind of work that is being done currently by hand. If you can provide assistance by writing a script or referring me to another person who might be more helpful, I would greatly appreciate it. Ideally it would sort the html and return wikisyntax that could be entered back in, though I would be grateful with anything. Thanks in advance. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 15:02, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll work on a script - I just need to know what format you want it to be. Do you want an addition to monobook.js, and external webpage that you visit, or a C# program - the latter will take the most time, as I'm new to C#, but, in my opinion, will be the best option.--M@thwiz2020 20:34, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
It looks like someone beat you to the punch, but I still am not sure how to actually run the thing, so any more comments would be really appreciated. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 20:43, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but I'm not familiar with Perl, so I can't help you here. --M@thwiz2020 20:47, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
Hi, I noticed your request for a program to separate red links. This bot by bluemoose will find the red links. You'll need the Microsoft .Net 2.0 framework and this program. More info. Direct link to program here

Pruning blue links[edit]

Yeah, thanks for assuming good faith, but I just got hasty and sloppy there. Won't happen again. I'll go back and check all of them, instead of just a representative sample. Thanks, Quadell 00:06, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

My RfA[edit]

I don't have a fancy layout like other new admins, but I just want to thank you for your support at my RfA. It passed 47/3/1, so I have officially been promoted. I hope I won't let you down. If I'm not doing something properly, please tell me. Aecis Mr. Mojo risin' 21:36, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Crossover lists[edit]

Hi, instead of doing "general×the rest" ans the like, I made a single list sorted by the number of occurrences in any list. Most of these seem to exist; that means the original lists are not well pruned. I might go ahead and prune the new list automatically with a bot tomorrow, unless someone beats me to it. I've also set it to show only entries which are on 3 or more lists. I can reduce that to "2 or more" if need arises. --Magnus Manske 23:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Disambiguation for television shows[edit]

Hello Reflex Reaction, is there something going on in regards to this disambiguation for television shows issue ? Lvr 11:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Computer help desk[edit]

Hey, Reflex, I noticed your message at the computer help desk, and I noticed you haven't gotten a response. It seems like you may have a solution above, but if not, I wanted to suggest that you might e-mail Triddle, who is the only person who monitors that page. I notice he hasn't been around in a week or so, so he probably hasn't gotten your message. Chick Bowen 17:00, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I'd second that. :) He's the king of scripts like that. I know squat. :) --Woohookitty(cat scratches) 23:00, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Perl Script to separate red/blue links[edit]

I'll take a look at the existing Perl script and pages tonight, and hopefully I'll be able to make the modifications easily. At first glance, it doesn't seem like it'll be too challenging, but I'll keep you posted. That is, unless someone else has already committed to making the changes. Let me know if that's the case. --Dantheox 23:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, now I see why this is more difficult than it sounds. In order to see the list hierarchy, you need the wiki source of the article. In order to see which links are red and blue, you need the HTML rendering of the wiki page. This isn't a huge deal, it's just a bit of a nuisance. --Dantheox 23:31, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
See User:Dantheox/pmlinks.pl. You need to save the relevant wiki source to a file, and pass my perl script both that file name and the relevant URL. It doesn't fix misformatted list items, but it does do everything else you wanted on your contrived example. Let me know if it works for you, and if you have any questions. --Dantheox 06:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
No problem. I'll look into the accents issue, but it may be as simple as adding a "use UTF8;" line to the top of the script. Or it may have something to do with HTML Entities, we'll see. Would it be helpful if the script sorted its output? That'd be a simple modification. --Dantheox 14:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Universities[edit]

I was wondering why you reverted my changes. And does the infobox have to be EXACTLY like the one shown because I know that Harvard has a lot more info. Please leave a response on my talk page. Thanks! American Patriot 1776 23:26, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the explaination. You did the right thing and it was easier to just revert it. Please don't apologize, you don't need to. Once againg, thanks! American Patriot 1776 19:56, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Notable albums[edit]

I kind of gave up on that b/c, although albums are notable, I don't think people really check the albums unless there is something else besides a tracklist and infobox. Also, this says "Albums are notable, but please provide the name of the band, and more info than a mere tracklist", so I was kind of worried some of the albums might be deleted and all that time spent would've been in vain. Also, I developed a program to help me out with it, but as I later learned, it is against their Terms of Service. So, I've just given up on it. I might help out from time to time, though. Gflores Talk 21:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


Updated DYK query Did you know? has been updated. A fact from the article Marienberg Abbey, which you recently created, has been featured in that section on the Main Page. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Science articles list[edit]

Hi, Reflex Reaction. I was thinking about adding the list to the project, as it is ready. However, many of the completed entries are turning out to be redirected inappropriately. There are also some terms that have multiple definitions, so the article or redirect is appropriate, but there needs to be another article written. Some of the redirects are pretty close, but some are really far off. Others are okay, but the term or concept is not mentioned in the article. It wasn't happening very often before, but now maybe half of them are wrong. I hope this is not happening this often on other lists. I've been noting which ones have been redirected inappropriately or have multiple meanings. Because of this, I think it's best to keep it on my userspace for now. Thanks, Kjkolb 00:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Missing encyclopedic articles question[edit]

Hello. If you have a minute, could you check if I've understood the idea behind this project. I encountered it for the first time yesterday when I saw a large numbere of similar links being added in quick succession. That looked strange to me, so I chatted with the user in question User talk:JASpencer#Links_to_Catholic_encyclopedia. I've also looked at the project pages, but I can't see where it covers the links I remain concerned about, and whether they should be added or not. I've went away and thought about it, and come back with a summary of what I understood the guideline to be, so I was hoping I could run them past a second person. I could be misunderstanding things, and I often find in those case it's easier and clearer to ask a second person to explain, as everyone explains differently, and I might understand next time :) Anyway, my understanding of the missing articles projects for references/links is:

  1. Article is empty. Create it. Copy text from PD source and/or rewite it. Include link in "reference" section. Add cat section.
  2. Article is stub. Add link to external link section.
  3. Article is stub and has link. Follow link, research, rewrite, move link into reference section. Add cat section.
  4. Article is comprehensive. Look up other encyclo, research. Add reference (inline or ref) if any relevent additions made.

So, as far as I can see, only 1&2 should be automatic. 3 and 4 (and rewrite in 1) are the hard parts. However, the links I was concerned about yesterday appeared to me to be "Article is comprehensive. Look up other encyclo. Add references (inline or ref) without making any relevent additions. That to me, doesn't seem correct. What so you think? MartinRe 16:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Talking to myself now :) As suggested by JASpencer, I've posted a question on the talk page of the project for a wider audience. MartinRe 19:08, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


Help needed[edit]

Hello, Reflex Reaction. This morning, I received a User_talk:Gflores#Help_needed_from_a_new_user_being_flamed message on my talk page from User:DSYoungEsq/talk requesting help. The user claims he is being flamed by User:Oldwindybear. The dispute is about Battle of Tours regarding POV. Here is the original conversation. However, Oldwindybear modified DSYoungEsq's reply significantly (see diff). Also, Oldwindybear has been blocked before and has been blocked before (see his talk page). I'm unfamiliar with the process. I'd appreciate if you could help this new user. Thanks. Gflores Talk 15:48, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Disregard the above message; it's been taken care of. Gflores Talk 16:37, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Vote for naming convention[edit]

I noticed that you added a comment to a defunct poll. I have reverted your changes to the poll though your comments and votes are appreciated at the ongoing poll. Thanks, --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 18:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

My apologies. The MoS directed me to the archived poll, and I didn't stop to read through the entire page before I made my edits. Thank you for pointing me to the right page. — EagleOne\Talk 18:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Succesful RfA![edit]

Glass-Ball.jpg Thank you for your support during my RfA! The community has decided to make me an administrator, and there's work to be done. I look forward to seeing you around the project in the future, and if you see me do anything dumb, let me know right away! Regards, CHAIRBOY () 23:32, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


An Esperanzial note[edit]

As I remember, the last spam that was handed out was on the 20th of December last year, so I think it's time for another update. First and foremost, the new Advisory Council and Administrator General have been elected. They consist of myself as Admin General and FireFox, Titoxd, Flcelloguy and Karmafist as the Advisory Council. We as a group met formally for the first time on the 31st of Decembe. The minutes of this meeting can be found at WP:ESP/ACM. The next one is planned for tonight (Sunday 29 January) at 20:30 UTC and the agenda can be found at WP:ESP/ACM2.

In other news, Karmafist has set up a discussion about a new personal attack policy, which it can be found here. Other new pages include an introductory page on what to do when you sign up, So you've joined Esperanza... and a welcome template: {{EA-welcome}} (courtesy of Bratsche). Some of our old hands may like to make sure they do everything on the list as well ;) Additionally, the userpage award program proposal has become official is operational: see Wikipedia:Esperanza/User Page Award to nominate a userpage or volunteer as a judge. Also see the proposed programs page for many new proposals and old ones that need more discussion ;)

Other than that, I hope you all had a lovely Christmas and wish you an Esperanzially good new WikiYear :D Thank you! --Celestianpower háblame 16:57, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
Message delivered by Rune.welsh using AWB. If you wish to recieve no further messages of this ilk, please sign your name here.

Marienberg v Marienburg[edit]

Hello there. I have reverted your merge of these two disambiguation pages - they are entirely different, and it is misleading to push them together, as is illustrated with particular clarity by the unfortunate confusion over the "revenant" in the article on Marienberg Abbey. If I can be of help with German language articles in future, especially in connection with the Catholic Encyclopaedia, please don't hesitate to ask me, as I am usually working on German religious articles in any case. Best, Staffelde 17:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

And of course I understand that your intentions were of the best, and that you are one of the friendliest editors around, so I feel appropriately nasty for implying any sort of criticism... Staffelde 17:52, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Could you give me an opinion[edit]

How do I deal with Boothy, after being gone for a month, he's back. evrik 06:09, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Re: Philadelphia county[edit]

Yor right their has been a general consensus by the community, and that is that their has been no approval by the community in any form to delete the categoy, or remove the category listing from the articles and other categories involved. This includes the current discussion on a merger on one of the proposed categories here, on the other category here, and on a failed cfd here. I also wil combine this whith the discussion on the merge of the county article as well, with discussions here, and [[1]], none of which show any kind of clear consensus for deleation or removal of the category. To suguest that their is only goes to misrepresent the community and comments that have been made. --Boothy443 | trácht ar 05:15, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

    • Somewhere, someplace, Boothy claimed that I have been at this with him since June. The truth is that he was in a disagreement over the county article last June with another user. I stepped in and started going back and forth in October over the county category.evrik 19:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Boothy443[edit]

Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Boothy443. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Boothy443/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Boothy443/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Kelly Martin (talk) 02:53, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Objectivity[edit]

I appreciate the fact that you disclosed the barnstar. It wasn't meant to compromise your objectivity.evrik

Re: Interested in adminship?[edit]

Would you be interested in adminship? I kept an eye on your contributions after helping out with the list of notable films and seen that you have really come along as an editor and vandal fighter. You have all of the criteria that most members are looking for in an admin and I would gladly sponsor your candidacy. Of course it looks like it wouldn't change your role too much since it looks like you already have use of the rollback button, but it still does have it's benefits. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 15:30, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I wouldn't mind. As long as other people don't think it's too soon, but that would be for the RFA and not me to decide. - Bobet 15:42, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
If you would like to be absolutely sure about your nom, you can wait until the end of the month so that you have 3 solid months of edits (not that 600 edits in November is anything to sneeze at) [2]. You have all the right criteria for a great admin, I don't think you have anything to worry about, unless there is some skeleton in the closet that I don't know about. Decision is up to you, but I think you will have no problems. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 16:08, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, I'm in no hurry so doing it later this month or at the start of next one would probably be better. And as far as I know, there aren't any skeletons in closets here. - Bobet 16:19, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Nominee for the weekly focus (MEA)[edit]

I'd like to nominate Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/American politicians/Senators as a weekly focus some time. It's pruned, it's complete, it's got helpful tools, it's easy to work on (since PD bios are available), and it would help another project as well. What do you think? – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 16:18, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I have added progress information to the page. Thanks! – Quadell (talk) (bounties) 18:02, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Template:CatholicEncyclopedia[edit]

You could just redirect this to Template:Catholic. — 0918BRIAN • 2006-02-6 22:10

1911xCatholic complete![edit]

Just thought I'd let you know; I manually entered it on Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Progress, but then I came here and saw you autoupdate it... I don't think it'll mess your script up, but feel free to revert it if it does. Alba 13:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Infobox University[edit]

Would it be possible to put something in the code to have a comma appear after a states name? It looks awkward with Akron, Ohio United States. If not, can this be done by manual means for each article? Thanks in advance! American Patriot 1776 21:33, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Another Esperanzial note...[edit]

Hi again Esperanzians! Well, since our last frolic in the realms of news, the Advisory Council has met twice more (see WP:ESP/ACM2 and WP:ESP/ACM3). As a result, the charter has been ammended twice (see here for details) and all of the shortcuts have been standardised (see the summary for more details). Also of note is the Valentines ball that will take place in the Esperanza IRC channel on the 14th of February (tomorrow). It will start at 6pm UTC and go on until everyone's had enough! I hope to see you all there! Also, the spamlist has been dissolved - all Esperanzians will now recieve this update "newsletter".

The other major notice I need to tell you about is the upcoming Esperanza Advisory Council Elections. These will take place from 12:00 UTC on February 20th to 11:59 UTC on February 27th. The official handing-over will take place the following day. Candidates are able to volunteer any time before the 20th, so long as they are already listed on the members list. Anyone currently listed on the memberlist can vote. In a change since last time, if you have already been a member of the leadership, you may run again. Due to the neutrality precident, I will not vote for anyone.

Yours, as ever, Esperanzially,
--Celestianpower háblame 09:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
(message delivered by FireFox using AWB on Celestianpower's behalf)

TV naming conventions[edit]

Some portions copied from and arranged for clarity from User talk:Netoholic

Neto, thank you for your contributions for the TV naming conventions poll. I just wanted to make sure that you know why I was removing your insertions on the convention. I absolutely agree that it is a wiki, but based on the comments at the top of the page.

This convention was written based on discussion as of [17 August 2004]. A previous poll failed to generate consensus on its status.
It is left here, rather than being blanked out, so that some frame of reference is available for immediate situations. Feel free to ignore these suggestions until a convention is fully discussed.

Your recent insertions do not reflect those discussions and gives the impression that these issues were considered prior to the poll which they were not. Furthermore, there is an ongoing poll discussing different options for naming conventions. The talk page for the poll is actively discussing options outside of the poll. I don't think that substantive changes such as your addition about game shows and adding "(television)" for non television programming is appropriate while the poll and discussion for future options is still open. Please leave your suggestions for the talk page. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 15:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I think that they are appropriate suggestions and would support them, but please wait until the polls are over until changes to the actual convention page is made. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 16:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the verbage that could be seen as confusing. I think you are falling into a common wiki-trap in that you prefer process over product. The most recent poll is open until Feb. 15th, but even so, there is a good indication of which parts (using series/film/etc.) have established consensus. There is only one question that has not, whether to use "TV" or "television". That is even split and will not come to consensus in the next day.
By documenting the "game show" and TV terminology usage (which were not part of your poll, and do not conflict with it), I am documenting only what has sprung up naturally. -- Netoholic @ 16:09, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I just found out that you have been banned from wikipedia namespace and are restricted to 1RR. Please do not make further edits to this page. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 16:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

You've made an assumption of my status that is, understandably, incorrect. I have gotten clarification from several Arbitrators that, where my actions are not disruptive, I shouldn't be sanctioned for them. Your aggressive stance on the convention page is unbecoming. The things I documented are not part of your poll, but are good suggestions. Polls are a means to help determine consensus, they are not a legislative tool. I am going to ask that you take back the ad hominem comments on the poll's talk page, and to please restore my convention suggestions. This is a wiki, and changes to pages do not automatically all need to be discussed beforehand. If you disagree with those changes, comment on the talk page or to the contributor directly. Remove them only when they are damaging. To reject changes based on the timing of your poll is flawed in several ways; polls are a means to an end, polls sometimes show consensus well before their arbitrary end date, the changes I made are acceptable, and the changes were not part of the poll (and so, the poll's "outcome" doesn't change them). -- Netoholic @ 17:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I have made the change to the talk page as you have requested, but I stand by the inappropriateness of you action and think that they are disruptive. You are known to push forward your ideas counter to the community (even when you may be right). Placing your new suggestions at a archived rejected convention, then changing that convention when it is being cited by an active poll is disruptive. The changes you suggested were within the purvue of the poll as "game show" fits under content produced for television. Had you simply left it as a comment on the talk page, I would have no objection, as it is a good one and would have likely been incorporated into the convention, but you WRONGLY assume that it is up to YOU to change it prior to the poll being finished. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 17:59, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
To clarify: please remove any comments about me from Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (television)/poll. You are free to discuss the merits of my edits, but please don't just leave an ad hominem comment about my status there. You're poisoning the well by leaving that there. -- Netoholic @ 18:00, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, that is becoming annoying. I fixed the damn references on the poll page so that they point to the archive2 page. Moving that old poll is extremely important because it is closed. It prevents people from voting in the wrong poll. Rather than revert war, you could have just fixed the references. Consider for a moment whether you're becoming a little too caught up in this. -- Netoholic @ 22:37, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that didn't last long... rather than talk about the content of the change, you've again just changed it back into a personal conflict. Your tactics are absurd, and you are being unnecessarily contentious. -- Netoholic @ 06:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The section here still talks about my actions, both in the past and present, as well as describing your actions.... yet it still fails to discuss the content of my changes. What I think you are missing is the notion that good changes (and you even said they were good changes) must somehow wait for process before they can be put in. Good changes should never need to wait. If someone actually wants to step forward and disagree with the content of the changes, I will talk about it... even consider removing them if that is consensus. -- Netoholic @ 07:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Netoholic, I mean this in the most sincere, AGF way, it is not intended as a criticism, simply a statement of my feeling. I honestly do not know how to deal with you in a constructive manner. I have written and rewritten several responses to your comments, none of which seem appropriate, so I am going to let the matter rest. Best of luck in your future editing. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 07:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Follow-up poll[edit]

Please do not make another TV poll. That is a last resort. -- Netoholic @ 19:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I think that the success of the last poll at moving this naming convention forward shows that polls work, particularly in this situation where there are many acceptable ways of moving forward. The poll options are there to generate discussion and reflect the community's opinion about what options are to be considered. The previous poll said if that there was no consensus reached that there may need to be a follow-up poll. There are also as yet unresolved issues about naming that should be addressed and the poll was an effective means of doing so when they have been previously discussed. Please see Wikipedia:Process is Important. As far as I can tell, you are the only one objecting to these polls. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 19:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Just to emphasize the point. The poll is designed generate discussion FIRST, then polling will follow, that is why the poll options are open for editing and disucssion. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 19:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Please don't. I've incorporated some feedback from the closed poll on the main page. Take this opportunity to just discuss future changes, no more polls please. You're overloading on process. -- Netoholic @ 21:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
To make sure I do not start an edit war. I am going to link the follow up poll with the emphasis on discussion prior to any vote, with the poll options as items I see as needing addressing. It is intended as a structured presentation of unresolved issues to drive discussion (as was my draft naming convention), and not necessarily as a poll. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 21:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

ARGH. Please mark Poll2 for speedy deletion - just for the sake of avoiding a ForestFire of discussion. Three of your poll options are completely unnecessary (and repetitive of the just closed poll). The last one (Show vs. program/me) is better handled with a simple talk page discussion. "Show" has a connotation of relating to anything that is broadcast. Program/me is better as the connation is of a one-shot production. -- Netoholic @ 21:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

After I saw your comment, I tried to rollback my changes, and I see that you had beat me to the punch. I want to make sure that we are working well together. I am trying hard to respect your opinion, please do the same for me. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 21:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
The discussion will have to wait a little bit for news shows. I need to go. If TV/television and television movies are resolved satisfactorily or removed from the convention, this can be a guideline. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 00:18, 17 February 2006 (UTC)


Blocked for 24 hours[edit]

; Some portion of a Lengthy discussion removed about the block which is available under headings

  • Blocked for violation of arbcomm
  • Blocked for 24 hours

See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Netoholic&oldid=43262365 for the interaction My contribution to the follow-up discussion --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 17:58, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Octagon-warning.png

You have been temporarily blocked for disruptively violating the one-revert restriction imposed by the ArbCom. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. —David Levy 22:14, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I have seen David's interactions with you thusfar, and wholly support his actions. You are technically restricted from editing in wikipedia and template namespace until May 2006. In response to your constructive edits in those namespaces (in violation of the decision) some ARBCOM members informally allowed you to edit if you were not disruptive. He respected that position and choose not to block you for technical violation of your mediation and has only blocked you after repeated disruptions. David has interacted with you before and despite your rudeness on his userpage 1 2, he gave you a barnstar for your efforts at WP:AUM. The complaints about you have been legitimate, longstanding and entirely relevant despite your claims to the otherwise. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 15:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC) Updated 16:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
What constitutes "repeated disruption"? I'm constantly being dogged by the same few individuals, who are the only ones complaining. He blocked me on a technical violation (for reverting twice on one article). Two reverts on an article are rarely considered disruptive... I'm being subjected to unnatural scrutiny and standards which are too strict. I respect the goal here, but the implementation is simply alienating me. -- Netoholic @ 16:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
If you truly respected the goal, you would get less complaints and criticism and blocks. You CHOSE to edit in violation of the ARBCOM. You continue to CHOOSE be involved with edit wars, pushing your own interpretation. The "unnatural scruity and standards" were necessary because of your previous actions and resulted in two ARBCOMs for you 1 2 because of your actions. You have brought on these restrictions. Do not blame anyone else for your actions. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 16:58, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
The first RFAr was closed amicably, and with no sanctions, after I spent some time discussing with the other involved party (User:Ta bu shi da yu). He and I are now good wiki-friends. As for the 2nd RFAr, Snowspinner brought that, and he and I are also developing a better relationship. In both cases, it took positive action and mutual respect to resolve the differences. Do not blame me for getting complaints and criticism, when it is I who spend more time than anyone else trying to come to a reasonable understanding. My kind overtures have been dismissed. Draw no conclusion from the vehement compliants of a few editors, and instead base your assessment of me on the sum of my actions. -- Netoholic @ 17:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)
So you know, I am not judging my opinion of you based on the complaints of others. I saw this kind of editing when working with you and saw it confirmed in you interactions with others. I didn't know or care about WP:AUM until after the discussion at the TV naming convention.
While the people who have brought the complaint against you may have changed, I never felt positive action and mutual respect from you in my interactions with you. Instead I felt that you would continue to advocate a position that you thought was reasonable in spite of my objections. It is this kind of editing I think is at the heart of complaints and frustration with your actions. You will often continue to revert to the version of your choice while expecting others to justify their actions to you, rather than the other way around. In some cases you are convinced by their arguments, in others you are not convinced and will continue to advocate a position despite opinions shared by other editors. In some of these cases, you complain about the unreasonable actions of others wanting the article their way and will continue to revert, sometime leading into a war. We had a small edit war and then I chose to leave the version you wanted rather than have it escalate again because I knew you would revert me and I couldn't change your mind. I think you feel that your edits are completely justified and reasonable but others may not think so despite your best arguments [3]. You often bring valid points to a discussion and are a valuable editor, but that does not mean that you are always right. It also means that you do not have to be proven wrong to have an article changed from the way that you want it. If you are right the article will be changed ultimately because you were right, not because you were arguing the point. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 19:20, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Protocol[edit]

Sorry if I went against protocol by posting a note in the archives.evrik 19:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

WP:RFA/Quarl[edit]

Hi Reflex Reaction, thanks for your support in my RFA, which succeeded. If I can ever improve or help in any way, please let me know! :) Quarl (talk) 2006-02-16 12:20Z


Re: RfA[edit]

Hi, thanks for the nomination. I accepted it and answered the questions and hope that it turns out well. (I added it at WP:RFA so you won't have to worry about that.) - Bobet 21:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

RE: list of notable books[edit]

Just add better instructions, "Unverified blue links" should make it clearer... feydey 23:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Concerning that list in LoNB, the instructions on the page are missing, what to do with the links in the "Unverified blue links" section. Is it
a) verify and remove or
b) verifying and moving to a new not existing section called "Verified blue links"?
N.B. F.ex. the letter A has 473 entries not the total of 500 mentioned in the main page? Thanks in advance. feydey 14:22, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Notability of Newspapers[edit]

Could you point me to the Notability criteria for print newspapers? I'm thinking about trimming the newspaper list for Nebraska. Thanks.--Rayc 01:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)


Esperanza Elections[edit]

Hey Reflex Reaction! I wish to say thanks for your vote at the Esperanza elections.

I've made my way into the Advisory Committee, so if you ever need any help or have any queries about the stuff we do, please do not hesitate to ask. Thanks again, KnowledgeOfSelf 10:01, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I love your userpage, well put together in my view!

RfA Thanks[edit]

Thank you for voting on my RfA, it passed with a final tally of 68/0/0 so I'm now an administrator. If there's anything I can do to help, you feel I've done something wrong, or there's just something you want to tell, don't hesitate to use my talk page. And thanks for the nomination, it seems that no one could bring themselves to oppose after the statement you made. - Bobet 10:19, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Missing_encyclopedic_articles/1911_verification/A[edit]

Hello - why did you revert my edit on Wikipedia:WikiProject_Missing_encyclopedic_articles/1911_verification/A? I was just trying to do my token contribution, and the lead says to remove checked entries. Greetings, Sandstein 09:56, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Pretender?[edit]

Can you tell me why the page with the list of pretenders is no longer avalaible? CharlesMartel 22:40, 2 March 2006 (UTC)CharlesMartel

Senator box[edit]

Since your the Standardization Wizard... What is the standard for US Senator Succession boxes? Is it a standard succession box or is it # Template:S-ttl-U.S. Senator? I would appreciate a little help as I'm trying to add the classes to a number of Senators. Thanks in advance! American Patriot 1776 20:44, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

"Begins to weep" gotta redo them all over again... "hides and cries in a corner" ;) American Patriot 1776 00:34, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Curious as to why you reverted an edit...[edit]

A week ago, I added Everyone's a Critic to the See also list on Metacritic and vice versa. You removed Everyone's a Critic from Metacritic's list, but left Metacritic on Everyone's a Critic's list. My thinking in adding the See also to each article is that they are similar enough to warrant the reference to each other. So, I'm curious, what was your reason behind reverting the edit? FYI: since your edit, I removed the Metacritic reference from the Everyone's a Critic article, to keep it even, since this was a cross-reference to begin with.--Dave 11:56, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Adminship[edit]

Sure, I think I'm ready. :) Gflores Talk 18:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Nice writeup on the admin page. You're too kind. :) I'll get started on the questions after I'm done with class later today. Gflores Talk 17:17, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Avoid conditional templates[edit]

That deletion vote is premature and, I feel, trollish. Any similarities to WP:AUM you see in the present draft are coincidental. Indeed, some sections are still blank and to be written shortly. Please withdraw your nomination, as good-faith proposals are never deleted from Wikipedia: space. -- Netoholic @ 22:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


Example? -- Netoholic @ 22:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Geez... obviously my removal of this was an accident... since I'm replying to your comment. You should re-read your messagebox at the top of this very page. -- Netoholic @ 22:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


I will not apologize for removing any comment from my talk page... I do apologize for accidently removing your comment above. I was in an edit conflict and screwed up my copy and paste. -- Netoholic @ 23:22, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion[edit]

New entries go at the top, not the bottom (yes, it's the exact opposite of the VFD it spawned from). --cesarb 23:31, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Congo wood carving.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Congo wood carving.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. Shyam (T/C) 17:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Location_hypotheses_of_Atlantis[edit]

I answered there. --Athenaios 21:27, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thanks for the message ^_^. Now we're just waiting for him to accept. Deckiller 20:22, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Removal of blue links vs. pruning[edit]

I wanted to thank you for your pruning of the Eastons lists, but wanted to ask you if you checked each of the links to make sure that the blue link covered the same material covered by Eastons. Separating red and blue links is fairly trivial, but we need people to make sure that the the same material is covered. I routinely find that 1 out of 20 blue links does not provide adequate coverage. You may want to check the project guidelines for further clarification. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 16:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

You're right. I realized afterward that I probably wasn't careful enough in checking some of those out. I would go back and take another look, but I'm going out of town today, and won't be back for a little over a week. If they still need checking out at that time, I'll do so. NatusRoma | Talk 17:44, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
Oh, dear, I hadn't realized that it was that bad. Go ahead, if you think that it's for the better. NatusRoma | Talk 20:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Detailed_wood_carving.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Detailed_wood_carving.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 18:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

International Lease Finance Corporation[edit]

Nobody ever refers to ILFC as "International Lease Finance." They always use "International Lease Finance Corporation." A simple Google search verifies this, but if you knew the industry you'd know this. The company name just sounds weird without the "Corporation" on the end. In this sense, people genuinely use "Corporation" as part of the common name. I suggest knowing the context in the future. The examples given for SAIC and BOAC are apropos here. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 22:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

My RFA[edit]

Esperanza Newsletter, Issue #1[edit]

Reach out is a program aimed at allowing users to bring issues that they have had in Wikipedia to a listening, sympathetic and caring audience:
"No one can know how we feel if we do not say. We cannot expect to get understanding if we do not ask for it. No one will dispute that sometimes life's issues are too much for one person. It is fair to say that sometimes Wikipedia's problems fall under the same heading. This is a place where you can bring the bruises that can sometimes be got on this project for attention."
The Stress alerts program aims at identifying users who are stressed, alerting the community of thier stress and works in tandem with the Stressbusters at trying to identify causes of stress and eliminating them.
Note from the editor
Welcome to this new format of the Esperanza Newsletter, which came about during the last Advisory Council meeting - we hope you like it! The major changes are that each month, right after the Council meeting, this will be sent out and will include two featured programs and a sum up of the meeting. Also, it will be signed by all of the Advisory Council members, not just Celestianpower. Have an Esperanzial end of March, everyone!
  1. Future meetings are to be held monthly, not fortnightly as before.
  2. Bans and Access level changes (apart from autovoice) in the IRC channel are to be reported at the new log.
  3. In the IRC channel, there is going to be only one bot at a time.
  4. The charter requires members to have 150 edits and 2 weeks editing. Why this is the case will be clarified.
  5. A new Code of Conduct will be drafted by JoanneB and proposed to the Esperanza community.
  6. The NPA reform idea is to be dropped officially.
  7. Charter ammendments are to be discussed in future, not voted on.
  8. The Advisory Council is not going to be proposed to be expanded by the Advisory Council themselves, if others want to propose it, they will listen.
Signed...
Celestianpower, JoanneB, Titoxd, KnowledgeOfSelf and FireFox 17:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Tom and Jerry (MGM)[edit]

Tom and Jerry is not a TV series. The cartoons were made for movie theaters. --FuriousFreddy 06:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The Office (US) to The Office (US TV series)[edit]

You linked to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (television) as justification for your move. However that page only deals with naming when disambiguation needs to occur. From that page: "Remember the disambiguator should only be added if multiple articles would normally have the same name." In the case of The Office (US) no disambiguation was needed, The Office (US) is not the name of anything else. Qutezuce 00:03, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually the convention page doesn't make it clear if the "TV series" is retained or not, it just says that you add the country of origin and the example it gives happens to include "TV series". Qutezuce 00:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Did you overlook my response above? Or are you choosing not to respond? Qutezuce 21:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Re:Interested in adminship?[edit]

Wow, didn't see that one coming. But I would love to be an admin, I just would like to get an extra few months so I have some solid time and contributions. And I would be honored if you gave me some advise! Thanks! American Patriot 1776 01:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


Why does not allow to the theory of the Spanish Diaz-Montexano? Discrimination, racism?[edit]

Reason logical does not exist ningun to eliminate my version. The contributed data are recognized international level, in more than 25000 paginas of Internet. if it is allowed to mention Jaime Manuschevich, and his theory of Israel, why does not allow to the theory of the Spanish Diaz-Montexano? Discrimination, racism?


Kind Regards, --RobertMc 01:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

from RobertMc

Your contribution was poorly written, in the wrong place and did not have a NPOV. It was clearly translated - poorly, from Spanish using a machine translator. Even your response to me included non-English words. If it is better written it should be included, but not the way it was. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 13:51, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I already understand. --RobertMc 02:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I do not like reverting your addition again, but it is still very poorly written English. I cannot make sense of your addition well enough to translate what it means so that it can be added, in particular what you mean by "ahead". It also looks like you are linking to your own website, which is generally very frowned upon. You may want to consider asking someone else who speaks better English to add this information. You also continue to improperly format the entry. Entries are listed alphabetically, so your info should go before Indonesia, not at the top. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 07:34, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

The translation to the English is not poorer than the translation that made Manuschevich on its own theory of Israel. Nevertheless, you have accepted it without no difficulty. The person who has translated my last version is a native North American, who resides in Mexico and speaks the two languages correctly. The word 'ahead' is correct, because that is exactly the one that uses the author of the theory, Mr. Diaz-Montexano, because its theory defends exactly that Atlantis was 'ahead', that is to say, next, immediate, 'ahead' same of the Pillars of Hercules, in a very near point, to very few kilometers of the Pillars of hercules or Straits of Gibraltar, in front to Cadiz, Trafalgar Cape and Spartel Cape. I think that you are discriminating the theory of the investigator hispanic-Cuban Georgeos Diaz-Montexano (who is much more famous and well-known and scientific that other that you accept) by some personal or racial reason, but you are using arguments false and very subjective on the perfection of the translation to be able to reject my contribution on the theory of Mr. Diaz-Montexano. --RobertMc 16:42, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

A google search of "Diaz-Montexano" returns ~1000 hits most of which are forums and responses to other articles about Atlantis. It also turned up this result where I have seen that a person advocating Diaz-Montexano theories were machine translated from Spanish and people who replied were called "Facists, liars, racist, hateful, etc." Please do not bring your vitriol here nor advocate a POV. Your addition will not be accepted as it is, please see WP:NOT. Additionally there is a section on Spanish locations for Atlantis as well as one for Cape Spartel, you are simply trying to advocate your own site and interpretation (WP:BIO). As far as Jaime Manuschevich addition. I think it is a poorly researched theory and not well accepted, but he has printed a book on the topic and was a presenter at a major Atlantis conference and the entry had proper grammar and conforms to our standards. His theory has gained some acceptance within the Atlantis community. Finally, I will not stand for your implications that my edits are racist or a personal attack. Please consider before you make other edits or you may be blocked. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 17:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

'...Georgeos Díaz a model for everyone who wishes to follow the long way of scientific uprightness...' (Dr. Morillas, Barcelona, University)[edit]

It turns out very strange that you make use of a Website of Esoterism and Pseudosciencie, that is, that is not scientist, to try to discredit and to destroy Mr. Diaz-Montexano.

Georgeos Diaz-Montexano also was in the initial list of participants of Milos Conference and with three conferences (Crtl+A or Crtl+E in order to see the letters of the text). But it in front of had an accident a pair of months before, when one was diving under the sea, studying archaeological rest of a city submerged Gibraltar. Diaz-Montexano already until had paid the money for the attendance to Milos Conference, and the reserves of Hotel and flights of airplane. This knows everybody to it because during long time it was published in the Official Website de Milos Conference. The theory of Georgeos Diaz-Montexano is older and popular than some that you have accepted in Wikipedia, and in addition she sustains in true proofs scientists, that is to say, archaeological findings that have been sent to UNESCO, and many institutions and archaeologists.

Experts in underwater archaeology of the University of Texas like the outstanding and recognized scientists Dr George F. Bass, Dr Cemal Pulak, and Dr. Brett Phaneuf of the committee of Marine Archaeology of the "Marine Technology Society" (Department of Oceanography/MTS Marine Archaeology. Texas A&M University College Station) has an excellent opinion on the discoveries that is making by Georgeos Diaz Montexano (to see http://GeorgeosDiaz.sitio.net/ “skip Intro > Opiniones”).

Diaz-Montexano has been accepted like member of the prestigious scientific institution, "Spanish Geographic Society" (its number of partner or member is 544).

Great scientists have commented of very good way on the scientific rigor of the theories of Diaz-Montexano, and in fact he is the unique one who has been invited to several Universities to offer conferences on his theories before the presence of the experts. Scientists of prestige never would mention the work of Georgeos Diaz if they did not consider really serious and rigorous an investigator. The name of Georgeos Diaz-Montexano within a list of scientists and rigorous and serious students sees you who have distributed conferences in the University of Barcelona (the list is published in the Website of the philosofical and scientist society, AGON, that is attached to the own University)

In a letter of recommendation sent by the Dr Antonio Morillas (from to Barcelona University) to National Geographic, says of Georgeos Díaz who is a "authority in Plato" and an investigator example who follows the method scientific. Also the most important Website of Philosophy in Spanish (Proyecto Filosofía) mentions the work of Georgeos. Scientists of prestige never would mention the work of Georgeos Diaz if they did not consider really serious and rigorous an investigator.

'Sed Magis Amica Veritas' '... [Georgeos Díaz] a model for everyone who wishes to follow the long way of scientific uprightness...'

Antonio Morillas Esteban Ciudad Cooperativa 95 5º2ª 08830 Sant Boi [Barcelona] Spain

National Geographic April 1th, 2004

Dear Sir or Madame, The undersigned, Antonio Morillas Esteban, Bachelor of Philosophy at University of Barcelona and president of AGON. Grupo de Estudios Nietzscheanos, cultural association [File Number 23411 of the Register of the 'Justice Department' of the Generalitat of Catalunya], and recognized by the University of Barcelona [Register Number 02/07/82], guarantees:

Mr. Georgeos Díaz was invited by the Association I preside to expose publicly his theories about the location of Atlantis Island. This conference took place on February 21st, 2003, and Mr. Georgeos Díaz, for two hours, not only showed his deep archeological knowledge and authority in Greek and Plato's work, but also an investigation methodology worthy of admiration. For this reason, we are surprised to see the statements made by the French geologist Jacques Collina- Girard, who is trying to appropriate the originality of these theories, already exposed and proved by Mr. Georgeos Díaz in different publications [i.e., 'Más allá de la ciencia' [Beyond Science], April, 2000; 'El Museo' [The Museum], August, 2001], both of them, among others, prior to September, 2001, date Mr. Collina- Girard exposed his theories. Likewise, as president of an association in defense of culture and promoting it, we answer for the uprightness and scientific capacity of Mr. Georgeos Díaz, an investigator whose passion for his object of study and his methodologic seriousness constitutes a model for everyone who wishes to follow the long way of scientific uprightness, and for those who still believe in amicus Plato, sed 'magis amica veritas' as lemma for all serious investigation...

Yours faithfully,

Antonio Morillas Information and Resources: Original Source

Dear Reflex Reaction, you must pardon that I think that you are trying to discriminate against Mr. Diaz-Montexano, because it always happens the same with a few people who only guide themselves by the envious commentaries of a few and mediocre ones, which she does not have scientific degrees and that are not university scientific authorities of international prestige. It is easier to demonstrate than some scientists of the great prestige have praised and congratulated to Diaz-Montexano, nevertheless, you will only find anonymous people, that are not recognized scientists those that think bad or criticize of destructive way Mr. Diaz-Montexano. That is everything what I have seen until the moment.

Can somebody show another list of university scientists, who have published adverse opinions against Georgeos Diaz-Montexano? To date, nobody has been able to show a list of university scientists, that is to say, people qualified and titled in the scientific disciplines or specialties that Diaz-Montexano develops and studies (Greek, Latin, Egyptian Philology, Epigraphic, and Acient Philology and Mythology) where we pruned to read hard opinions, criticizing, or discrediting the scientific level, the rigor, and the intellectual honesty of Mr. Diaz-Montexano. All the negative opinions that you can find, that try to discredit and to destroy the prestige and the credibility of Mr. Georgeos the Diaz-Montexano they are emitted by pesonas anonymous, who hide behind alias and pseudónimos, and that nuncan have shown its identity.

I am a person with a great sense of social justice. And much hurts me to verify like because of opinions destructive and envious, of a few people that not they have degrees scientific, that is not recognized scientific authorities in any of the specialties that Diaz-Montexano practices and exerts, is being tried to destroy all their future like investigator and being human.

Kind Regards, --RobertMc 19:07, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

PS. You try to manipulate the reality. Everybody knows that another "Georgeos Díaz" does not exist in all the planet earth, related with Atlantis. If you write in Google "Diaz-Montexano" Atlantis, is logical that they appear few pages, because the people who write their complete last names, are very few; but if you write in Google, "Georgeos Diaz" Atlantis, then appears more than 10,000 pages. And I repeat, does not exist another Georgeos Diaz in all the planet, at least not in the network of Internet, not associate to the theories on the Platós Atlantis.
Perhaps you should read a translated version of the article, the locations you are advocating are already discussed in the article Andalucia and Near Cape Spartel. Your additions are simply POV and poorly written. I went through the first 50 results of the Google search you suggested and found that all of the items were from old mirrors of this same article or self-publication sites. Because you continue to insert this I have blocked you for 24 hours. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 19:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


Blocked[edit]

Modern clock chris kemps 01.png
You have been blocked from editing for violation of WP:NPOV WP:BIO and WP:NOR for a period of 24 hours. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 19:49, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Question regarding source verification in "Dieting"[edit]

In the section titled "Fat loss versus muscle loss" it is written, "Excessive protein intake. According to the American Heart Association excessive protein intake may cause liver and kidney problems and may be a risk factor for heart disease."

Can you verify this is an official position of the American Heart Association? I can be contacted at matthewvenhaus@hotmail.com


Growth data[edit]

Never mind my request for your data file or spreadsheet in the previous version of this page. I just used your PNG image of Image:10 Largest wikipedia growth.png to fill in a graph for susning.nu. Here is my new graph. --LA2 02:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

RFA Thanks[edit]

WikiThanks.png
Hi Reflex. Thank you for your support vote on my RFA. The final result was a successful request based on 111 support and 1 oppose. --CBDunkerson 12:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

My RfA[edit]

Cumulus cloud.jpg Hello Reflex Reaction: Thank you for supporting me in my RfA, which passed with a final tally of 77/3/0. I hope I can perform at the standards expected for administrators. If I make any mistakes, or you need anything, please let me know. Prodego talk 01:39, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Hotlist[edit]

Hi RR, I just saw you merged hotlist R1-R4 into fewer, larger, pages. I had a feeling that we liked more, smaller, pages because they gave a greater sense of progress didn't they? Pcb21 Pete 15:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Well seeing the merge happen is its own sense of reward, and it has the side-effect of pushing new articles to the top of the lists (which get looked at most), so let's have you carry on merging unless someone else makes the same suggestion as me. Pcb21 Pete 16:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Esperanza Newsletter, Issue #2[edit]

The Barnstar Brigade is a new program aimed at giving more very deserving yet unappreciated users barnstars. It will officially start on 2006-04-09, but signing up is encouraged before this date:
"Here in Wikipedia, there are hundreds of wikipedians whose work and efforts go un-appreciated. One occasionally comes across editors who have thousands of good edits, but because they may not get around as much as others, their contributions and hard work often go un-noticed. Sadly, these editors often leave the project. As Esperanzians, we can help to make people feel appreciated, be it by some kind words or the awarding of a Barnstar. A project the size of Wikipedia has thousands of editors, so there are plenty of people out there who deserve recognition, one just has to find them. The object of this program is not to flood editors with Barnstars, but to seek out people who deserve them, and make them feel appreciated."
The Stress alerts program aims at identifying users who are stressed, alerting the community of thier stress and works in tandem with the Stressbusters at trying to identify causes of stress and eliminating them.
Information
Welcome to the second issue of the new format Esperanza Newsletter - we hope you still like it! This week, it was delivered diligently by our new dogsbody. MiszaBot (run by Misza13): any execution complaints should go to him. Content comments should be directed at the Esperanza talkpage. Thanks!
  1. The next elections: Approval voting as before and, also as before, an previous leadership member can run. Please submit your name for voting in the relevant section of this page. Voting starts on 2006-04-23 and ends on 2006-04-30. There will be three places up for grabs as KnowledgeOfSelf is leaving Wikipedia. Please see the previously linked page for full details.
  2. The Code of Conduct is now ready for extensive discussion! Specific comments should go to the Code of Conduct talk page, discussion of having one at all should be directed to the main Esperanza talk page.
  3. The current process for accepting proposals for new programs has been deemed fine. All Advisory Council members and the Admin Gen are to endevour to be bold when viewing discussion. If they feel that consensus has been reached, they will act accordingly.
A plea from the editor...
The propsed programs page is terribly underused! Please leave any comments, good or bad, on the page, to help us determine the membership's thoughts on the ideas there.
Signed...
Celestianpower, JoanneB, Titoxd, KnowledgeOfSelf and FireFox 19:53, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Gold and Platinum album list[edit]

I'm totally for creating a Gold And Platinum Albums Project. It's something else to distract me from doing whatever I actually NEED to do. So that's one vote for "yay."

Kusma's RfA[edit]

WikiThanks.png
Hello, Reflex Reaction! Thank you for your support in my recent successful request for adminship. If you ever have problems that you could use my assistance with or see me doing stupid things with my new buttons, don't hesitate to contact me. Thank you also for the pointer to more work -- of course I know that page, but I hadn't visited it for a long time and there's lots of not-too-hard work to do there. Happy editing, Kusma (討論) 02:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

The Second Coming (TV series)[edit]

I've put a note about this on the article's talk page, but as you were the editor who moved the page (back on March 30 — sorry, I only just spotted it) I thought I'd bring the issue to your attention here. The thing is, I really don't think that "TV series" is a very good description for it — it was a self-contained two-part drama, effectively a serial (or a miniseries, in US terminology). There's plenty of evidence for this — the inclusion in the "Best Drama Serial" and not "Drama Series" category at the British Academy Television Awards 2004, for example. Basically, I just think that "TV series" implies something longer-lasting with lots of individual episodes, such as a drama series or a sitcom, not something that was always intended to be a two-part standalone thing. Anyway, just thought I'd see what your thoughts were. Angmering 20:19, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

CBS Corporation[edit]

Is "CBS Corporation" not the official full name of the company? Per the naming convention in the link you referenced, if the company does business under a full name such as this, the full word "Corporation" should be included. This company is completely known as "CBS Corporation" and no one would ever think to type in "CBS Corp." Jkatzen 07:44, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Washington, DC Virtual Tours[edit]

Virtual tours of DC site[edit]

Mikejmu, thanks for your contributions to wikipedia, but we have policies on weblinks that you may want to read - WP:NOT and WP:EL. I have reverted your additions to external links of various DC locations including repeated link of a particular site. Given that these are your only contributions I'm fairly sure that you are some how related to the site. If you have any questions feel free to contact me. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 20:51, 10 April 2006 (UTC)


First off I would like to thank you for your vigilance in protecting Wikipedia, which I personally think is the best place to find information on the Internet.
Yesterday you noticed that I have placed links to my website (yes, I created it) on multiple Washington, DC listings. I'd like to state that I know that Wikipedia is NOT a link repository. The links that I added were not to my homepage, but to specific items on my website.
About the website:
I have and continue to create 360 degree virtual tours of areas in Washington, DC. Unfortunately they are not simply photos, so they cannot be donated to Wikipedia. But I think that the tours are a valuable asset to the Wikipedia community, and I have even received commendation and thanks for making them available.
I would ask that you reconsider your viewpoint towards these links, as they are not spam, but a contribution that I have put a lot of time and money into and would love to share with our Wikipedia community.
Sincerely,
mikejmu


Mike, thank you for your polite and well reasoned reply. I appreciate your honest contribution to Wikipedia and I hope that you continue to contribute. My feeling is however that virtual tours, while visually appealing are not the best, nor most comprehensive source of information about the topic of interest. Your site for example does not turn up within the first 500 results for Lincoln memorial. That you created the site is wonderful for your vistors of site but that does not mean that Wikipedia needs to link to it, nor that you creator of that site should link to it. Again, I appreciate your contribution, but I still think it is inappropriate. If you have any other questions feel free to ask! --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 15:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your reply. I understand that DCguide.com may not come up in the first 500 searches in Google, but search for something like "exorcist steps" which are in Washington, DC also, and my site is on the first page.
If we are going to have pictures on Wikipedia then why not have a link to a more versatile, moveable picture? I would like to continue contributing to wikipedia with virtual tours, as that's my talent, and my way of contributing.
Sincerely,
Mikejmu
Mike, you can add your signature with four tildes ~~~~. It will automatically add a link to your name and add a time stamp. For the virtual tour - I'm not saying that they aren't useful, but that doesn't mean that we have to link to them. There are many useful sites on the places and items you are describing, but we do not link to them as part of policy. Your site unfortunately does not fit within the policy. As far as the "exorcist steps", you created the link at The Exorcist. The steps are never mentioned in the article - if an article is created specifically about the steps, then your site would be completely may be acceptable, but as it is, it doesn't belong. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 16:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC) updated 19:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your continued, logical correspondence.
In your last note you said in regards to the Exorcist steps, "if an article is created specifically about the steps, then your site would be completely acceptable, but as it is, it doesn't belong. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 16:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mikejmu"
Therefore, using that logic, then wouldn't this link http://www.dcguide.com/attractions/memorials/tomb-of-the-unknown-soldier.html for The Tomb of the Unknown Soldier be "completely acceptable"?
As I said before, I look forward to hearing from you and am happy to correspond with a logical person.
--Mikejmu 18:08, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
FYI - I changed my wording above. A few points here about the tomb of the unknowns and other virtual tours. First applications that require external programs are generally discouraged unless the article is a talking about the program itself or a program that uses it - WP:EL#Links_to_normally_avoid. Second, even if the virtual tour somehow didn't require Java the information you have on your site is not comprehensive enough to link directly. There is no detailed history, there is no comparisons with other "Tomb of the unknowns". A virtual tour, while a useful feature does not address the encyclopedic nature of what makes the tomb of the unknowns the "Tomb of the Unknowns". I don't mean to heap criticism but the images used for the tour are not that interesting. The intended focus - the tomb - is masked by other tourists taking pictures of the site. The famed changing of the guard is not taking place, there are no heads of state. While I applaud your effort to create a website that provides this information, that does not mean that wikipedia should to link to it. --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 19:53, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Missing TV articles[edit]

How do I sign up to volunteer for the Missing TV encyclopedia articles project? Do I just add my name to the list of "This project is maintained by...", or something else? Eyeball kid 19:40, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

My RfA[edit]

Many thanks for your support on my recent RfA. It was successful. Thanks again, Mark83 19:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Infobox Aircraft[edit]

I made a list of parameters on the talk page at Template:Infobox Aircraft (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), I am by no means an expert on aircraft, but I think it's complete for the most part. If you have any suggestions for things not covered, let me know. Also, I left a response on my talk page, but wasn't sure if you'd seen it. ;) —Locke Coletc 03:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

We've already got a parameter-based template called {{airtemp}}, and have several times voted to avoid the use of infoboxes. Thanks for your interest, but the project is quite happy with our current system. More details are on the project talk page. ericg 14:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Happy Spring celebration / Easter (as your preferences and beliefs dictate)[edit]

Here's hoping that if the bunny leaves you any beans they're this kind! ++Lar: t/c 15:30, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

question regarding lyrics[edit]

Hey Reflex Reaction. Just a question. I put an external link to my lyrics and it was erased right away. How come? Our site is transcribed lyrics too songs and it is a great resource for users. Can you shed a little light on the reasoning to erase it. If it is a problem, could you put something on the discussion page on the word lyrics so others won't make the same mistake

Thanks a lot Brett

As the first person to oppose...[edit]

I feel I should comment further on your oppostition, as you make some very valid points (the whole image thing, which has since been removed.). Let me start by saying I do not come here looking for you to change your position. I only wanted to try and see where the two of us can improve. You stated that you don't trust me. I must say that is about the worst comment I can hear on a wiki. Trust is the basic cornerstone of WP. We have to be able to trust one another (factually, permissions, etc). To that point, is there anything I can do in the future to gain your trust? I would be very interested in working together to build a better relationship.

Secondly, the name. Yes, my name is a character's name, but I don't base myself around that character (or else, not too many people would be happy with me ;-)). I even had worries about my name, but an admin (now less active, Redwolf24) said it was fine legally, and I would have hoped my actions have said it was fine behaviorally (shown I was not immature to choose such a name). It's funny, I am probably too old for this name anyway. But that's beside the point. My main reason for writing was what I wrote in the first paragraph. Just let me know, and even though you opposed my nom, I hope we can continue to work together. Thanks, my friend. --LV (Dark Mark) 22:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. I hope what you say can hold true and you can begin trusting me through future interactions. Thanks for your input on my RfA. Constructive criticism is always welcome. See you around. --LV (Dark Mark) 17:08, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

question[edit]

Concerning the missing TV articles thing, should we take shows off the list if they have an anime infobox? Eyeball kid 22:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Old Skool Esperanzial note[edit]

Since this isn't the result of an AC meeting, I have decided to go Old Skool. This note is to remind you that the elections are taking place now and will end at 23:50 UTC on 2006-04-29. Please vote here. Thanks. --Celestianpower háblame 20:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

House of Croy[edit]

I would like to thank you for your kind words. This is a companion to the earlier La Tour d'Auvergne. I also contemplate writing House of Montmorency or House of Rohan but am too busy with other projects in the moment. --Ghirla -трёп- 14:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Moving articles from XXX Limited to XXX Ltd.[edit]

Hi. I've also commented on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (companies). You have moved several Australian company articles away from their preferred form. There are more (later in the alphabet)that have Limited in the article title because that's how the company is known, too. --Scott Davis Talk 08:03, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I'll see if I can work out what needs to be clearer. I guess our main concern has been seeing the pages move and quoting a convention is a hesitation to move them back. Not all Australian companies prefer the full form, but I think most do. Santos Ltd. appears to be named correctly, for example. --Scott Davis Talk 08:21, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Template:UC taxobox[edit]

I'll close and delete everything as soon as the use at University of California, Los Angeles is cleaned up. Circeus 16:22, 29 April 2006 (UTC)