User talk:Anachronist

If I left a message on your talk page, please reply there; I have it on my watch list. If you initiate contact here, I will respond here, so make sure you put this page on your watch list. No email unless we have had prior communication. Thanks!

Helpful Information
The five pillars of Wikipedia How to edit a page Help pages Tutorial How to write a great article Manual of Style Wikipedia:Questions Edit count tool Wikipedia traffic statistics
sign talk pages w/4 tildes (~~~~)
Questions: Ask Mushroom or use {{helpme}} on this page.

Invitation to join Wikipedia Wine Project

While we share a disagreement over photos :), I nonetheless value your wine knowledge and contribution to the Zinfandel page. I would love if you consider joining the Wikipedia Wine Project to help expand Wikipedia's quality of wine articles. In particular are several discussions on the talk page (one of which you inspire :p) that you may find interesting and want to contribute to. As you can probably tell there is a lot of groundwork that needs to be laid. I hope you join! Agne 18:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Agne. I didn't know that a Wikipedia wine project existed. Amatulic 00:43, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

MBA Rankings

Hi,

I dont agree with your reasons for deleting this article. While much of the text comes from the MBA article, I feel that this is reasonable, as it gives the pros and cons of ranking programs. I feel that this is relevant information that people who go to the MBA article would want to read.

I chose the FT rankings for two reasons,

1. It is one of the two most respected rankings of Business Schools, but it includes global schools unlike the other big list Business Week, which only ranks American schools.

2. The rankings are published online, unlike the business week rankings which they charge for. I did not think it was right to publish the BW rankings on wpedia, as the list is their IP, and they do not wish to give it out for free online.

I will remove the tag you added for these reasons, and I feel that this article if left online should be useful, and edited by many other users. Thus if you question the NPOV of my piece, that should change. I must also add that as a graduate (PhD) from a business school, my Alma Mater is not included in those rankings, so I have no vested interest in publishing it.

Please feel free to nominate it for deletion, I hope other users will find it useful and vote to keep it.

Daviegold 17:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

See my reply on your talk page. -Amatulic 20:40, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Look at the history of User talk:Daviegold. Hes a sockpuppet. Expect abuse if you go near the articles of his nest. DebtStar 20:41, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks to me like he just blanks his talk page when a conversation becomes old, relying on the page history as his archive. How's that make him a sockpuppet? I did notice he has had other copyvio issuse prior to the MBA Rankings article, though. -Amatulic 21:18, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Amatulic,

Rather than getting into a revert war on the MBA rankings article, may I suggest that you nominate it for deletion again, and this time allow the nomination to run to completion. The prior run was too fast to give me a chance to respond, and did not wait until a moderator could decide on the outcome.

I do not wish to appear argumentative, but I feel that this piece is a sidebar to the central MBA page, and thus should be a separate article. I also feel that over time it allows a history of rankings to be preserved, which the sites linked to do not store.

I wrote a full piece on why I feel the article should be kept on its archived articles for deletion page, which I hope you will read and consider.

Best wishes, Daviegold 11:26, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree with it (the article as you want it violates WP:COPYVIO and WP:NPOV) but I will investigate how one goes about restoring an AfD discussion. -Amatulic 15:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

use of "vanity"

Just a friendly note regarding your comment on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Antoine_Spiteri.

WP:COI says: "Avoid using the word "vanity" in a deletion discussion — this has created serious problems. Remember that such an accusation may be defamatory." "Conflict of Interest" is now preferred. Other possible reasons for deletion of articles include lack of an assertion of Notability. Or else there is the policy trifecta of WP:V, WP:OR and WP:NPOV, as well as WP:NOT which can always be relied upon.

Cheers, Jpe|ob 13:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of that policy. I started participating in deletion discussions a few days ago, and noticed others using it where it seemed appropriate. Thank you for pointing out WP:COI. So many policies, it's hard to learn them all! -Amatulic 17:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

No worries. Feel free to alert other users to this policy shift as well if you wish. Good to see you taking part in AFDs! Happy editing! Cheers, Jpe|ob 01:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

Thanks for your 'third opinion' contribution re: Augustus John edits. It was much appreciated. JNW 20:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome. -Amatulic 21:12, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

help regarding Matt Tilley article

The article is out of control. I don't believe that it is of any encyclopedic value at all. They are filling it with irrelevent material. He is a D-grade disc-jockey and yet they have padded out his article with information right down to children's names, his tertiary history, and the changing names of his radio show. I doubt his qualification for an article here, and I fear that it has degenerated into a fan-page.

I do not know the processes for deletion and what not. I was wondering if I could have your help. Mike --202.164.195.56 07:53, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

The process for deletion has already been started by someone; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matt Tilley. I voted to delete. However, it looks like the majority wants to keep it. -Amatulic 21:09, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Third opinion: Wikipedia:Notability (web)

The most recent revision is at [1]. This is the one I advocate for; however, another person disagreed with my revision. He supported the old version with what I believe to be very weak support. Such statements as "we don't usually separate introduction" and "WP:WOTTA," which mind you, I fixed. [2] Do you believe the current version is accectable? I will reply here. Thank you. FactsOnly 15:16, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I have clarified my third opinion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (web)#Third opinion. -Amatulic 18:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I was not the one requesting clarification, but anyhow, I will take your suggestions and implement them into the list of changes. SolelyFacts 18:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I made my reply, if you care to consider. Thank you. SolelyFacts 18:47, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I looked, and I have nothing further to add; it looks like the article is in good hands. -Amatulic 23:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Need Help Please

I thought there would be no more problems. Could you please read this revision I made [3], which includes those on the list [4], as well as edits for conciseness and clarity, and honestly tell me if it is so "inferior" to the previous. It is very slight improvement with differences that does not merit conflict [5] and reverting the entire article [6]. One could change the differences they have issues with, but reverting the entire article is nonsensical.

This message has gone to the two admins who took part in solving the conflicts. To gain multiple views from neutral third parties, I request that you leave this note in the "Third opinion" page, wherever that is. I also wish to know where is the "dispute resolution" page. It looks like I'm going to be using it often. Any places to prevent people -- who appear to be WikiStalker, who come out of nowhere and start attacking for the edits I make -- from reverting everything I do whould be nice as well. I would appreciate the assistance (it would take a bit of time), though you could always disregard it. —SolelyFacts 19:39, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Isis peer review

I changed the lead of the article per your advice - see here. I just want to make sure it adheres to NPOV and that I got the right end of the stick. Seegoon 15:50, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

In the peer review, I only made a comment on the lead paragraph. It looks better (very well written, too). If there is anything else notable about the band it should be mentioned there. Gold or platinum albums? Opening band for a "big name" band at a concert? Grammy awards or other significant recognition for the band or its members? Hit songs? That sort of thing. Wikipedia:Notability (music) is still a draft policy but it might help as guidance. -Amatulic 18:14, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Tadeusz Kantor

Hi. I appreciate your third opinion contribution but, as I expected, it is being completely ignored. Here is an example of a revert in which no explanation was given for the return of "born in a Polish-Jewish family" and the removal of Kantor's otherwise relationship with Jewish theatre: [7]. I've requested a page lock, which might hopefully stir more discussion and explanation for why the website's information is being completely ignored. 141.211.216.33 04:44, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Muhammad al-Durrah

Hi, I noticed you often provide third opinions. There is an ongoing dispute on Muhammad al-Durrah regarding the pov of two different version of the page. I would really appreciate another opinion on this. Thanks, KazakhPol 01:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You didn't post a third opinion request, so I looked over the edit history of the article and decided that the two versions of the lead paragraph could be merged using the accepted facts. Hopefully my revision should dissatisfy both parties equally! -Amatulic 03:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Georg Cantor

Hello Mr. Matulich. I'm wondering if you can clarify your third opinion(?) on the Georg Cantor discussion page with us. Your sentence of "keep the relevant assertions in place" was interpreted by some people to mean "leave the Jewish categories despite the sources that say he was not Jewish." I interpreted it to mean "leave, in the text, both POVS that say he was Jewish and not Jewish 'but' displease both POVs by not asserting one over another." In my opinion, adding Jewish categories asserts that there's more validity in the POV of the biographers that say he was Jewish as opposed to those biographers that say he wasn't. We can't have Cantor in both a Jewish category and NOT in a Jewish category in the way we can have a person who's French or German heritage is in conflict be both in a German category and French category. However, not being in a Jewish category doesn't automatically mean the person isn't Jewish, just like Georg Cantor isn't in a Danish category, that doesn't mean he's not Danish. Putting him in a Jewish category, in my opinion, is implementing a POV over another. Can you clear up the confusion? ----Tellerman

The Wedge (TV show)

Thanks for your contributions on the Reaction and Criticism. It sounds much better now and not as bias.Shaggy9872004 05:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Help request: Linking to images on other wiki projects

I have some questions on linking to images without using external links:

• If I see an image I like on Wikimedia Commons, rather than Wikipedia, how would I link to it? Or any other Wiki project, for that matter?
• Specifically I'd like to use this public domain image on the Italian Wikipedia for an article I'm working on. How would I do this?
• Would I simply upload the image to Wikipedia? -Amatulic 21:04, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

You can use images from Wikimedia Commons just like normal images on Wikipedia, ie: [[Image:Some Image on Commons]]

To upload an image on commons:

1. Create an account on commons. For some reason you need an account for every different MediaWiki project.
2. Go to commons:special:upload
3. Upload it (you have to save it to your hard drive first, you can't grab it streight from the website). There's good instructions on the page, but it's the same as Wikipedia's image upload stuff.

--h2g2bob 21:14, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I take it, then, that there's no "clean" way to reference an image directly on the Italian Wikipedia? And I notice something else: the author of that image already uploaded it to Wikimedia (see http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/it/2/2f/Steviolo3d.png) but it isn't accessible from the English Wikipedia, apparently. Odd. -Amatulic 21:19, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Template:Did you know

You're absolutely right. Sorry about that. The fine print was lost in me. People have been known to abuse DYK to promote their articles, and that's what I was looking out for. Apologies. I'll restore GDLT now. jengod 00:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

No harm done... somebody else already restored it. -Amatulic 00:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Steviol glycoside

On December 20, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Steviol glycoside, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

Many thanks for creating this article Amatulic - we needed some organic chemistry coverage there. Keep up the good work, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:06, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, it is gratifying to have my article recognized. I wish an expert in organic chemistry would help expand it. I'm no expert; I just had an interest in the subject. -Amatulic 00:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

RfC? (re Talk:Herbert W. Armstrong)

Do you think this should go to RfC? I am not sure what to do next. --RelHistBuff 08:55, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I have left another offer. --RelHistBuff 11:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

I answered on the talk page. Wait and see how jebbrady responds. Your offer to resolve your dispute seems fair enough. -Amatulic 23:10, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Invite to WikiProject Spam

Hey there! I saw you reverting or removing linkspam. Thanks! If you're interested, come visit us in Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam so we can work together in our efforts to clean spam from Wikipedia. Hu12 23:17, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I have tagged my userpage accordingly. Thanks. -Amatulic 23:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Your welcome ;)--Hu12 23:40, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

IIPM article

Hi Amatulic, I have great friends in Croatia (I'm referring to your personal page) :) And they've promised to take me yachting in the beautiful (I'm told) islands off the southern coast. I cant wait!

Thanks for your third opinion on the IIPM article. Honestly, you're right that both sides could do a better job of witing NPOV statements. However, I'm open to re-writing, whereas all MakrandJoshi does is revert. I'd appreciate it greatly if you could spend some time (a few days, perhaps), on the IIPM article talk page, to keep both sides honest, so to speak.

Hope to see you there. Iipmstudent9 03:51, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

PS - So blogs are not citeable sources, nyet? And if a magazie is published and edited by the same person, it becomes self-published and also not citeable? That was my understanding from Wikipedia:Verifiability.

You will enjoy Croatia. If you get a chance to go inland, you must also visit Plitvice. And definitely Dubrovnik is a place to stop if you're yachting. Cruise ships stop there. You can spend half the day walking Dubrovnik's city wall.

There are times when it's sensible to cite a blog, such as if the blog is run by an "official" source of information for the article. One example would be an article about a notable person who runs a blog. Another example might be a Microsoft developer working on a particular Microsoft product, who runs a blog related to that product. He would not be able to publish information about his employer's product without permission from his employer. I would say that's a citable source in an article about that product because this person involved with product development can be considered an official source of information.

As to a magazine published and edited by the same person, it may not be a problem in some situations. Many magazines and newspapers start out that way. Citing an article in such a magazine may not be a problem if the article was written by a reporter on the magazine staff, or if the magazine itself can be considered "notable" in some way. -Amatulic 17:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

...natural explanations for the development of life such as evolution

Sorry about that: That read a bit differently than I intended: My thought process was "Well, they also try and use it to deny abiogenesis, don't they? And they seem to be branching out a little in what they attack..." - in other words, I had intended it as a notable example from a list of related scientific theories. Didn't do a very good job at that, though. Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:17, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

That's okay, I make those kinds of wordsmithing mistakes all the time. I figured I knew what you were trying to say, so I corrected it. I think that Intelligent Design article is the most heavily word-smithed article on Wikipedia. Seems like almost every phrase in every sentence has been discussed, dissected, cited, etc. -Amatulic 17:26, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

MBA specialization

In your revert of my addition to MBS specializations, you gave as a reason "We're not highlighting the offerings of specific schools in this article, and there's no reason to create an exhaustive list of specialized concentrations."

There were five. I added one. Since you claim to know what "We're" doing here, perhaps you can explain to me how six is exhaustive, but five is not.

Thank you for your information.

My intention was not to revert an additional concentration. Six is not exhaustive, but highlighting the school was inappropriate, so I reverted your edit. I have no problem with adding additional concentrations; however, there are too many specialized ones (I've seen at least 30) to list in the article. -Amatulic 17:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations

Greetings! After a long period of discussion and consensus building, the policy on usurping usernames has been approved, and a process has been set up to handle these requests. Since you listed yourself on Wikipedia:Changing username/Requests to usurp, you are being notified of the adopted process for completing your request.

If you are still interested in usurping a username, please review Wikipedia:Usurpation. If your request meets the criteria in the policy, please follow the process on Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations. Please note that strict adherence to the policy is required, so please read the instructions carefully, and ask any questions you may have on the talk page.

If you have decided you no longer wish to usurp a username, please disregard this message. Essjay (Talk) 12:46, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

This message delivered by EssjayBot. Please direct any questions to Essjay.

Solid Angle Formula

Hi,

I'm fairly certain that there is an error in the formula you posted for the solid angle subtended by a rectangular pyramid in the solid angle article. The formula does not reduce to the correct version in the limit of small angles (where it should simply be $a\times b$; your formula reduces to $a\times b^{2}$). The error, I believe, arose in the limits that were used in integrating over the polar angle. These limits should be $\left({\pi \over 2}-{b \over 2},{\pi \over 2}+{b \over 2}\right)$, not $(0,b)$.

Also, I had simplified the formula for the special case of a square pyramid (I do not understand the source of the current formula; can you explain?) and had placed it below the more general case of the rectangular pyramid, as this seemed more sensible.

I notice that as I was writing this you removed the rectangular pyramid formula. Before I re-enter the correct version, I'll wait for your reply. I'm happy to provide a more detailed derivation if you like.

By the way, I believe your previous formula for the rectangular pyramid is actually correct for a triangular pyramid.

Bgerke 18:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I know it's an error. I inadvertantly put in a version of a formula for a triangular wedge or something similar. Also, my description is wrong: A true rectangular pyramid consists of four planes that would intersect the sphere forming great circle arcs. That's not what I was trying to define. Instead I described a latitute-longitude rectangle (lines of latitude aren't great circle arcs). The derivation can be done by double-integrating the area element given on Mathworld, or it can be derived algebraically as shown on Dr. Math's forum.

I'm not sure how to do the true rectangular pyramid yet. If you want to add it, feel free.

Also, I didn't create that square pyramid formula. It looks too messy to be real. -Amatulic 18:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

1. For what we were both trying to compute, the formula I posted was correct, I think. I derived it by integrating the solid angle element near the equator of a unit sphere.

2. You are right that this was not actually a rectangular pyramid; I had made the same mistake. That is the formula I was seeking when I first started this process, and I'm pretty sure I can derive it. I'll do so now and post it later.

3. I'm new to editing Wikipedia. Is there some provision for sidebars or footnotes where I can put up a more complete derivation of these things? It seems a useful thing to do so long as it's not cluttering up the main article. It also seems worthwhile to add a note pointing out the difference between a pyramid and a lattitude-longitude rectangle.

Bgerke 19:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

There's a way to put footnotes in an article (you enclose your footnote in <ref>...</ref> tags, and put a section called ==References== at the bottom of the article, containing one line: <div class="references-small><references/></div>). You'll see that in other articles with footnotes. However, that may not be appropriate here. It's probably enough to put your derivation in the talk page, so that anyone who questions the formula in the article can see where it came from. -Amatulic 20:14, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

It was trickier than I expected, but I worked it out. Will post it later tonight or tomorrow. Incidentally, the regular-pyramid formula is correct but can be simplified somewhat. Bgerke 02:46, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Great! I look forward to seeing it. By the way, there is a prohibition on posting original research on Wikipedia (see Wikipedia:No original research) but after reading it over, I don't think it applies to posting mathematical formulas derived using common well-known mathematical procedures. It might qualify as "synthesis" but it isn't being used to advance a position, so it's probably OK. -Amatulic 18:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

It's posted, and I linked to my derivation from the talk page as you suggested. Thanks for your guidance. Bgerke 20:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Linking to other accounts

I meant linking to them on your request. To do so, you can do it with an interwiki link, such as m:User:Titoxd, es:User:Titoxd, commons:User:Titoxd, mw:User:Titoxd, v:User:Titoxd, fr:User:Titoxd, ru:User:Titoxd, pt:User:Titoxd, etc.

The reason I asked was to check how many edits you had in other projects. After the single unified login transition, if there's several accounts with the same name across several projects, the account with most edits gets assigned the global account, and receives the login everywhere. If that is the case, then it may not be necessary to request for an usurpation right now, if it is going to be done automatically later on. (Although, keep in mind that SUL has been promised for a while, and only until recently work has been done on it, so no one knows how long it is going to take to finish.) Titoxd^(?!?) 18:16, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, my Anachronist account has more edits in Wiktionary and Commons than the same name account here on Wikipedia (which has 1 edit, in 2002). So what do I do, put redirects on all my user pages, redirecting to the Anachronist Wikipedia account, which isn't mine? That seems rather subversive. Also, all my edits as 'Amatulic' wouldn't change to the new name. I'd have to abandon this Amatulic account, no? -Amatulic 18:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Invite to participate in Wine Newsletter

Hello! I am curious if you would like to participate in our Wine Newsletter "Wiki Winos" feature which is a get to know you section of the new Wine Newsletter that we are trying to develop to foster more of a community sense within the wine project. The feature is a questionnaire that you are free to answer any or all questions on that is located at Wikipedia:WikiProject Wine/Newsletter/Wiki-Winos. Please post any response or feedback on my talk page. Thanks for your time and consideration! Agne^Cheese/^Wine 13:19, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Hello Amatulic,

Thanks for trying to keep the Talk:Robert Prechter page in good shape, you made the edit when I was also working on it. It was my first time trying to archive the text, which was a mess -- I thought archiving was a good idea following the Arb Committee decision involving the article. Rgfolsom 17:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

No problem. I've never figured out how to archive anything cleanly either. I end up having to clean up after myself. -Amatulic 17:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Video journalism third opinion

Hi Amatulic! Thank you very much for posting your opinions on the Video journalism article. I wrote a reply to your message, and I hope you will have the time to take a look at it, and maybe write a reply. Thank you! Mackan 22:12, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion at User_talk:Awiseman#Third_opinion

Please see my reply at User_talk:Awiseman#Third_opinion. Thanks! 67.101.243.74 22:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Amtaulic. Is there anything I should do now? The user disagrees with your opinion, so I'm worried that if I restore the messages they removed it'll just start over again. --AW 13:05, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Please see my reply at User_talk:Awiseman#Third_opinion. Thanks again. 67.101.243.74 21:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Stevia

Your hard work has paid off. Congrats! - Mtmelendez ^{(Talk|UB|Home)} 02:29, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion at Template talk:LandmarkForum

• Please see my comment / citations provided in response to the points that you brought up. And of course, thank you for your time. Yours, Smee 22:53, 8 May 2007 (UTC).

ID "derivativations"

Hah! ;-) Thank you so much for catching that! (;-/ And yes, "cognates" well replaces either "derivatives" or "derivations " ... Kenosis 17:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the word only because that sentence had been touched for another reason and I happened to check the diff. I went "huh?" and spent a couple minutes failing to find any definition. I got "cognates" directly from Wikisource:Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District/2:Context#Page 32 of 139. -Amatulic 18:17, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

See my comments on talk. Cognates is the wrong word, whether the judge used it or not is really irrelevant. &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 21:36, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. -Amatulic 21:37, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Response from Marvin Shilmer

Conversation removed; essentially duplicated at Talk:Jehovah's Witnesses#Revert Rule Violation Allegations

User_talk:Reddi

Mind if I jump in there and give a Third Opinion? You were first, I admit, but I had already read through some of the pages when your opinion appeared, and I am going to pursue a different angle. --User:Krator (t c) 20:05, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Go right ahead. I don't really know what's going on. -Amatulic 20:56, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Writing it, then. --User:Krator (t c) 21:00, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

This is the first time I started and didn't finish a 3O. I am not going to do this one, it is too ambiguous. --User:Krator (t c) 21:12, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

That's for sure. I did the best I could with it, but until the dispute (which unquestionably exists) becomes much less ambiguous, I don't see what else I can say. -Amatulic 21:17, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

User_talk:Huw4beynon

You beat me to it; thanks for placing the warning there. Colonel Tom 22:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

• Umm ... after your "Only warning", the user has been warned again twice. Given your original warning, a block would seem to be the appropriate course of action. Cheers, Colonel Tom 12:34, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • After a final warning, anyone else who comes to the user's talk page to post a warning about further infractions should instead report the vandalism on WP:AIV rather than merely post further warnings. That's why warnings have dates and levels on them. I noticed the other warnings without a corresponding report on WP:AIV so I reported it, and the user was blocked for 48 hours. -Amatulic 21:29, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Third Opinion - Elvria Arellano

Can you please take a look at my comments to your post (and rationale for my arguments above it) when you get a chance? Thanks! LordPathogen LordPathogen 00:04, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

300 Jews in Singapore??

Um, are you sure there are only 300 Jews in Singapore? If you actually believe this, could you please provide a citation for such?Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:20, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I provided a citation in my comment on Talk:Singapore. Because there is an ambiguity concerning whether a "Jew" is one who practices Judaism or simply belongs to the culture, it is inappropriate to lump the miniscule population of Jews in Singapore as a religious following. As to being unsourced, the Singapore census doesn't list Jews, so all we have to go on are the "censuses" of other Jews who take the trouble to count things. -Amatulic 20:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for Third Opinion

template:History of Manchuria is suffering from extensive revert warring, and discussion is heading nowhere. A RfC was filed, but was only able to get one outside commentor[8]. Please provide a third opinion on whether template:History of Manchuria should be titled History of Manchuria[9] or History of Northeast China[10][11] to facilitate dispute resolution. Thank you. 08:45, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for participating in the request for third opinion on The Ocean Hunter article. Please note, however, that the user who requested the thid opinion is ignoring your suggestion for an external link and is instead deleting the external links and the other material from the article. He's also refusing the other editor's suggstion for a separate article. Care to chime in again? I'm just confused that someone would ask for a third opinion and then ignore the suggestions for a compromise and delete everything. --164.107.222.23 04:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, third opinions aren't binding, but I'll try to add another comment.

King of the Hill

I was trying to verify informaiton on the culture part, where luby's was mentioned. how is the source irrelevent? Onopearls 21:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Per WP:EL external links are made available on articles so that readers can gain further information relevant to the subject of the article. While a Luby's imitation is featured in some episodes of King of the Hill, a link to the Luby's restaurant web site doesn't really offer information that illuminates the TV show. The article text already wikilinks to the Luby's article which has a link to the Luby's website. That should be sufficient. No need to add an irrelevant external link. -Amatulic 21:23, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying. Onopearls 21:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Pugs

I appreciate that the WikiPedia is a global encyclopedia - but the one thing lacking about Pugs (and other breeds) is the fact that lots of dogs are bought on a whim and then dumped. Highlighting a Rescue might be of help to educate people. Perhaps if I write a specific article on rescues? Can I then list the various rescues in the USA and perhaps Europe?

I re-added without considering commenting first.... please remove the rescue group section and I will check here for your reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.100.35.237 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I noticed someone else reverted your re-addition of the external link.

A general article about dog rescue organizations would be useful (or animal rescue, not just dogs). Such an article already exists: Rescue group (not a descriptive title, but I found it on the animal welfare article). There it might be appropriate to highlight some organizations in external links. Even better would be an external link to a collection of links to animal rescue organizations (if such a collection exists on the web) - that way the article doesn't accumulate a big list of links, but readers can still find a resource of rescue organization links.

Articles about various types of pets (dogs, cats, ferrets, etc.) that tend to get abandoned should probably have a wikilink in the "See also" section to animal welfare and rescue group. -Amatulic 21:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

template:History of Manchuria

Wiki pokemon is now trying to replace template:History of Manchuria with template:History of Northeast China, so I have nominated template:History of Northeast China on TfD(Template for Deletion) for POV forking here. Please help reach a consensus on this issue. Cydevil38 20:17, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Singapore

As of my last read, the only discussion on the talk page was: "Removed biased text "Despite wealth and a high standard of living". Does it mean that wealthy countries with high standards of living cannot execute people? It is clearly biased text added in by some Human Rights person" .. now there is meaningful discussion, so I'll participate in that process without making further changes to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxsht9 (talk • contribs) 2007-07-11 (UTC)

Um... Talk:Singapore#Removal of Biased Text already had several paragraphs of discussion the day before you restored that text in the article. The issue was also brought up way back in May in Talk:Singapore#False claim about Singapore being number 1 but nobody responded to that comment.

I have also been guilty of making edits without first reading the talk page the same day. It happens to all of us now and then. -Amatulic 01:11, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

American Biographical Institute

I wouldn't bother continuing to respond to Dominique. It's clear she doesn't want to admit the award she got was more or less phoney and is willing to ignore the obvious to keep herself convinced. -- Mwalcoff 02:19, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, a third opinion was requested. An offerer of a third opinion has an obligation to monitor the article and talk page for a while. Usually I stay engaged until it looks like the disputants have come to an agreement, or until the situation looks hopeless - in which case arbitration may be necessary. -Amatulic 02:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

smoker???

guess u r a smoker...better quit before it quits you... regards to your family...MULAZIMOGLU 07:10, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Presumptious, aren't you? I am not a smoker. Never have been, nor are any of my relatives. On Wikipedia, the integrity of articles is more important than how I feel about the subject. -Amatulic 18:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you both would stop bickering/reverting and contribute to the article. See my edits there, please. HG | Talk 10:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me? I reorganized and improved the entire religion section. Unsourced original research doesn't belong in it — especially when repeatedly added back without reason or comment, it's vandalism. Your edits, on the other hand, are a vast improvement; far more than I could have done. Thanks. -Amatulic 16:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the whole religion section is looking much better, thanks. Personally, I wouldn't worry too much about the balance of the section yet. It seems to me that both the Islamic and Christian sections deserve to be expanded. As you can see, we built up the Judaism piece and eventually spun it off. Maybe that would happen here too, provided we can invite more collaborators. Take care. HG | Talk 21:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. It looks like the Islam section got messed up again. Any idea why? Would you mind restoring it? Thanks. HG | Talk 11:48, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Not sure to what you are referring. It looked OK to me. Someone converted several references to footnotes, which was an improvement. I just went in and made minor formatting corrections, and removed a repeated sentence and red wikilink. It's a pretty good section, I think. -Amatulic 17:37, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, luckily I managed to fix it before you saw it. But now maybe you can help integrate what I just found -- tobacco protest and tobacco fatwa, pretty well written articles already, interesting stuff, not sure how to weave all the materials together. Go for it! HG | Talk 23:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Male pregnancy

You got a response on the Talk page. I am not sure how to reason with this person. They have been heavy on the reverts, and it seems that either English is their second language or they are just not very good at typing. I find this person's grasp of the core tenets of WP:V and WP:OR and WP:CS to be weak, at best. They can barely write well enough to communicate, never mind compose an encyclopedia article. They seem to want to use the article as a vehicle to espouse fringe views. What can be done? 75.61.93.60 04:40, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I've half a mind to request semi-protection for the article to block all anonymous edits until the dispute is resolved on the talk page rather than by reverting. In any case, the other anonymous editor appears to have given up reverting and instead seems to be satisfied with tagging a section of the article with "original research" and "disputed" tags. That's fine by me. -Amatulic 03:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Jebbrady RFC

I've opened an RFC/U on Jebbrady here: I'm notifying you because you tried to help resolve the ongoing dispute earlier this year. --SarekOfVulcan 21:06, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

*headdesk* Thanks for the fix.--SarekOfVulcan 13:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Good job summarizing the issues. I'm going to wait a while to see Jebbrady's response before I endorse anything. In my third opinion I offered on Talk:Herbert W. Armstrong, I felt both sides of the dispute had some merit. -Amatulic 17:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. For example, I've come to feel strongly that the accusations from that book should not be mentioned, since it's a single source. And I know I wasn't always as temperate in my own actions as I should have been. --SarekOfVulcan 03:41, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Machu Picchu content move to wikitravel

I have reverted your edit on wikitravel. Unfortunately wikipedia's GFDL and wikitravel's CC-BY-SA 1.0 licences are not compatible, so we can not simply copy material from wikipedia to wikitravel --NJR ZA 20:38, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. I didn't simply copy material. I have re-reverted your reversion, and made further improvements. My original edit summary was a bit misleading; I didn't merely move content, but extensively revise it. The "Get In" section of Machu Picchu is now much better than either version on Wikitravel or Wikipedia. -Amatulic 22:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Please don't put that citation back in

I have removed it four times now, each time someone has put it back in. As I detailed on the talk page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Intelligent_design#Poll

The citation that was in place is not the correct citation, please click on the link that you added and you will see that it is the wrong poll, it is a poll of Ohio voters not the poll of scientists that is being referenced. By all means go and find the correct poll and put it in, but don't assume that I was vandalising - I was removing the link because it is the wrong link. Sad mouse 18:49, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

The correct citation is at http://www.nmidnet.org/Press%20Release%201.doc - why didn't you use that instead of tag the article with "citation needed"? That document clearly states how the Sandia Labs scientists were polled, and what the results were. The link is found on IDnet New Mexico's page http://www.nmidnet.org/polling.html -Amatulic 18:58, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Don't blame me for you putting the incorrect citation in, I wasn't the one who didn't bother checking before reverting an edit. Sad mouse 19:02, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and I didn't check either; all I saw initially was your removal of a citation without explanation in the edit summary, so my reaction was automatic. Just now I was about to put the correct citation in, but I see somebody beat me to it. Anyway, the issue seems resolved now. -Amatulic 19:05, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It was in the edit summary the first three times I did it, and had a section on the talk page. No harm done, I guess people tend to assume vandalism on an article like ID. Sad mouse 19:08, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Intelligent Design

I do not think that the following comments which you removed are "unproductive/inflammatory".

"This article only scores about three points out of ten for clarity. It is not a good example of the quality of Wikipedia mikeL (hello SineBot) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.97.161.230 (talk) 22:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

It's an excellent "example of the quality of Wikipedia". It shows Wikipedia bias, Wikipedia mediocrity, Wikipedia pettiness, and Wikipedia groupthink. All in a single article. 207.190.198.130 22:35, 12 October 2007 (UTC) "

Moreover you should not remove material that you do not like from discussion pages.... From WPrefactoring.... refactoring of talk pages must preserve the full intentions of the original authors..... Those comments were made seriously and in good faith but there seems to be little point in restoring them. I wonder if you will remove this as well.

Sincerely 77.97.161.230 10:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)mikeL

The comments were rightly removed because they were not conducive to improving the article. Rather, the comments were inflammatory and non-constructive, put there solely for someone to vent and editorialize. WP:REFACTOR permits removal in such instances. -Amatulic 17:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello Amatulic

How clever of you to know what my motives are . I did not know that I intended to inflame or “vent” (whatever that means).I thought my comments might encourage others to improve the article.

To be more directly constructive:-

The content is not intrinsically difficult. It seems to have been obscured by over enthusiastic editing.

The article is so long and it contains so much detail that the reader gets lost trying to sort out the key parts. It uses obscure expressions and references (teleological argument, methodological naturalism and so on). There is a lot of repetition and there are unnecessary statements of who said what.

The whole thing reads as if the writers were exercising their interest in the subject instead of trying to explain it clearly to the rest of us.

I have read WPrefactor carefully several times. I can not find anything to justify removing the comments. There is no obligation to follow the guidelines but you are likely to be challenged if you do not. Here are some extracts for you to think about:-

“ Content to remove

Superfluous - Content that is entirely and unmistakably irrelevant.

Refactoring should only be done when there is an assumption of good faith by editors who have contributed to the talk page..... If another editor objects to refactoring then the changes should be reverted. “

“Provide links to the original, uncut version, so others can check your changes, and if necessary go back to the original to clarify what an author actually said. This combination of refactoring and archiving will often prevent complaints that information was lost. Make it explicit that you have refactored something so no one is misled into thinking this was the original talk page. “

Wikipedia articles should inform readers. Not confuse them.

I have just looked at the Intelligent Design Articles in December 2001. They were very clear and no doubt. would seem simplistic and imprecise to recent contributors but they do give a clear introduction to the topic. One of those texts ( the Revision as of 02:33, 1 December 2001, for example ) could be added, almost unedited as a brief introduction to the current article. You might like to do this. It would help readers and it would also demonstrate your good faith.

Best wishes from 77.97.161.230 18:34, 21 October 2007 (UTC)mikeL

If you had written constructive comments like above in the talk page, you wouldn't have been reverted. Odd how you feel it's necessary to quote WP:REFACTOR to me; what you quoted above was indeed superfluous, a complaint about the article without identifying exactly what was wrong or how it should be improved. You were more specific in your comments above; why not write them on Talk:Intelligent design instead? -Amatulic 19:32, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Sermon

Thanks for your remarkably quick support for the NPOV check on Sermon. I was so angry when I read the article. I'd just written an article on the Welsh wikipedia on the same subject (cy:Pregeth). Just a stub at present but at least it's inclusive. When I followed the interwiki link to here I couldn't believe what I saw. I'm pretty much occupied most of the time on cy. (user name Anatiomaros) so don't do that much on en. - we're a small crew trying to cover everything on the Welsh wikipedia! - but would gladly contribute if the change goes ahead. Regards, Enaidmawr 23:33, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I wasn't offended by the Sermon article; it's a rather good article actually, but focuses on Christianity.

I don't understand Welsh, but a translation to English would be useful. That article could be called "Sermon" with pointers to "Sermon (Christianity)" (the current "Sermon" article on en) and any others.

I want to wait a bit for others to respond, but after a couple weeks, the procedure would be: (1) Move "Sermon" to "Sermon (Christianity)". This will convert "Sermon" to a redirect page. (2) Edit the redirect page "Sermon", replacing the redirect link with your more inclusive version.

If you want, you can create a subfolder on your userpage for draft articles. Or you can create it on mine, if you want me to post your translation. -Amatulic 23:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, I suppose I should have made it clearer that I was not offended by the article as such, in fact I'd agree with you that it's quite a good article on Christian Sermons. I'm not motivated by some "anti-Christian" agenda either, in fact I've written, or contributed to, quite a few articles on Christianity, both on cy. and here. It was the context and the clear implication that a sermon was purely a Christian concept (i.e. its content, POV, the infobox and category) that annoyed me and prompted me to act. Your suggestions for the editing move are pretty much what I had in mind, using the automatic redirect to create a new, inclusive, Sermon article. I'm not promising hours of work on this - as I said, I've got more than enough to do already - but will gladly help. Let's sit back for now and see how things develop over the next few weeks. Enaidmawr 00:30, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

No love for the cat pee

Thanks for adding the note. Hopefully that will take care of things. :) Though as someone who owns cats, I can't imagine how that term ever gain such common currency. :p Agne^Cheese/^Wine 19:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

And I can't figure out how anybody came up with that "official" term for a wine characteristic. I've never tasted actual cat pee myself (who has?). I can imagine it has a certain odor, but I've never smelled a urine-like odor in any Sauvignon Blanc (I've smelled it in other wines, all white, including Chardonnay). -Amatulic 19:19, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I think it is used more in the context of aroma rather then taste (at least I hope so!). I've smelled it a few times in some New Zealand Sauvignon blancs but they were certainly not enjoyable wines. For me, the smell seems to be a tip off that the wine is going to be a little too vegetable for my taste. I'm more incline to the more floral Savignons. Agne^Cheese/^Wine 19:35, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Nur Ali Elahi

Thanks for weighing in. I am not actively involved with the article (nor part of the dispute), but I have some history with one of the involved parties. Thanks again, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:02, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Bangladeshi Visa

Hello Amatulic

According to TIMATIC[12], starting November 14, 2007, "nationals of Malaysia and Singapore can no longer make use of the visa on arrival facility and are required to obtain their visa prior to their arrival". Cybercicada 01:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I figured you might have had a reason. I would have preferred you replaced what you deleted with a note to that effect rather than simply delete the entry on Bangladesh without explanation. -Amatulic 01:47, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Robert Fulton

Can you please stop the new user on the Robert Fulton page from writing obscene things and vandalizing the page. Thank you!--Persianhistory2008 (talk) 23:40, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Robert Fulton is under attack! Again and again they screw it up. Not sure what to do with it?--Persianhistory2008 (talk) 07:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm unable to stop anyone from doing anything; I'm not an administrator here, just another editor. All I (or any other editor) can do is place vandalism warnings on the user's talk page and after the final warning, report the abuse at WP:AIV. I've also been away from Wikipedia for a week or so and just checked in. The Robert Fulton article seems stable now. -Amatulic (talk) 14:05, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Alice in Wonderland (film)

Nothing personal. I have the original. It's weird. Just didn't think Amazon should be in there. --Rodhullandemu (please reply here - contribs) 00:19, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I revised it to say "mainstream DVD retailers" or something like that. You can't get it from Subversive Cinema or from the site to which they link. An email exchange revealed that I could buy it from Amazon.com, and sure enough, Amazon has it. So I mentioned that in the article, but you're right, it wasn't necessary to single out Amazon. -Amatulic (talk) 00:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Zinfandel

I added the comment on the older issue just to purposefully add extra emphasis.--Chef Christopher Allen Tanner, CCC (talk) 21:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

"MBA Ranking Resources" reason for update.

Hello Amatulic,

I removed the first MBA Ranking Resources “Compilation of business school rankings” this is not a qualified MBA ranking resource and as such is not relevant for this section: promotion of an advertising website with outdated rankings.

Updated the “Top 50 MBA programmes as determined by the United Kingdom Government” and included the date then I realised that this had been included in “Reference and Notes” and does not actually have anything to do with MBA rankings.

I hope you can see my reason for the update?

Best regards,

--Studio1st (talk) 01:33, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I can understand your reasoning. Allow me to explain mine.

As someone who maintains the article regularly, I may have even added those links. If I didn't, then you can bet I and others examined them closely when they appeared! The fact that they have survived the scrutiny of several regular editors over the past year or so is an indication of consensus. As to the specific links:

• The Marr and Kirkwood site (Compilation of business school rankings) is the only known resource for side-by-side comparisons from different popular sources, it has been around for many years, and is a well-established reference cited by many other sites, including university web sites. Looking at what it displays now, it appears the rankings are updated as they become available for reproduction (USNWR is the only 2007 ranking shown). In any case, the top schools don't change much from year to year, although the ordering might, so rankings from 2004 are still useful. I don't remember the site being ad supported when I first saw it 10 years ago. I do see ads there now, but the site still doesn't look overtly commercial. I recall it's maintained by a couple of business school professors, but I could be wrong.
• Official sources shouldn't be deleted. The "Top 50 MBA programmes" is one such source. While it's true it doesn't display those 50 programs in rank order (and a government shouldn't be playing favorites like that), it does list what the UK government considers the top programs ranked above all others. Therefore, it's valid to include it as a ranking resource, simply to show another source of top schools. Yes, it's also cited in the article, so you could argue that it's redundant to include it in the ranking resources list. However, it's there for completeness. Remove it, and someone else is likely to come along and notice it's cited but not listed, and restore the link.

The other reason I reverted your edit was because you unintentionally destroyed several inter-language links at the bottom of the article (specifically the ones in non-Western languages like Russian and Japanese). Before editing another page, please make sure your browser is using a character set that supports international characters. If you use Windows, Arial or Times New Roman are fairly complete fonts, and you might want to set the encoding to Unicode (UTF-8). -Amatulic (talk)

I also understand your thoughts on Marr and Kirkwood compilation of rankings, but, the majority of the site is outdated and as such does not provide a true ranking range. This year’s rankings have been very different especially with joint MBAs coming to their own; this has been especially reflected in Business Weeks and the FTs most recent rankings. I would then suggest that we create a new section called “Related Rankings Resources” and move Marr and Kirkwood, Official MBA Guide and Top 50 MBA programs to that section below MBA ranking resources.

Alphabetise the others and include “Forbes” as they are quite a major producer of rankings. What do you think? (No idea what to do with the Australian PDF though…)

Thank you for fixing my stupid delete mistake. I will keep an eye on that one.

Studio1st (talk) 02:48, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, too

Thanks for correcting the quotation mess I accidentally made but couldn't figure out how to fix. :-)David Justin (talk) 23:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Armstrong Sperry GA review

I had signed up to do this review not ten minutes before you commented on the talk page.[13] I see that you think the article is "excellent", but I agree entirely. I had written up an extensive review (failing the article), only to have my comments disappear from an edit conflict! :) I have them backed up, and still believe that the article does not fulfill the GA criteria, so what is there to do? María (habla conmigo) 20:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you meant you disagree entirely.

Whoops! Yes.

I haven't evaluated the article against all the GA criteria, but feel that it meets most of them. As I wrote on the talk page, I read through it once and recorded my initial impression, expecting others like yourself to expand the section. Please post your responses. My comments were not intended to mean "this article passes for GA status". If you see areas of needed improvement, the authors of that article need to know about it.

There are quite a few areas that are needed for improvement, unfortunately. How about we put the nomination on hold and see where it goes from there? I'll add all of my comments to the talk page and also remove my "reviewing" note on the GAC page. María (habla conmigo) 21:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit conflicts happen to me all the time. If I find I spend a lot of time writing text in an edit window, I can be assured that someone else already revised the page before I get around to submitting my edits. So what I do is first highlight all the text I wrote and copy it to my clipboard. Then when I submit my edits, and an edit conflict occurs, I can still paste all my text and save it again. -Amatulic (talk) 20:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:WINE newsletter

The Wine Project Newsletter! Issue IX - January 7th, 2008

In this edition: News & Notes - Portal:Wine up for Featured Portal status, WANTED-GA Coordinator/liaison and wine region maps, and can you guess which wine-related article was viewed over 85,000 times in December? Wiki-Winos - Amatulić and his joke that may make you think twice about accepting an unknown glass of wine from a stranger Wine articles on the Web - Did the Shiraz grape originate in Iran? Where did the Ah-so bottle opener get its name? What is up with that petroleum smell in some Riesling wines? And what the heck is Domaine de la Romanée-Conti doing planting Pinot noir fin? These are the questions that people out on the web are asking. Find out what answers they get when they turn to our Wikipedia wine articles.

This newsletter is sent to those listed under Participants on the Wine Project page. If you wish to no longer receive this newsletter please include Decline newsletter next to your name on the Participant list. If you have any Wikipedia wine related news, announcements or suggestions drop a note in the Comments/Suggestion area of Wikipedia:WikiProject Wine/Newsletter.

new

Amatulic, read the explanation I just wrote on the Nur Ali Elahi talk page.--Octavian history (talk) 09:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:WINE newsletter

The Wine Project Newsletter! Issue X - January 31st, 2008

In this edition: News & Notes - Portal:Wine is a now a Featured Portal! National WINE PRIDE will be on the line as we see which wine country articles got the most page views in the month of Jan-and you maybe surprised at which countries beat out the US & California. The Judgement of Paris it's not. Wiki-Winos - VanTucky Meet our new GA liaison and find out what in the world is he doing with those sheep? Wiki wine articles on the Web - A Graciano, Monastrell and Mourvedre grape walk into a bar and meet Carole Meredith....find out how an expert proved a Wikipedia article wrong. Also, our Sparkling wine production article braves new frontiers in the annals of rock band naming games. Plus, find out how our Friuli-Venezia Giulia wine article helped out Wine blogging Wednesday, what makes red wine red and whether riserva Brunello is better than standard Brunello.

This newsletter is sent to those listed under Participants on the Wine Project page. If you wish to no longer receive this newsletter please include Decline newsletter next to your name on the Participant list. If you have any Wikipedia wine related news, announcements or suggestions drop a note in the Comments/Suggestion area of Wikipedia:WikiProject Wine/Newsletter.

Talk:Nur Ali Elahi

I am not really sure what to advise. I think we got more than we bargained for with the RfC. I think the COI issue applies to both parties in the dispute (or "applied", where one participant is concerned). From my point of view the subject is relatively obscure, and those with some kind of involvement with, or attachment to, the subject are the ones who are going to put forth any substantial effort toward the article (perhaps that could be said of any Wikipedia article; you aren't likely to find me putting a lot of work into the beets article). I had added the article to the Kurdish and Iranian WikiProjects, hoping that some editors involved with those efforts might be able to lend some assistance. Only one person (that I know of) responded as a result. I do think your recent talk page comments were on point. Not sure any of this helps but there you have it... -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Ankh, Hexagram, Chakra,

I am sorry, but addition of a material, which could be interesting and connected with article, was my desire only. If do not object, it is possible to leave only a photo. * Ankh model charkas system Shatilov Konstantin (talk) 11:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

If you own the photos, then by all means upload them and incorporate them in the article. However, I recommend you cease adding links to your own web site to articles. That is a clear violation of Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines. -Amatulić (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser

Amatulic, I cannot help but comment on this malformed request. It is not a category F as Dr.Fix has never been blocked so there is no block evasion. You even note that the IP edits are so infrequent that even if all the users were one person, 3RR would not be violated. Furthermore, you note that there could be a failure to log in, which is ok. Why not just write to Dr.Fix and give suggestions about editing in WP, 3RR, etc. If this checkuser is run, then it could be used by others (not necessarily you, Amatulic, as fishing for his IP and location). Would you consider dropping your RFCU? That would be doing the kind and correct action. Archtransit (talk) 23:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. I never used the checkuser function before. I originally had the category set to E, but changed it to F because no 3RR violation had yet occurred, but seemed iminent. I didn't realize that F was reserved for editors already blocked.

I placed the RFCU in anticipation of seeing the revert war continue, and didn't want to get embroiled in the argument already going on at the user's talk page (which already contains the advice you suggest, which seems to be ignored). I felt that a checkuser was necessary to have sufficient backup information when a violation actually occurred.

So, how do I "drop" the RFCU? -Amatulić (talk) 23:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

If I may, let the case run its course. I have changed the code letter back to E and let a CU decide whether or not a check is warranted. After a quick look at the page history, I am concerned too by the edits to this page. -- lucasbfr ^talk 09:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

It seems my suspicions were confirmed; there is sockpuppetry going on. Thanks for allowing the case to run its course. -Amatulić (talk) 01:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Question

Hello Amatulic, I noticed you do quite a bit of vandalism-reversion. I was wondering, would you like me to grant rollback rights to your account? It will make vandalism-reversion much easier. Acalamari 22:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, although I am uncertain how "rollback rights" work?

I'd rather not be spending so much time reverting vandals. There are contributions I have in mind for articles, but whenever I get on Wikipedia, I find so many vandal edits in my watchlist, so I end up spending my available time reverting them. -Amatulić (talk) 22:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

It's just a simple reversion tool: it doesn't mean that you have to spend more time on Wikipedia if you are granted it. See Wikipedia:New admin school/Rollback and Wikipedia:Rollback feature. Acalamari 22:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and it's faster that all other revert features, both Twinkle and popups. Acalamari 22:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Okay, if you would grant it, please go ahead. I'd like to see how it works. Thanks! -Amatulić (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Granted. :) It is removable if you decided you don't want it. Good luck. Acalamari 22:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll keep it. After a few tests, it seems quite efficient. Thanks. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome! Acalamari 02:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:WINE newsletter

The Wine Project Newsletter! Issue XI - February 21st, 2008

In this edition: News & Notes - Every American Viticultural Area now has an article! Keeping up with the B class wine articles and find out which start class article of top importance was viewed almost 43,000 times between Dec-Jan. Plus, find out which wine related Did you knows helped to dispel the myths around the Shiraz grape's origins and which Bordeaux wine chateau was a last minute addition to the Bordeaux Wine Official Classification of 1855-not without some controversy. Also, what wine articles have the most potential to reach Good article status? Wiki-Winos - Meet User:EvanProdromou! Evan who? Well let just say that another "wiki-wino" has come out the closet to say Hi and share what his project Vinismo can do to help Wikipedia's wine articles. Wiki wine articles on the Web - Guess which prominent wine personality thinks that Wikipedia is one of the best wine resources on the web? Also find out who thinks our Mission grape article is lacking and how our Plavac Mali article cleared up some confusion about the grape's relationship to Zinfandel. Plus, was Mick Jagger really singing about Sommeliers in the Stone's song Beast of Burden?

This newsletter is sent to those listed under Participants on the Wine Project page. If you wish to no longer receive this newsletter please include Decline newsletter next to your name on the Participant list. If you have any Wikipedia wine related news, announcements or suggestions drop a note in the Comments/Suggestion area of Wikipedia:WikiProject Wine/Newsletter.

Third Opinion

Thank you for your third opinion[14]. I realize that it was early to ask for a third opinion, and the article might fail an AfD, but it seemed like the conversation might fall to name calling so I asked for outside input. Thanks again for the uninvolved opinion. Runnynose47 (talk) 21:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome, and I hope you can move past the dispute now. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your effort for the third opinion on the Mpemba effect. With other similar aggravations it has led me to leave Wiki-editing but you deserve an explanation for your trouble (I am Martin Chaplin). The other editor insisted that a quote was correct but it was neither correct nor correctly cited. He corrected these subsequent to my request for a third opinion. Also the text (whole section) citing the quote is clearly OR as it is disagreeing with the source and has no further source. After my changes had been reverted twice I requested your help. I am not editing any more but it is clear to me that the article is promoting someones POV and has no V & RS. 136.148.109.151 (talk) 11:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Your warning to me

I have responded on my talk page. The gist of my response is a request that you look at Dean A. Hrbacek and Talk:Dean A. Hrbacek and address the specific issues that I've raised. JamesMLane t c 23:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sin and "weasel-like" phraseology

Fair enough!
And thank you for the correction !
Still learning,
 —Wikiscient— 02:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Warning

Please do not leave messages like that on my talk page. I have many times added sources, people keep removing the sources. I have added alot of sources to back up what I have added to the shadow people page. So please in the future do not leave comments like that on my talk page or I will be forced to report you to the Wiki staff for personal attacks to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.38.213 (talk) 04:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

No, you haven't supplied any sources that support the claims you add. All you have done is supply general web sites and phrases like "many other places". That's ridiculous.

You will continue being warned, and blocked, as necessary. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

That is a lie and that lie can and will be proven to the wiki staff if you continue anymore attacks (the shadow people page does have a history of edits and it clearly shows you have just lied). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.38.213 (talk) 00:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

The "sources" you provided don't support the claims you added to the article. Your edit history speaks for itself - including your history of personal attacks. By all means, take it up with "the Wiki staff".

If you want to be constructive instead, and improve the article, then I suggest engaging in civil discussion on Talk:Shadow people. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion

I do hope that you will return to Mpemba effect to give your final thoughts. 17:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

MyPyramid

The external link cited contained educational information for children, one of the intended purposes of the MyPyramid system. It contains factual and referenced information. I've reverted the edit, and wanted to explain here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.137.214 (talk • contribs) 06:49 2008-04-15 (UTC)

And I have reverted it again. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's external linking guidelines, especially items 4, 6, and 8 under "Links normally to be avoided." Your site requires Flash for much of the content, it seems to require sign-up, and if you are associated with that site, you should be aware of the conflict of interest guidelines as well. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Napa and Sonoma counties climates

This surprised me (now that the storm has passed, I'm working at localizing Zinfandel for FR):

"Red berry fruits like raspberry predominate in wines from cooler areas such as the Napa Valley,[4] whereas blackberry, anise and pepper notes are more common in wines made in warmer areas such as Sonoma County [...]"

I thought that by all accounts, Sonoma's climate was cooler than Napa's, especially in the summer. --Arnaudh (talk) 20:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I was just going by the cited sources. Having been to both, it's hard for me to say. I speculate that Napa may have more elevation variations which may cause some critics to pronounce it cooler - especially around the Calistoga area. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

MBA

What was your MBA in? 68.148.164.166 (talk) 18:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

General MBA, but it seemed to concentrate on Finance. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Weasel Tag

Hello, I noticed you put a weasel tag at the homeschooling article I have been working on. I thought about starting the paragraph with "A sometimes used critical argument..", but that would still make it target for a weasel tag. So I went over to the avoid weasel words project page, but found no real help, and a discussion page full of complaints. I hope you have a suggestion for me on how to resolve the issue, I personally believe the other paragraphs make clear enough what's going on. I will put an extra reference to the source with Marcia Herman-Giddes to resolve the fact template issue. Thanks in advance, Species8473 (talk) 00:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

I gave a shot at rephrasing to eliminate the weasel words - there were more than in just the sentence I tagged. Hope that helps. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, I do believe it looks better this way. Have a good day! Species8473 (talk) 00:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion at Ted Kennedy

The third opinion you referenced was entered less than halfway through the discussion, despite the fact that it was out-dented. It was not a third opinion at all. Your advice at this point is solicited; would an additional request for a third opinion be appropriate? 02:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks; the article has been updated. 02:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for Third Opinion

I noticed that you are on the list of users offering "third opinions" in user disputes. I would like you to read User Talk:Bedford#Question and offer your view. The issue is whether it is acceptable to use "The War of Northern Aggression" as a substitute for "American Civil War". Thank you. Broooooooce (talk) 05:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

A third opinion's purpose is to cast a tiebreaker in a dispute between two editors, and that isn't what's going on, and that argument seems to have played itself out. I don't regard "War on Northern Aggression" as an acceptable substitute for "American Civil War" - in most contexts. I can see some instances where it may be appropriate.

PS - thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters

Your resizing of the images in List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters is not being correctly done, nor are the reasons being given. There is no hard/fast requirement that thumbnails never have a set size. Indeed, if there were such limits, the thumb option wouldn't allow a size to be set at all. Many featured articles and lists use images with set sizes. Wikipedia:Image use policy#Displayed image size does not declare no image sizes should ever be set. MOS:IMAGES even notes that lead images should be at least 300 pixels wide, and all infobox images default to 250px. Please stop resizing the images in this list without discussion or reason. They are both very valid. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 21:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you reading the same policy? It's quite explicit: Images should generally not be set to a fixed size (i.e. one that overrides the preferences settings of the individual users, see the Manual of Style).

If you want to set a fixed image size, don't call it a "thumb". That's why we have user settings for thumbnail images sizes. The fact that you can designate an image as "thumb" and set a size isn't relevant here; the "thumb" designation is intended for being sized by user preferences. If you don't like the size of the thumbnails, please change your own settings, and follow the image use policy, rather than hard-coding a thumbnail size in the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

"should generally" does not equal never do it, and that whole statement is HIGHLY disputed from previous discussions I have read. The vast majority of readers have no accounts and many editors do not know how to change their preferences. Reducing the image to a tiny, useless block does NOT help anyone at all. Also, note that further down in the display image size, it notes "Where size forcing is appropriate" which it is in both of these cases, same as with infoboxes. The images are not thumbnails, they are tagged thumb to put a caption on them. If there is another way to do that without calling them "thumbs" please explain so. "Frame" can not be used as it won't allow an image to be resized. Also, note that WP:PIC also allows for resizing, including telling you how to do it and noting that you must use thumb to set a specific image size.-- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 21:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Suspected sock puppets entry

I see that you beat me to filing an SSP report on the IIPM users by a couple of days :-). Thanks for the correction. I didn't realize that User:Sonu1008 was the first editor. Anyway, I guess we'll need to stave off the socks with measures like SSP or RFCU because perma-protection seems to be a long shot. Cheers, Max ^{- You were saying?} 11:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I think what happened was I created the entry, then got distracted by something before I finished the whole process, and didn't update the sockpuppet reporting page. Thanks for doing it again correctly. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Amatulic. I have posted an entry on the IIPM talk page proposing an indefinite full protect. Please weigh in over there. If we get a consensus among all editors, we can then approach admins with a request to do the same. Makrandjoshi (talk) 12:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Your deletion of my talk page discussions

Dear Amatulic, I noticed you've deleted some paras that I had posted (rather, copy pasted). I understand the points you've written :-) Best regards, Mrinal Pandey (talk) 07:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for understanding. Article talk pages aren't the place to be discussing peripheral content on user talk pages. Article talk pages discussions should focus on improving the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

AIV report

AIV is not the place to report bots. If the reqeust is urgent start a thread at ANI, if not leave a message at the operators talk page or the Bot owners' noticeboard. BJ^Talk 01:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know about Bot owners' noticeboard. I noticed the Recent Changes page filled up with a whole bunch of your edits reverting an unapproved bot, so my reaction was to report it somewhere. Didn't know at the time that you were an admin who probably had things under control. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, there are two different incidents here. The first was (two) malfunctions of [approved bot] that happened 5 days ago, was reported to ANI and the bot was subsequently blocked. Then today there was a minor error in this bot that is on trial. I was reverting the latter. BJ^Talk 01:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Jehovah Witness and The Name of G-D

Hey, you better figure out a way to stop me from deleting JW wiki.... to much bad stuff in it, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackhat sunday (talk • contribs) 15:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

contributions or contributions or whatever, if you have a specific complaint beyond a vague "too much bad stuff" then use the article's talk page to discuss it. That's what it's for. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:BobHeadshot.jpg DRV

Nice to see somebody using a bit of commensense. Cheers. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

French wine

I'm more than a little surprised at the edit summary of your edit to French wine where you leverage multiple accusations at me, for basically breaking every rule in the book, by simply restoring the article to a shape it has had for several months. The reason for me reverting the changes by Scaleshiper (talk · contribs) wholesale rather than partially can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wine#Strange edits by new accounts. Sure, some phrases could be improved, but right now the article is watered down a good way toward being meaningless! Are you seriously claiming that we do not say e.g. that high-end red Bordeaux is tannic, that Champagne is the world's most well-known sparkling wine and that more international grape varieties originate in France than in other countries? Is any of that the least controversial among those who know anything about wine??? Regards, Tomas e (talk) 20:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I accused you of nothing, other than restoring text that does break every rule. In particular, one I didn't mention in my edit summary was Wikipedia:Avoid peacock terms. I've been meaning to take a crack at the French wine article for quite some time to clean up the peacock terms, unsourced editorializing, etc., but haven't had the time to do so. When I saw on my watchlist that someone else came along and basically did what I wanted to do, I was distressed to see you restore all that fluff.

I disagree that the article has been watered down to being meaningless. The relevant facts remain. While it is true that my reversion had the side effect of removing some statements (such as those you mention above) that I would have kept myself, overall I thought the Scaleshiper's version was an improvement. Rather than restoring all the fluff, I recommend putting back individual statements that are neither controversial nor unnecessarily promotional.

Even the shorter version I reverted to is still, in my view, poorly sourced and needs much improvement. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is C-classed and I think that's accurate, i.e., fairly useful but could be very much improved. I don't agree with much else you write above; but I continue on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wine. Tomas e (talk) 22:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Feng shui COI

Hello,

Thank you for your comment on my talk page. Wikipedia Confilict of Interest: A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor.

COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where an editor must forgo advancing the aims of Wikipedia in order to advance outside interests, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.

If you read my postings on the Feng Shui page you will find that I am seeking consensus on this page. All information on this subject that meets Wikipedia's requirements should be included. I am promoting a complete source on this subject.--Sedonafengshui (talk) 23:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

It seemed to me that you have a goal of promoting information on a personal web site, which resulted in my note on your talk page. If I was mistaken in that impression, I apologize. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

that winery

be careful, if you start asking people on their talk pages to change their positions make sure you make it in a neutral way that only encourages people to take another look or inform them of new information not available at the time of the opinion, or else you can get in a lot of trouble.^MY♥_INchile 16:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I asked you to reconsider your position because your argument indicated that you didn't read the AfD rationale. Whether the article is kept or deleted, I want the arguments in the discussion to be valid and meaningful. Your argument listed organizational attributes that have nothing to do with the subject of the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

French Camp Vineyards AfD

Hi Amatulic, I saw your comment on the French Camp Vineyards AfD page about withdrawing the nomination. I closed the AfD just now, citing your withdrawal and keep opinion as the reason. If you ever want to withdraw an AfD nomination in the future, you can always close the discussion yourself by following these closure instructions, or ask one of the regular AfD admins or non-administrative closing users. Have a nice day, :-) Jamie^☆S93 21:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Wine and food matching

I agree with you that this is somewhat of a mess, but I think it is salvageable. Bearian (talk) 20:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

So do I. It would fail an AfD (the topic is notable), so there's no choice but to try and salvage it. Right now it looks like instructions on complying with personal opinions on how to match wine with things. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Noise music

Yes the prior editor Semitransgenic explained to me that I should add page #s - and I will. I was working from my notebooks and I am in Europe on vacation, but as soon as I get back to New York I will get the books out and add in the page #s.

But do you not think that 45 citations is enough?

Valueyou (talk) 07:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I've left another note on Valueyou's page regarding his use of citations. My general feeling, having checked a couple of the recently added page numbers, is that the citations are being placed in a manner that will lead a reader to view all of the information presented as having come from the cited sources: but this appears not to be the case, as the user is evidently padding the text entries with POV and other related, but unsourced, information. There are general issues with tone which, from my reading of it, seem to be inappropriate in an encyclopedic context. What is your view on this? Semitransgenic (talk) 17:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Would you please look again at the heavy handed editing being done by Semitransgenic on the Noise music page. In my opinion Semitransgenic is overcutting my contributions and charging me with WP:SYN -- even though I am only correctly stating historical facts (and backing them up) and I have no bias POV here to put forth.

Semitransgenic told me he was a format "nazi", which is OK by me, but now Semitransgenic has made content judgements such as claiming "incorrect attribution".

BTW - I agree with you that page #s need to be supplied and they will when I get back to my books next month (I am on vacation and working from my notebooks).

Please look at Semitransgenic in this regard as I do not wish to waste my time and knowledge.

Thanks again. Valueyou (talk) 14:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Valueyou: I've checked the texts you cited, as stated earlier, some of the information is there, but the remainder is then added by you and attributed to somebody else. This is intentionally misleading, it is also WP:OR. Irrespective of your personal knowledge base, or academic qualifications, correct attribution is important. I placed my objections on the talk page as requuired. Semitransgenic (talk) 14:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Valueyou: please continue on Talk:Noise music. One of the tenets here on Wikipedia is to Assume Good Faith. Semitransgenic seems to recognize that you are attempting to improve this article, and is helping you out by verifying that the claims made in the article correspond to what the cited sources say. Take it as constructive collaboration rather than combative argument. If the content doesn't match the sources, then it's perfectly valid to question the content or the attribution. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Spiteful Semitransgenic

Please see current spiteful dispute I am having with Semitransgenic at Tellus Audio Cassette Magazine and at the Noise music page. The issue is this: after a month of work I greatly improved the noise music page - providing wiki with an outstanding noise music page with extensive footnotes, some lacking only page # which I can provide in the near future (as previously explained a # of times), free of WP:OR & WP:SYN that stood for weeks. Semitransgenic then imposed a WP:OR deadline on my providing those page #s and when I challenged that arbitrary deadline Semitransgenic falsely accused me of sock-puppetry with the creator of the Tellus Audio Cassette Magazine - an outstanding wiki page started by Tellus archivist who has entered his resistance to Semitransgenic's dictates. (See talk page at Noise music) I strongly condemn Semitransgenic's tactics as he is doing it again at Tellus Audio Cassette Magazine in spite.

More evidence of Semitransgenic abuse: he has seen the results of the investigation into his charges of sock/meat puppetry against me here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Tellus_archivist) and knows (see his contrib page) me to be innocent of them -- yet he repeats them and has not apologized to me as he promised he would. As you can see, the result of his harassment was: "Clerk note: I've indefblocked Taxisfolder as an abandoned account but there is no overlap in activity or block evasion, so Valueyou is left alone. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I ask here for a Consensus that disciplinary measures be taken against Semitransgenic as he is a bully and self-declared nazi (see the top of my talk page – that is how he introduced himself to me). I may or may not be of the Jewish faith, but either way I find this kind of macho posturing repugnant. He also addressed me as “dude” later on in my talk page and as I am not of the male sex, I find that sort of address sexist. So, I am seeking a Consensus to out Semitransgenic from the music section of wiki as clearly he has no love of music or the artists who make it. I don't see any constructive contributions by Semitransgenic other posting ugly flag signs where talk on the discussion page would be better because these signs drive away users of wikipedia by making it look half-ass. I suggest that he be asked to go work on the Nazism page and leave the music section to those who love music. Valueyou (talk) 11:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to waste your time with this but for the record above user (et al.) is throwing a tantrum becasue they don't like regulations. Issue starts here. Long history of problematic behaviour, account swapping over 2 year, see comment by clerk. User believes real world credentials overules policy.

Are you an expert in this field? I am offering primary source information. This is differnt than a POV. They are important as a group not because some book said they are, but by their productivity - with which I am aware.

This is a fresh and emerging history and I would think that a PhD who has worked as an archivist at the Dia Art Foundation could offer such a list without a book saying it is OK. Valueyou (talk) 15:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

user is now engaging in flaming campaign as part of their protest. Semitransgenic (talk) 11:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is the above on my talk page? Valueyou, please take a wikibreak until you can return home to your books.

How someone presents himself on his userpage is irrelevant, and an honest mistake about gender is also irrelevant. Semitransgenic has been engaging in discussion on the talk page, asking for verifiable, reliable sources, and stating that claims made in the article aren't supported by the sources he has. Semitransgenic's impatience has led to personal attacks, which I don't condone. Both of you have utterly failed WP:AGF.

Please, don't carry out a behavioral dispute on the talk pages of users who aren't involved. If you want me involved, state exactly what you want me to do. I can offer advice, but remember I am not an administrator. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for this. I forgot to to get back here and clean up. Things got out of hand. I had no desire to engage you in any of this.The user in question cross posted the above in a number of locations. Won't happen again. Semitransgenic (talk) 20:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion at Talk:Taser

Thank you for providing a third opinion at Talk:Taser#Excited delirium as safety issue, it's much appreciated. I added a few clarifications at Talk:Taser#Third opinion that may be helpful. I would appreciate it if you would revisit the dispute. Thanks! Flatscan (talk) 03:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi again. Since you haven't written a new comment at the discussion, I'm leaving a one-time reminder. Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 02:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me

How was I being a vandal? (Music of Sri Lanka) article. Please see the discussion I initiated in the talk pages before removing the tag without justification. 123.255.38.129 (talk) 04:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

I had no problem with your tag. However, you tagged a vandalized version of the article. I simply reverted all the vandalism, and that reversion also deleted your tag.

In the future, before you tag something or make any edit to an article, check to make sure that the previous edit wasn't vandalism. The previous editor before you had vandalized the lead sentence, then deleted the entire lead paragraph. 15:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, though the vandalism was not obvious. You should have just replaced the tag after your revert. That would have been the way to go. Regardless good edit (the last one you made). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.255.38.129 (talk) 15:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Intelligent design

Intelligent design has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 21:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Links to Blogs

I think that the two links that I added and you removed can be very helpful for Wikipedia users. Does it matter that they are on my blog. I know that these links do not affect search engine ranking (which does not interest me). I just think that this information is useful for people who write book reviews, etc. Many thanks, Avior.

Two things:

• Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided guidelines are very clear. Blogs are not considered reliable resources for external linking in Wikipedia, unless the blog author is a recognized authority. You may be a recognized authority in musicology, but you are adding your blog links to unrelated articles such as graduate school.
• The external linking guidelines are explicit that you should not add links to your own web site. Please also review Wikipedia:Conflict of interest.

~Amatulić (talk) 18:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

I understand what you wrote yet I think that you miss the point of these links. One should judge the relevance of these links to Wikipedia users only according to their content. I do not know your background, yet many graduate students (also from fields other than musicology) found the pages that I added very helpful. Please read their content carefully and judge for yourself. This is NOT spam. Some blogs are not reliable. Some authors try to promote their blogs by adding links to content that has nothing to do with Wikipedia's content. I argue that this is not my case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviorbyron (talk • contribs) 16:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Please note that although the address of the link contains the word blog, the page appears in "resources" in the upper menu of my site. In other words, this is not a simple blog page, but something that I feel that has more authority and interest. This is why I stil think the link should be returned. Can I return the link? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviorbyron (talk • contribs) 16:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Please review Wikipedia's external link guidelines as well as the guidelines concerning conflict of interest. Have you read them? There is no need to debate with me, I don't make the rules. Bottom line, you are not to put links to your own web site on Wikipedia. If you feel the links are appropriate, suggest them on article talk pages and let the community decide. Several articles to which you added those links were not appropriate. For now, I'm leaving the links you added to Pierrot Lunaire alone, because you seem to be an authoritative voice on the subject, having published in a journal rather than a personal web site. If you add your own links to other unrelated pages without getting community approval on the talk pages, they will be reverted. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I am new to Wikipedia. Could you please tell me how to do that (getting community approval on the talk pages)? Many thanks, Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviorbyron (talk —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC).

It's simple. At the top of each article there is a series of tabs. The "Discussion" tab is the article's talk page. Introduce yourself on the talk page, and say you have a page on your site that you believe may be appropriate as an external link in the article. Request that someone place it on the article if the link seems appropriate.

If you have a link that qualifies as a source under the Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources policies, then you can use it in the article as an in-line citation in the article text, rather than a link down in the "External links" section. Citations are always preferable. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

heavy metal umlaut

Concerning your recent edit on heavy metal umlaut, please take a look at my contribution at the talk page – the tag was set because the name "heavy metal umlaut" is doubtful, not the fact that umlauts are used. (If you like to respond, I propose the article's talk page, not your talk page.) Best regards --Cyfal (talk) 15:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I responded on Talk:Heavy metal umlaut#Is "heavy metal umlaut" an established name? ~Amatulić (talk) 17:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

List of Common Misconceptions

Yes, it is. I work in a biological laboratory, in a building (Whitehead Biomedical Research Building of Emory University) with at least 50 other biological research laboratories within it. Nearly everyone I meet considers EtBr a potent carcinogen and teaches incoming students the same. There was a similar situation in biological laboratories at my undergraduate institution, Tulane University. This is a common misconception among biological scientists. If you are not trained in a biological field or in some way acquainted with modern laboratory research, please simply do not revert my edit next time. I apologize for editing your talk page here but I am unfamiliar with communicating with anyone who has reverted an edit of mine. Please let me know if my method of communication is unkind. Also, do you mind if I steal your talk page layout / "Helpful Information" box?Pwhitwor (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi. I disagree that your addition qualifies as a "common" misconception. The list of common misconceptions article concerns misconceptions common to the general population, not a subset population of specialists.

I don't mind you conversing on my talk page; that's what it's for. Feel free to copy what you want from it. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

I agree that not everyone has heard of EtBr, but believe that despite the introduction of the article referring to the general populace, the list is meant for misconceptions that affect simply a significant percentage of the general populace. Because there is a large number of universities, at which many students have taken biology courses in which EtBr is used, I believe this misconception qualifies as "common enough." Other misconceptions on the list seem likely to affect a similar or smaller number of people; for example, that ENIAC was the first digital computer, that a Crookes Radiometer does not rotate due to radiation pressure, and that the motion of a pendulum is only isochronic when the small angle approximation applies. Pwhitwor (talk) 23:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

The examples you mention are familiar to students at or below the high school level. Students haven't developed specialized fields of expertise by then. I seriously doubt that the small subset of biology students, and the even tinier subset of students who are exposed to knowledge about EtBr, qualifies as "common".

In any case, I will not revert you if you restore it with qualifiers stating that this is a misconception among biologists. The general reader would otherwise have no idea what you're talking about. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with your characterization of biology students as a "small subset," but understand your desire for qualifiers. Is the statement concerning EtBr all right as it is now? ("Ethidium bromide, despite its reputation in biological laboratories, is considered a possible mutagen but is not a known carcinogen.") The "reputation in biological laboratories" is a pretty good qualifier, but let me know if you don't like it or have something in mind. Pwhitwor (talk) 17:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Biology students who have been exposed to EtBr are a small subset of the general population. In any case, the qualifiers are fine. Don't be surprised if someone else deletes what you add for the same reasons I did, however. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Reinsurance page

I'm not sure why you keep deleting the link to GC Capital Ideas on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinsurance. If I were listing our corporate website, that would be a different story. But, GC Capital Ideas contains a substantial amount of information from which readers of the Reinsurance page may benefit. The research has been cited in several major publications (such as the Wall Street Journal, Financial Times and Economist). Google News has recognized GC Capital Ideas as an independent news source. Each of the users referred by Wikipedia has viewed several pages, suggesting the site's value as a source of information.

Also, on the Catastrophe Modeling page, how can you refer to the GC Capital Ideas link as "link spam" when you have allowed its use in five citations? Doesn't that suggest its value as a deeper source of information?

I understand the need to control link spam, and I absolutely agree with it. Yet, I do suspect that a knee-jerk reaction could deprive readers of useful information that has been carefully researched and written.

Guycarp (talk) 17:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

The links are being removed, and will continue to be removed, per the guideline Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. Because you are associated with the site, you should not be adding links to it in Wikipedia articles due to your conflict of interest. I reviewed the site, and the links appear to me to be an indirect attempt to promote services.

Submit your links for consideration on the article talk pages instead. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

William Bull Brewery

Regarding your note to another editor at William Bull Brewery about not removing a speedy deletion tag: that restriction only applies to an article's author. See WP:CSD (and the text of the speedy templates themselves). —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I already knew that. However, in this case the author of that article and the editor who subsequently removed the speedy tag have substantially similar edit histories, leading me to suspect some sockpuppetry going on. Therefore I felt it appropriate to provide a harmless warning if indeed the editor and author were associated. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Ah, OK, I see: Billrobo created the original De Bortoli article, so there's reason to think they're working together. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

1/ Is it possible to please reinstate the William Bull Brewery page? (please note that there many other Brewery and Micro-brewery articles on Wikipedia that have been treated more delicately). Alternatively, please provide some details of dispute resolution mechanisms.

2/ I always assumed Wikipedia editors are expected to update areas of expertise - the pages that have been created and edited fall into that category.

3/ The sockpuppetry accusation / slander is interesting. In most other areas of life mentoring the young is considered an honourable enterprise, but I can understand the issues of control faced by Wikipedia which cause (unfortunately justified) paranoia.

Sadly, the major outcome of the not too subtle approach has been the disillusionment of a young and potentially enthusiastic Wikipedia editor (and the disappointment of an existing editor).

Thanks for help with this. Billrobo (talk) 00:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Billrobo, thanks for engaging in discussion. To answer your points:

1. To reinstate a page that has been speedily deleted, you can appeal to the administrator who deleted it (User talk:Anthony Appleyard), or you can simply re-create the article. Be warned, however, that any article failing to meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion (particularly Wikipedia:Notability) are subject to deletion. Also bear in mind that an article must exist on its own merits. "Other articles like this exist" is not a reason to keep an article here. If other articles also fail to meet notability requirements, they should also be deleted. William Bull Brewery, unfortunately, is far too new to have achieved any notability. In a year or two, maybe it will warrant an article. For now, I suggest the best solution would be to create a section on "Other business ventures" in De Bortoli Wines, mentioning William Bull Brewery and any other spin-off businesses.
2. You are welcome to update articles in your area of expertise. However, the edit patterns of you and Beckycakes strongly suggest a conflict of interest. That's a different issue than merely editing in your area of expertise. Please read the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guidelines. You shouldn't be creating articles about business entities with which you are associated. Instead, you can request that an article be created at Wikipedia:Requested articles. The William Bull Brewery article in particular appeared to be an advertisement, as does 3Tales currently under deletion review. Advertisements masquerading as articles isn't permitted.
3. There was no slander, only an allegation. Many companies try hard to gain exposure on the English Wikipedia. Evidence of relationships between two accounts can be gleaned from editing patterns. If you are mentoring another editor to write articles about the business entities you work in, you are compounding a conflict of interest, especially when the results appear to be, essentially, advertising.

As to disillusionment, well, sometimes learning isn't easy. Wikipedia has many policies and guidelines. Editors are responsible for their actions. In this case, your actions have only resulted in deletion of some contributions. Fortunately they don't rise to the level of needing to block access to Wikipedia. Hope this helps. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguating that which is already specific

Hi again. I saw that you added a hatnote to Steven Weber (professor). That really isn't necessary, is it? If someone's typed in "Steven Weber (professor)", then that person already knows which Steven Weber he is looking for and doesn't really need to know about other Steven Webers. If the person came here through a link, then as well the person would likely not need to know about other people sharing that name. Just curious, particularly since I removed a bunch of hatnotes that the Australian duo had added to articles like this, which at the time I took as another attempt to get more pairs of eyes to go to pages with links to their articles. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It's not wrong to reference a disambiguation page in the event that there are alternate spellings of a name that a reader may be interested in, but I see your point. I won't object if you remove them again.

I only stuck it back in because I've made use of such things in the past myself when reading specific pages, to get information about related subjects that aren't appropriate to list in the "See also" section of the article. In that sense, it is useful to know what other articles exist with similar names. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

That's true if the topics are related. Some cosmically-oriented people would see having the same name as indicating some deeper relation, but I don't. :-) —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

If the topics are truly related, they would go in the "See also" section. I personally like seeing links to articles with similar names in a disambiguation note, but as I said, I won't object if you remove it from the "Steve Weber" article variants. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Pibgorn (Webcomic)

You have made some excellent changes to this article, much appreciated - specifically in the reference area. I noticed you deleted the external link to the "unofficial" tribute page (subsequently restored by another fan). Even though it's an unofficial page, named such only because it was not created by the artist, it's the only one there is... and full of information that I would normally have liked to see here on Wikipedia. It was actually created in order to preserve much of the info that didn't survive Wiki's content guidelines. Brooke knows it's there, and appreciates its presence... If you have Wiki concerns - perhaps we could call it something else - please let me know... I'm open to solutions. ccdesan (talk) 02:04, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

We not only have content guidelines, but also external linking guidelines. The concern is that it's a fansite, which disqualifies it from external linking on Wikipedia. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

The_Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management

Same old story at IIPM. Sock puppets are back in full force, now that the semi-protect has expired. I've made another RFP for the page. Please help in undoing the sock puppets' mischief. Thanks. Makrandjoshi (talk) 16:06, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Somalia

Hi Amatulić. You offered a third opinion at Talk:Somalia stating that three editors were involved, but I wasn't involved in the dispute, so only two editors were involved. I noticed the dispute, and like you, offered an opinion. Having looked at your views I wonder if you are missing the main point of the issue. Ultimately it is not about whether CE or AD, or neither, is correct, but about whether the change from one notation to another is in breach of policy. In my view it is. Maybe you could comment also. WizOfOz (talk) 09:20, 9 January 2009 (UTC)