User talk:Slp1

Welcome!

Hello, Slp1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  --Scott Grayban 06:45, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Speedy Deletions

Thanks. I'm just new to this AFD/Cracking down on vandalism stuff. I'll check/make sure from now on. Stormtracker94 21:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

FA

Some Oreos for your work on getting École Polytechnique massacre to featured status

Enfin! Good work, have some cookies. bobanny 05:08, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Whooohoo! Great work. Dina 23:36, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

laurie dann

Keep me posted what you learn when you get the books. I was in Evanston at the time of the murders so I remembered the coverage (and specifically the "from your little sisters" note) well, and have been interested in it ever since. csloat 03:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on User talk:Ramseym

For the record, the article on VML, Inc. does exist--the provided link was simply a bad one. --Finngall ^talk 22:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so the VML entry was bad example and is being deleted? That is what I based my entry off of. I will revise my entry to follow an encyclopedia format.Ramseym 22:27, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Marc Lépine

Hey, it looks like the original French suicide letter was deleted off of the French Wikisource. Here's the log. Would you be able to look into it? My French is fairly substandard. --Wafulz 17:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping track of this and seeking to have it sorted out. I suspect you have other languages that are not substandard! I tried to look into the problem earlier after your message on the talkpage, but your link to the the log helped a lot. Judging by the deletion discussion here [1] there were doubts about whether the letter was in the public domain and it was deleted as a result. Interestingly, an administrator made the comment that Fair Use (or Fair Dealing in Canada) would mean that reproducing the letter would be justifiable on Wikipedia, but that these reasonings do not apply to Wikisource. Luckily, I have found another source in French for the letter so will just make a change in the link in the article so that we will be back where we started. --Slp1 22:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright, that'll do just fine. Thanks for your help. --Wafulz 22:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Error

Maybe it was an error in the Twinkle thing you use but you placed an article-related speedy tag on User talk:Tweetsabird. Please try to avoid that in the future. --Spike Wilbury 05:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry and I will! My apologies for the mistake.--Slp1 21:32, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the confusion

I didnt. There was a bit of confusion because the user just before me blanked the page just as I was editing.--Why Does Life Suck So Bad? 23:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

There were several edit conflicts, once I finally got done, I thought I did the right thing, but it somehow blanked the page.Cowardly 23:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Bud Grant

Thanks Slp1 for the comments in regards to the Bud Grant article. Your input was valuable and I made changes based on the feedback. Thanks again for the assistance! RyguyMN 05:21, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Terry Wogan

Thanks for your comments in the peer review - they're quite helpful. I didn't originally write the article: I just started out by removing a trivia section. Problem was, I couldn't see what was useful and what wasn't, hence the need for an outside perspective. Your comments are greatly appreciated --Fritzpoll 15:30, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Token Test

Thank you for the kind message. I am a speech language pathologist within a public school system who frequently uses the Token Test. It was my pleasure to add a picture of an administration of the test; I did the same for the MISA which I also use. I did notice, later, that I posted the picture saying it showed 'the author' giving the test. When the wiki script asked me to confirm that I was the author of the picture, I said yes! So, I guess it now seems like the author of the test posted it. Sorry for any confusion. I am NOT the author of the test and that is not his/her child. The picture is the back of my head and a child of a close friend. My thought is that parents would very much like to see what an admlinistration of the test would 'look like'. Again, thanks for the encouragement and have a great day. T. Tompkins, SLP.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Tammykps (talk • contribs) 18:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Nominated for Speedy Deletion

I was just curious what warranted this for GiveJesusMoney.com

---

no worries, I'm very new to this so when I make a mistake I try to find out what mistake it was and correct it and learn not to do it again. I wasn't sure where to talk to you at lol I had messages everywhere and wasn't sure which page to wait on. I'm a bit of a twit, feel free to toss something off of my head.Genghis John2005 04:21, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan)

Thank you for the pointer to the Baker articles on Factiva. It cost $69 plus a few dollars per article - but well worth it. The extra sources mean that there is no longer any concerns about undue weight regarding my citations, and brings a very long discussion to conclusion. I really appreciate it. -- Sparkzilla talk! 09:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your recent comments on the Baker page. It's a pity about the defense documents. I wonder if you wouldn't mind re-inserting the information regarding my editorial (which you had so kindly supplied the extra external sources for)? As an aside, I had a run-in with SlimVirgin some time back and I think that has influenced his view of my contributions.

I also think Cla68's suggestion that the page not be viewed as a BLP is useful. Thank you. -- Sparkzilla talk! 04:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

You may want to add this Metropolis article to support the Times article that said Baker was threatened. [2]. Thank you for your help. -- Sparkzilla talk! 08:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

There is also quite a lot of useful information in the IBA report [3] (from page 159) -- Sparkzilla talk! 16:26, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Attack articles

I sourced Andrew McCarthy's use of torture. Can I restart the article on William Cash, as I have the source for his critiques of Jewish influence in hollywood.

Thanks

Hi, thanks for picking up my poor arithmetic on that prod for Matthew Elliott (American Gladiator) and substituting your own reasoning. Much appreciated. CIreland 01:51, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

+speedy for copyvios

Hi Slp, thanks for pointing that out - it was the third one I listed tonight, the others should probably have been speedy as well. I'll bear it in mind for the future. pablo_|\talk 23:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks/Sorry

I'm a new Wikipedian. Just wanted to thank you for the help with my first article and say sorry for all the trouble it caused. Any new articles will be permanent. Thanks again. KwoodXCJake 15:56, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Bernard marx

Ahh, no one is saying it is silly, at least not me. But an article already existed for him, and properly capitalized in the title and it was redirected to Brave New World. If it didn't survive as a stand alone article once, it won't do it now. Postcard Cathy 04:14, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Notability

Thanks for posting this essay to the Nicholas John Baker talk page. It was really worth the read. Too bad it's not policy yet. J Readings 13:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Ecole poly

That is awesome! How did it happen? Wow, an article that has already had it's share of vandals on the front page will keep us all busy. Perhaps we'll see some old friends...;) Dina 14:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Slp1

hiya nope think I'm just tired. Thanks for moving the sandbox I created into my userspace from mainspace. I created it for somebody else and obviously forgot his/her name. again I have moved it to its rightful owner. thanks for the vigilance, mikey x x Mike33 - t@lk 02:44, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

DYK

On 31 July, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Helen Dore Boylston, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Espresso Addict 12:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome

Glad I could help. I didn't know much about the École Polytechnique massacre before it showed up on the Main Page, and I happened to catch that error report. I'm frankly horrified that this attack isn't mentioned in the same breath as the shootings at Columbine or Virginia Tech — perhaps the U.S. media thinks that Americans won't care about something that happened in Canada, or worse, they think we won't care about an attack in which the targets were women (feminists, even!). I'll try to keep an eye on the page in future — it's on my watchlist, at least, so if I'm active here I'll be able to watch what's going on. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Copyvios

Odd. You tag pages found by CSBot with db-copyvio, but with different sources— are you using some kind of helping tool or doing searches by hand? Just curious. — Coren ^(talk) 01:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, in the case of David Beisel, you found a better source for the copying. (Which means you're smarter than a few hundred lines of perl. I suppose that's a good thing!)  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 01:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

All the bot does is place a tag for humans to see (and post it at Wikipedia:Suspected copyright violations), so what you're doing is fine— it just gets the copyvio deleted that much faster. — Coren ^(talk) 02:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

ushmm.org

Hey there.

I've added .ushmm.org to the list of exclusions handled by CSBot, and new articles should no longer get warnings about copies from that site. — Coren ^(talk) 19:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Imran Khan

This is in reference to "BLP claims not confirmed by the sources" in relation to Imran Khan There is progression of Taliban involvement, and repeated statements by Imran Khan in support of taliban. What kind of "confirmation" are you looking for? M12390 04:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Check this out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Imran_Khan#Probably_libellous_section_heading_removed M12390 19:39, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Bombos

Hi, thanks for nominating this for speedy deletion - it looks like I PROD'd it just after someone deleted, it, and in the process I accidentally re-created. D'Oh! Cheers, Davidprior 01:04, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Found the cause of my issue - the first item in the bug section at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject User scripts/Scripts/Twinkle - dunno if this explains what you've been seeing. Davidprior 01:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Did you think to check the disambiguation page?

That's what the disambiguation page is for, to disambiguate things. I moved it that way because its the proper way to point to the articles. Also, check the "Dear Enemy (novel)" page and youll find the exact page as it was originally. I simply went into the edit mode of the original Dear Enemy page and copied all and pasted it into the new "Dear Enemy (novel)" page. Simple as toast. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ricketgt (talk • contribs) 03:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

NROAH Caption Edit

This looks like it will work. Mahalo for your help.--Laualoha 00:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

AFDs

Thanks a lot! I'm getting the hang of this. Stormtracker94 21:13, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Fruck

Just wanted you to know that I appreciated the correction to the proper deletion process -- I was a little too hasty with my nonsense tag, and I should have remembered that neologisms aren't the proper subject of speedies. Thanks for the correction. Accounting4Taste 22:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely right; neologisms, however silly, should be prodded. Thanks for calling it an edit conflict!! LOL (Easy to tell we're both Canucks.) Accounting4Taste 22:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Is swearing illigle

Hi... Hoaxes are actually speediable as patent nonsense, in case you wanted to retag the article. --Rrburke^(talk) 22:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. The article creator had actually removed a speedy tag that predated your prod. I restored it, but feel free to revert me. --Rrburke^(talk) 22:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

William Wilberforce

I too am working through material on Wilberforce with the aim of getting this article up to scratch.

I have enlisted the help of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography, for whom it was once (I believe) collaboration of the month, if I remember correctly. I rewrote virtually the whole article at the beginning of the year but, unfortunately, owing to ill-health at the time, I had to leave my contributions in March/April – but I'm now back and would really like to see this article improved as much as possible.

It would be good to get it up to GA status, and possibly considered as a Featured Article before the end of the year. This would be expecially appropriate, as 2007 is the bicentenary of the Bill to abolish the slave trade. Regards – Agendum 13:36, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I have had to cite the earlier version of the DNB, dated 1900 (which is available online if you click on 'DNB Archive' next to the modern article). In order to differentiate beteween the two versions I have taken the liberty of changing your references to the new one to 'ODNB' and using 'DNB' for the old one. Please change this back if you don't approve - as you clearly know what you're doing and are much more aware of how to correctly cite references than I am. I'm busy finding the missing citations, as well as other details which need to be added.

I think it's beginning to look better, though. Although there is still a whole missing section from the middle of his life and career to work on.... Cheers, Bruce Agendum 23:19, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Sainthood

I'm curious why you deleted the Saintbox. If you'll take a look at other persons who have been recognized with Christian liturgical commemorations, most of them on Wikipedia have included the "saintbox." This helps the Wiki Saints portal keep track of persons who received that recognition. You asserted that it "doesn't add much," but I believe it did: including his feast day, which church recognizes him, a prayer associated with his commemoration, and his birth/date date with age (important in hagiographical research).

I don't just want to put up the box again, and start a deletion war, but I'd like to hear your reasons for taking it down.

Thanks Diezba (talk) 00:27, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Stuttering FAR

Stuttering 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. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

William Wilberforce

I'm not sure why you reverted my edit - I concatenated all the refs to Page 251 ... ie to a page reference. The concatentation saves making a separate entry/footnote for each citation that points to that page. I believe this is common practice. I left all the other Hochschild refs as they were because they were to different pages. Can I suggest you revert back to my edit please? Sterry2607 02:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for agreeing to the revert - much appreciated. Sterry2607 12:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

'S OK, all's well that ends well...I've been afflicted by similar blindness myself...see you 'round the traps! Sterry2607 22:52, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your response a few weeks ago. I too am committed to the improvement of this article, but am rather limited at the moment because of real-life commitments. I've managed to amplify the first paragraph, as suggested by María, and am trying to get hold of William Hague's new biography of WW from the library. I'm also dipping into Hochschild's excellent book again, in order to find the citations required. I hope to have opportunity to spend some quality time on the article in a few days. Cheers – Agendum 09:58, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

I see that you've managed to acquire a copy of Hague's book – I have had to read snippets of it (and of other works) in Borders bookshop, and try to remember page references! – but I may get a copy for Christmas. This is looking far more balanced (now that it isn't looking like a promotional piece for Pollock's biography). I know that you have more work to do on this, but I feel it may be time to seek Peer Review on the article, and hopefully get it up to GA standard by Christmas. I had originally nursed a hope that it could become FA by the end of 2007, although time is now very short. Please let me know what you think. Cheers, Bruce Agendum (talk) 22:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I have taken advice from other editors and, rather than submit for Peer Review, I've gone straight to A-Class Review. I'm still aware that a bit more work is needed, but the article's in a much better state than when it received B-Class rating in February. Hopefully, we will get some practical suggestions about improvments to try and bring it up to FA standard.

I do understand that you have limited access for the next little while, so may not be able to contribute for a while. I have Hague's book on order at the library, and am hopeful of getting it soon - as there are five copies in the libraries around Norfolk and Norwich - so I may be able to continue citing additional material from that source. Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 00:29, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Greg Felton

The link from Canada.com which states Felton wrote for the National Vanguard will be re-added tomorrow. Please do not censor information.

--Eternalsleeper 18:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

If Slp1 doesn't remove it, I will. I have his permission.

You REALLY must want to be banned. Voxveritatis 02:43, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Regarding BLP sources

One thing, the ethnicity counld be fairly important as it have 1. informative value for the reader 2. in spcieal cases it have a statistical importance. Any way, I think that about the last 3 economoic Noble winners it is completly wrong to delete their Jewish origin from the article, at least. Best for you --Gilisa 14:20, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

N.M. Kelby

I will be restoring the citation tags on the N.M. Kelby article, since there are no reliable sources which document the claims in the article. Corvus cornix 21:48, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Where does her personal resume say she grew up in Florida? Corvus cornix 21:53, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I still don't see what you're pointing to. Where in the resume does it say she grew up in Florida? What section? And book reviews are not reliable sources for verification of facts. Corvus cornix 22:02, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't delete any reference, I re-added the citation tags by hind. And book reviews are obviously not reliable sources, since they're personal opinions and not vetted for accuracy like news articles are. Corvus cornix 22:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Message moved from userpage

I just had a moment to look back at Wikipedia after I put up a bit about my daughter Emma. I saw it had all been removed now. Thank you for your balanced remarks on the page at the time. I would never try again to enter Wikipedia again as I dind't realise at that time how badly thought of Wikipedia is in Chess & other circles.After reading some comments from admin as ( Eliminator JR ) ( a chess playing train buff ) I think he's in need of surgery. However Slp1 thank you again. Best regards, David Bentley.

Thanks and FYI

Hi Slp!: Just a final note to thank you for your diligence regarding eternalsleeper's misconduct. I came across this link by chance and thought you might find it of interest. Best regards, Greg Felton Voxveritatis 05:36, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Stuttering

Hi, slp, how are you? You've done a tremendous amount of work on stuttering, but it still has unresolved issues, and the time to decide whether to push to retain status, ask for more time, or let it go is upon us. If you think you can finish up in a week or so, we can ask for more time and I can dig in to help (I have some free time now). Or, it can be delisted, and you can re-apply at WP:FAC when you're ready, and it will a featured article to your credit.

I need to look at it tonight and see if we can "get there from here". So far I see that ...

The lead needs to be rewritten, cultural aspects is still uncited, Classification is not classification, and we need to check that it's comprehensive, copy-edited and meets WP:MEDMOS guidelines, in particular with respect to the needed sections and referencing. I see that you are adding cites to textbooks rather than the peer-reviewed journal literature; most FAs are cited to peer-reviewed journal literature rather than self-published work. Do those textbooks also cite the journal literature that the conclusions are based upon? If so, we could add the PMIDs, "as cited in Ward", etc. Can you drop a note at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Stuttering to let other reviewers know which way you want to head with the article? IF you want to push to finish, I'll do what I can to help, but since I don't know the subject matter, that would be mostly formatting, copyediting, etc. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC) P.S. For comparable featured articles relative to WP:MEDMOS, you can look at Tourette syndrome, autism and Asperger syndrome. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

From my talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:40, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for your message. And also for your editing of the article today. I have watched and learnt and won't put you to the same trouble in the future! Finding where that long dash is on my keyboard is going to be task one.

I personally would like to start what I have finished, which is to try and save FA status now, if at all possible. I think it is possible, and that a week or two could do it, especially if there is some help in the offing!

My approach has been to rewrite and cite the main sections, thinking that the lead should come last. I have questions about the need for/extent of the cultural aspects section, and would be glad of some input and discussion on this topic. I agree that the classification is not classification and in the addition the collection of other disorders mentioned there seems extremely random. Looking at other similar articles will help focus what should be in that section.

Re: the books I have used.... they are not really textbooks but scholarly books written by leading academics and researchers in the field. While there are probably some citations that I could narrow down to a specific research paper as you suggest, I personally feel that in many cases the books are actually the best sources for such an article. We get the benefit of the distillation of knowledge, based on thorough summaries of the research literature, and published by reputable academic publishers. Before I drop a note, as you suggest, I would like to get this issue clarified, since if this citing from these books is going to be frowned upon, I will likely give up the project. --Slp1 21:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Lost a big long response to an edit conflict, computer issues here because of a storm, will start over in a bit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Trying again. On dashes, see WP:DASH for a description of the differences between WP:HYPHENs (-), endashes (–) and emdashes (—). Hyphens join words, endashes are used on page, date, number ranges, emdashes are used for punctuation. If the WP:DASH article doesn't help you figure out how to enter them directly from your keyboard, you can find them below the reply window, in the line that begins with a bold Insert (the first character after insert is an endash, the next is an emdash). Alternately, you can just copy-paste one of mine. If you don't want to mess with them, I don't mind fixing those sorts of things so you can focus on writing.

I agree that the WP:LEAD can be written last, after the rest of the content is nailed down; I just wanted to make sure that was the plan.

On cultural references, the best info is at WP:MEDMOS, and it references the article I wrote, Tourette syndrome, as an example. I already moved a lot of that content out, but more could be moved. Cultural references should include only things or people that have made a lasting impression upon perception of the condition; anything else can go to daughter articles.

We need to make sure all recommended content sections per WP:MEDMOS are there, and sections like Classification need to be rewritten.

On the books, generally other FAs refer to the highest-quality peer-reviewed sources, usually recent reviews printed in the highest-quality journals. In this case, since I don't know the topic matter, I would have to rely on your judgment on the books. The problem with books is that they aren't peer-reviewed, and some can be self-published quackery or be biased towards the author's opinions. I feel better when I see the highest quality medical publishers (like Wiley) and I don't recognize those publishers. If you are convinced these books reflect a review of the most up-to-date, comprehensive, peer-reviewed, journal-published literature, I'd have to trust you, as you are the only subject matter expert on board. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Some of the cultural stuff is actually History; the article is lacking a History section per WP:MEDMOS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

When you have time, to weigh in at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Anti-stuttering_devices.2C_Stuttering SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Our anonymous friend

Hello,

Could you keep an eye on the Lorne Calvert page as well? 71. seems to be having a prolific day. CJCurrie 01:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

William Wilberforce

William is looking quite good! A couple of people you might want to have browse it when you feel ready (tell them I sent you) are qp10qp (talk · contribs) and Outriggr (talk · contribs). I saw a wee bit of WP:OVERLINKing, but ping me when you're farther along and we don't have our plates full of "other stuff". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I think we're really making headway now! Please continue to correct my prose where you see it doesn't flow too well - I'm trying to do the same as I now re-read it at a distance of six months or so, and see where it could be rephrased or improved. By the way, I'm not sure about one of the changes you've made, which is to one of the references after the word Fontainebleau – I think it it may be a mistake.

Do keep an eye on the A-class review page at [4] – where the article (currently No 2.2) is beginning to receive comments. I will be monitoring this and also taking in previous criticisms that have been received and not yet acted upon – hopefully by the end of this week. Cheers – Bruce Agendum (talk) 00:23, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It's looking good, my friend. I'm sorry that I haven't been able to do as much as I wished over the Christmas/New Year break, as I had to attend various family gatherings - as well as dodging the inevitable illnesses and sore throats, etc. At least I was given a copy of William Hague's biography of WW, so I'll be able to do a bit more, now that I'm back at work! Cheers – Agendum (talk) 00:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest/Noticeboard notification

I am notifying all interested parties that I have listed the articles Anti-stuttering devices and Stuttering at the Conflict of Interest/Noticeboard, as well as Tdkehoe's conflict of interest in editing these. Please participate in the process there. Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 20:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Slp1, with my new duties at FAC, the holidays approaching, and a very sick dog to boot, I am going to have to cut back somewhere over the next few weeks. I am very troubled that you have had to expend so much time and effort dealing with this issue, but I hope there are enough eyes on it now. Will you please ping me if I can be of any help in the future? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:30, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the kind words, Slp1; recover isn't the word, we're hoping for a peaceful passing when the time comes. Ugh. I had to make the decision once, and that was awful. When it rains, it pours, ya know? Anyway, do ping me at the slightest need. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I am keeping an eye on both pages - while I don't have the expertise to help much here, please let me know if I can be of assistance and thanks for what you are doing here, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:01, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Glad to be of help - I can revert vandalism and obviously bad edits, just don't have your subject area expertise Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:36, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

A request for comment/opinion

If you are able and willing to check a number of diffs in the Joe Klein and Glenn Greenwald articles then I would be much obliged.

In order to avoid an edit war, I have held off on reverting the articles; but I cannot deny that I am seeing red and am also hot under the collar (don't you know). I cannot help but think that the primary goal of the person making changes is to minimize what Klein has done and to rationalize said minimizing by claiming that Biography of Living Persons standards require a he said/she said commentary. I know that we are supposed to assume good faith and all of that, but this is getting to be a bit much. First, much of the text with the citations are removed -- supposedly because of bias -- and then the text is neutered because of the lack of citations.

Please help resolve these controversies if you are able and willing. Thank you.

--Nbahn (talk) 11:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for supporting my RFA

	<font=3> Thanks for your support, my request for adminship passed 62/0/0 yesterday! I want to thank Snowolf and Dincher for nominating me, those who updated the RfA tally, and everyone for their support and many kind words. I will do my best to use the new tools carefully and responsibly (and since you are reading this, I haven't yet deleted your talk page by accident!). Please let me know if there is anything I can do to be of assistance, and keep an eye out for a little green fish with a mop on the road to an even better encyclopedia. Thanks again and take care, Ruhrfisch ><>°° 21:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks too for the idea for the thanks picture Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 21:27, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I gave you credit for the idea here, not sure if you saw that or not. Glad you liked it - I was afraid it might be a bit silly (not that there's anything wrong with that) or seen as pretentious. Thanks again, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Ultra busy in real life, so sorry to be slow in responding, but thanks for letting me know it is OK, take care, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 02:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Dear Slp1, I wanted to wish you a very Merry Christmas and all the best for the New Year! Yours, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 22:34, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Cheers! [5] Me and keyboards don't mix too well! Pedro :  Chat  00:39, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Slp1! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. β^_command 03:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Felton

The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced you're correct. This is a good example of how failing the WP:BIO guidelines risks a POV article. There are no real sources about the subject himself and I think divining the subject's views from his writing is borderline OR and certainly does not allow for a NPOV. Is there any reason to wait for protection to expire? I suspect not. DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Greg Felton is not someone I am interested in. I created his page and figured that he was worthy and notable enough to have such; if other people disagree that's their preogotive and I respect their input. I find his accusations about me comical and annoying at the same time, but I am not going to bother with him or his page anymore. I voted to keep the page due to the fact I believe he is notable due to the controversial nature of his writings which are somewhat well known within the community who follows these events and writers. All you have to do is go to the subjects own site or run his name on google and you will what I mean. Anyhow, best regards and happy new year.

--Eternalsleeper (talk) 05:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Slp 1: No, no offence taken. I understand your position, but I have made a case that the page should remain up. (Please see comments on the discussion forum regarding deletion.) As far as eternalsleeper is concerned, his claim of disinterest is demonstrably false. Were it not for his "interest," my page would not have been created. I stand by everything I have said. 70.71.63.84 (talk) 07:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Eternalsleeper: action, please!

Hi Slp!: As you appear to be a senior editor, I'll address this question to you in hopes that I will get a response on my talk page. Time and again eternalsleeper has claimed that my page is important because of the controversial nature of my writing, yet the minute that good researchers like Tiamut annd Hyperionsteel flesh out my page properly, he changes his tune: "This article has become comical. I could find more to write about a 2nd year political science student, let alone someone who maintains their own web site and pretends to be an "investigative reporter!" --Eternalsleeper (talk) 02:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Please explain to me why eternalsleeper has not been dealt with.

Thanks.

Voxveritatis (talk) 04:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me. My problem is not that eternalsleeper changed his mind, but that he habitually behaves with utter contempt for honesty and Wikipedia rules of conduct.

My question had to do with the fact that he has a huge rap sheet of misconduct, has misrepresetned his attitude toward me, and still is allowed to muck about in Wikipedia. What does a person have to do to get banned?

Voxveritatis (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• Slp1, I have not edited his page for 3 months until today when I removed something that had a dead link for reference. This users comments are becoming harassing to me. There is not a huge rap sheet of misconduct, the user in question has only contributed to what he claims is his own page. As this user seems to rely on you, please tell this user to back off making accusations about me. He is breaking a lot of rules and has not received a reprimand.

--Eternalsleeper (talk) 01:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Response from Hyperionsteel

The references I made to Felton's work were certainly not self-serving, did not involve claims about events to third parties, did not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject, and, finally, there is no doubt that Felton wrote these articles. While there were few primary sources before, several have since been added.

It seems that you believe the quotes are contentious, but this could apply to practially anything, depending on your point of view. Even Felton himself, who apparently (although I can't say for sure) has contributed to the talk page under the name "Voxveritatis" of the wikipage, doesn't deny or protest that his views were posted. I believe that maybe you are interpreting these rules to strictly.

By the way, I added more context to the quote that "Al-Qaida doesn't exist."(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC))

replied on users talkpage.--Slp1 (talk) 00:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Response to another of your comments

(retrived from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Greg_Felton) '::As an aside, Hyperionsteel, you seem to misunderstand Wikipedia. We don't need or want 'all of his views' here. The problem (as has been pointed out several times) is that you have been deciding (in this and other articles) which of a person's views are notable, which is Original research and has often appeared to be Quote mining.--Slp1 (talk) 01:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)'

I disagree with your statement. Felton's views on Israel are one of the major points of this article. In fact, the largest section deals with the controversy over his views on Israel. What's wrong with, in addition to this, quoting articles that he has written in which he makes further statements on Israel. I didn't decide that this topic was important, but rather Tiamut did when he/she created the section which covered the controversy over Felton's views on Israel. How can quoting from his articles in which he discusses Israel not be important? I acknowledge that his views on the Holocaust and Irwin Cotler may not be relevant to this section but his views on Israel are. I am citing original sources (i.e. written by Felton) but aren't these relevant to the aforementioned topic? (Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC))

Some thoughts on the Felton article

It's a difficult and frustrating issue for me. On one hand, I don't want to violate wiki rules, but on the other, Felton holds very extreme views on Israel, Jews, and the Holocaust which I felt very strongly should be included in the article. My concern is that Tiamut's version whitewashed Felton's views as they made no reference to his written comments that Israel shouldn't exist (or should be moved to Europe) and his questioning of the Holocaust (although I acknowledge is not an outright Holocaust denier). I believe these are important to the article, although I admit I can't find any proper secondary sources that discuss them (although there are plenty of blogs and chatrooms which discuss them endlessly). Do you have any thoughts as to how to deal with this? (Hyperionsteel (talk) 07:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC))

Has the article been removed?

Regarding the article on Greg Felton, I can't find it. Does that mean that its been pulled? (If it has been removed, its actually a relief - I was getting tired of fighting over its content - I am ready to move on.)

Could the Felton article be Reinstated?

I have no plans to resurrect this article but its possible somebody else may try to. Is a block in place to stop this from happening? I ask because I'd rather not go through all this again. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 03:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC))

Attacks

You have a point that my last message may have been a bit intemperate, although certainly provoked by: "obsessive-compulsive behavior", "$#!+ or get off the pot. Move on, already. Find a new hobby.", "some deep and fundamental obsession that must lead to questions of your rationality" all of which Mr. Alansohn wrote about me on the Talk:Dane_Rauschenberg page. I will be careful to not stoop to his level in the future. Xcstar (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Done. Xcstar (talk) 19:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
• I think we have accidentally started a second edit war: [6] Xcstar (talk) 19:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• I understand. Things on Wikipedia come out in print different from the tone which would be conveyed orally. I am disengaging. Thanks, Xcstar (talk) 19:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Child Support

Appearing to violate NPOV is not the same thing as violating NPOV. Your CENSORHIP of criticism in a criticism section is completely unwarranted, and if it persists, I will bring in arbitration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.130.34.227 (talk) 01:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Categories

Hi,

I noticed this diff; the same category can be displayed, with a hyperlink, using a leading colon before 'Category':

[[Category:Endocrinology]] > [[:Category:Endocrinology]] = Category:Endocrinology

No need for the nowiki tags, and the link is a bit more functional. Also works for images:

Image:TylerDavidsonFountainAtNight.jpg

I always found this handy. WLU (talk) 11:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Anytime. :)

No problem at all. There were so many diffs there--I've totally done the same thing. :)

BTW, since our charming POV editor has moved on to vandalizing my User Page, I did send a report about his activities over to WP:ANI. It seems as though he's getting angrier and angrier, so I figured I'd err on the side of caution and let the admins know about it. DanielEng (talk) 02:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

A note of thanks

Thank you, Slp1, for your support during this unpleasant incident; I am most grateful. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

School Transcripts

FWIW, I read through the entire thread and it was a mistake to engage him on this issue. He's very combative (which is not necessarily a bad thing), but his whole Socratic dialogue approach to interpreting Wiki policies and guidelines is kind of pointless because at the end of the day "academic transcripts" or "university transcripts" or "school transcripts" are not identified as secondary sources in either the guidelines or the policies. Generally speaking, I think he wants them to be there (otherwise, why go through all of this?), but he attacks anyone who makes constructive comments. I don't know what he wants from the noticeboard. J Readings (talk) 00:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Galloway

Pleasse check that my addition is proper. I have quoted the most recent biography of Galloway.21stCenturyBuoy (talk) 09:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC) Could you please help on how we get a judgement on this? Thank you21stCenturyBuoy (talk) 13:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Ernest Shackleton

Hey there, thanks for your comments on the Shackleton article. I think I've addressed the issues which you raised and was wondering if you could take a look at the article and see if you can see any more areas needing improvement. Also, thanks for fixing up the article a bit. Lazulilasher (talk) 15:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks much for the congratulations...and also for the contributions to the article itself. That sort of thing is always great! Let's see what else we can do....I'm eyeing up old Roald Amundsen :) Hehe...those guys were freaking rockstars. Lazulilasher (talk) 01:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Gaijin

Thanks for your vigilance at Gaijin. As can be seen from the page history, the present issue and the cycle of reverts has been going on for a very long time. It has unfortunately driven a few editors away from the article. Yesterday I filed a request for semi-protection. However, it was denied. While I applaud your efforts, continuously reverting is bound to get registered users blocked (WP:3RR), while IP users merely just need to change their IP, so I advise caution. Bendono (talk) 00:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Despite my better judgment, I took a look at the gaijin page today after retiring from the article and, sure enough, the POV-pushing anon SPA is back in force. This guy is clearly disruptive, possibly a sockpuppet, and based on his edit history, cannot be reasoned with since the IP editor won't discuss anything on the talk page and disrespects WP:CONSENSUS, which is why I left the page. I believe someone should request that the page either be semi-protected or the POV-pushing SPA be blocked indefinitely. This nonsense really needs to stop. J Readings (talk) 07:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Apology from Marvin Shilmer

Slp1: I want to apologize for conducting myself in a way felt by you as uncivil. As you can see from my lack of complaining about editor Cfrito’s conduct toward me, I have a fairly high tolerance for individuality. Even the serious accusations of plagiarism I left alone until my firm request that he cease was ignored. My tolerance for individuality is something that is, to me, a good thing. I assume the same of others. Accordingly I tend to speak frankly and straight to the point. So, for example, when I read a non-answer response to a specific question I state that the response is a non-answer. From me, this is not an insult. I have no need or intent to insult anyone here. I do not even know anyone here personally, to have an opinion one way or another to feel compelled to insult. During our brief exchange I was not assuming bad faith, though I can understand why you felt that way then, and again on the arbitration page where you offered your views. To be honest, the most insulting thing anyone can do to me is to namby-pamby around rather than saying what is on their mind. I appreciate and value that on the arbitration page you did just this. I have expressed the same thing to several editors who offered frank assessments of my person. I only want to add that you have my profound apology for conducting myself so that you felt insulted or otherwise treated uncivil. We all learn from one another. It is the way of life. You have taught me a thing or two, as has Cfrito by the way. Thanks.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Been extremely busy in real life

...but logged onto Wikipedia to notice all your good and hard work. People who cannot read (let alone follow) policies and guidelines, assume bad faith, start altering direct quotes to POV-push, can't be bothered to do research in the libraries, foolishly declare their POV in crystal clear language all over the talk pages, and then engage in edit wars, are operating on borrowed time. Continue doing what you've been doing. Admins and established editors aren't stupid. When the time comes, the writing is already plain for everyone to read on the wall and those who are disruptive (and they sadly exist all over Wikipedia) will politely be shown the door as has always been the case. Best regards, J Readings (talk) 23:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Hoary's talk page

In case you didn't notice, I commented again over there. Thanks, J Readings (talk) 01:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Could You Please Intervene...

Hi. I noticed you have been reprimanding User:Freedom4korea for his vandalism, so it seems appropriate that I report to you the fact that he was been recently vandalizing my user page, as you'll see in the page's history. Thanks, aido2002talk·userpage 22:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stuttering#If_a_stutterer_reproduces.2C_would_his_offspring_be_a_stutterer_too.3F

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stuttering#If_a_stutterer_reproduces.2C_would_his_offspring_be_a_stutterer_too.3F —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiohumor (talk • contribs) 21:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunate

That's all I can say. More than 20 Japanese and English dictionaries saying that, in the post-war period, gaijin is a simple contraction of gaikokujin. They're ignored. Another 10 sources in reliable sources saying the word is harmless. Also ignored. I could spend a few hours putting them together in citation templates, but someone could just as well take them down. Then there are all the Japanese language sources that say it is a contraction. Those will also be dismissed. Instead, we bicker over extrapolations of what the reliable English sources "could be" saying instead of what they say. I'm beginning to think that WP:ATT needs to be invoked in order to simply have quote after quote after quote along side the author's identified credentialed standing per WP:RS: journalist, academic, activist, etc. Originally, I was thinking that this was the way to go anyway. That way, the reader knows in advance what he or she is getting. It will read like crap, and it will definitely never get a GA rating if done that way, let alone FA, but I don't see any other way of avoiding the distortions. I want to assume good faith, but frankly, either everyone should just give them what they want--an article about how terrible the word "gaijin" is--or find another ways to avoid distorting the source materials. Incidentally, invoking WP:ATT is what saved us when editing the Essjay Controversy page. It was the only honest way to gain consensus. I'm actually proud of my work on that page. That article remained stable, too. (Knock on wood!) J Readings (talk) 10:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

mediation successful?

Arbitrator Newyorkbrad has requested clarification on whether mediation has been successful. Is arbitration still required? Could you please consider adding a concise update (one or two sentences) to your statement at WP:RFAR within the next 12-14hrs, regarding your level of satisfaction of the resulting article, and whether the user conduct issues have abated.

If there are outstanding content issues, please list them at the talk page. John Vandenberg (talk) 05:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/New World Translation

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/New World Translation/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/New World Translation/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, John Vandenberg (talk) 21:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

WP:MEDMOS

Hey, Slp1, can you peek in on this discussion of changes to WP:MEDMOS to reflect devices ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Request of Comment

Hi, I would suggest that a request for comment might be useful way of solving the issue as a start. There are other options too, including mediation, but an article request for comment will get uninvolved experienced editors involved. --Slp1 (talk) 22:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, that's the most constructive thing I've heard all day. I appreciate it. I've been trying to cut through all the legalese crap on the other options, without success. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 22:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Appropriate

Sure :) Thanks for the message (LakeOswego (talk) 02:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC))

User: Freedom4korea

Hi, the above user having just changed my userpage (see [[7]]) - I had a look at his page and noticed that he has been down this sort of road before. I also noticed that you had said he would be blocked if he vandalized any more pages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Freedom4korea#Your_recent_edits) Any chance that could now happen? regards Marcus22 (talk) 15:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh-oh. Got your comment. Thanks. Will do the same myself. Marcus22 (talk) 16:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

AIV

It happens... ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the understanding and the laugh! --Slp1 (talk) 16:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Flood

"Michael Flood states that Men's rights advocates ignore the unreliability of the Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS)."

This sentence is not that far from "Michael Flood states that MRA ignore the fact that the CTS studies are unreliable." Better attribution is possible and the following was my suggested edit:

Michael Flood states that studies based on the Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS) are unreliable and that men's rights advocates ignore this when they cite statistics based on CTS studies. Best wishes, Michael H 34 (talk) 18:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

Looks good to me. Thanks! --Slp1 (talk) 18:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting

Either Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting is critical of men's rights, or the inclusion of the statement by FAIR in this section is irrelevant and/or OR and should be removed. I'll note that according to the Wikipedia article, FAIR acknowledged that they should not have published a statement about how domestic violence increases 40% during the Super Bowl. I leave the decision to you. Best wishes, Michael H 34 (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34

Wikipedia:Meetup/Montreal

I see you are a user located in Montréal, you may be interested in: Wikipedia:Meetup/Montreal. Please add your name to the "Interested" or to the "Not interested" list. Date is set for May 3rd 2008 and Buffet La Stanza is the proposed location. If you have another idea for the location; propose away! Please pass on to any Montreal Wikis you maybe aware of and who are not yet listed as interested, may be interested, or not interested. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 04:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Quick reply to your msg

I just saw your comment now. Since you're so concerned, I'll try to work on the page again later when I have time and better document some things. In the meantime, please see my more detailed explanation just posted.(Tortugadillo (talk) 20:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC))

• I see you removed some stuff. Thanks for taking such an interest in the page. I notice, though, that you only removed negative facts but nothing that shines favorably on Hoofers. Why didn't you remove the completely unsupported statement about Soma being painted with black spots..? Are you a current Hoofer leader? I'm going to restore the item about the Code of Ethics which, contrary to what you claim in your edit, certainly does have lots to do with the club. I won't restore the other material about the Union which is less directly related, although Hoofers is part of the Union and does function in that environment. Please consider carefully NPOV before selectively removing only positive or negative material. Unfortunately, some of the negative material is better documented by third parties than the positives.(Tortugadillo (talk) 21:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC))

Mmm, it would be a long way to go for a sail, so no, not a Hoofer, and not biased for or against the club, just in favour of appropriately citations for controversial material, which for whatever reason, you don't seem to understand despite multiple repetitions. --Slp1 (talk) 22:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

William Wilberforce

I'm back from an extended break and, with the encouragement of Malachirality am keen to tidy up the minor issues that have been highlighted.

However, I'm aware that you have been continuously improving the article and have made a whole host of edits – and I don't want to tread on your toes. It's possible that I may inadvertently change things that you have already corrected. Please let me know if this happens, or if you disagree with anything that I am trying to do to get this article up to scratch.

It was I who submitted this for A-class review back in December and am surprised that it's now up for GA. I note from your comments to Malachirality that you think it might not yet be ready. If we can work together then maybe it can be improved quicker – or, if necessary, perhaps we could ask for another extension.

Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 16:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I've made a number of minor corrections, as you will have seen, along with a few additions where I've come across relevant information – trying to utilise sources we haven't used before. I hope that, between us, we've now managed to address all the points highlighted by Malachirality – please let me know if you think we've missed anything.

I'm now doing a complete read-through, literally to try and pick up every comma or full point that is out of place. I find the best way is to copy the text into a Word document or similar and print it out – it's amazing what you can pick up that you've never noticed before! There's still a little bit of duplication, I think, and one or two sentences that need to be moved or deleted – but I'll let you know what else I find. – Cheers, Bruce Agendum (talk) 14:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits are great! They fill in the gaps that I was aware of when I ran out of steam last year, and are certainly better written than I could have achieved.

I've been through everything once, but will do another read-through. I have a few little queries, such as the correct style for the MP/M.P. abbreviation - I'm not sure what the Manual of Style says on that. I also want to check facts on who was part of the Teston circle at the time WW became involved, the date of foundation of the Committee for the Aboloition of the Slave Trade, and similar details for the Clapham Sect. Can you see anything else we've missed from the items highlighted by Malachirality?

If there's anything else you can think of that I could help with, please let me know. Like you I don't have a great deal of time, but tomorrow is a holiday here in the UK, so I may be able to do a bit. If you still think we cannot finish in time, then please let me know and we can mention it to Malachirality.

Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 23:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you're right – Pollock has them watching debates from the gallery in 1779–80, prior to his running for Parliament in August that year. Pitt was (he says) "reading hard for the Bar but determined on a political career, encouraged Wilberforce to join him in the House as soon as they could get seats." (p.9)

Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 13:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

I've done just about as much as I can. I did another read through and picked up a few things – it may be that I'm getting too fastidious, but I replaced all curly quotes and inverted commas with straight ones, just for consistency (I actually prefer the former, but it was less work this way). The curly ones are quite obvious when printed out on my computer, as they are straight but clearly slanted at a strange angle.

If you still have time, and I appreciate that you may not have, it may be worth just looking at two sections that are not strictly about WW – but are relevant to the story. Strictly speaking, maybe they should be deleted, but I'll follow your judgement (I felt it might be OK to leave them in) – #1 The last clause in the first para under the heading 'Initial decision', about Ramsay and the Testonites (I guess it explains who they were, as WW joined them at the end of the next para. – and #2 The fourth para under "Emancipation of enslaved Africans", second sentence, about Thomas Clarkson > to the end of that para. Not strictly about Wilberforce at all. But, again, crucial to the story.

Good luck if you do any more. It's looking good. Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 00:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure how to sort out this image problem that seems to have affected many pages, including William Wilberforce. I have tried purging both the server and bypassing the cache on my local browser, as instructed – and have now left a message on the Village Pump pages, asking for help (which I should have done in the first place).

It's really frustrating (and quite unbelievable) that this problem should coincide exactly with the week when this article is up for GA Review. Still, c'est la vie, as you guys say! Do you have any other ideas? Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Just a thought, slp1. It doesn't look as though anyone's done much on reviewing the article yet – I was looking through once more, and wonder whether the most recent para in the lead strikes a rather negative note? Could this be better placed further down the article, I wonder? I understand why you've inserted it, and the need to demonstrate NPOV, but is this the right place?

I'm in two minds about it, and didn't want to revert or alter an edit which introduces facts which are demonstrably true without running it past you. Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 15:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

That's fine, Slp1 – I just wanted to get your take on it. I had read the Lead section Style guidelines and I now see were you're coming from. I'm happy to leave it as it is. Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 23:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Telly Awards

An article that you have been involved in editing, Telly Awards, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Telly Awards. Thank you. Enric Naval (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Merci

Merci Slp1 pour tes ajouts à l'article Christian Polak! Je ne pensais pas vraiment que son activité entrepreneuriale mérite mention dans une encyclopédie, mais pourquoi pas. Christian Polak est aussi Président de l'Association Franco-Japonaise de Kanagawa, et membre de Comité de Direction de la Chambre de Commerce et d'Industrie Française du Japon. Cordialement, PHG (talk) 13:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Christian Polak

Hi Slp1. May I ask a favor? I'm trying to track down this citation:

• Pons, Philippe. "Sabre et pinceau", Le Monde, 2005. "Christian Polak, le meilleur specialiste de l'histoire des relations Franco-Japonaises."

I checked several sources and could not find it. Would you happen to have better luck? I don't know who added it, but it suspiciously lack a hyperlink, a page number, or even a month. I think it needs to be verified, to be on the safe side. Any help would be appreciated. J Readings (talk) 06:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Never mind, it turns out that PHG incorrectly cited the information. See [8] Thanks, J Readings (talk) 07:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Not quite :) As clarified in the discussion, the quote was re-formatted by other editors in the meantime, but what I did write is:

"Christian Polak, le meilleur specialiste de l'histoire des relations Franco-Japonaises", Philippe Pons, Japan correspondant for Le Monde, in "Sabre et pinceau", 2005 [9]

This, I think, can hardly be clearer or more straightforward. Cheers PHG (talk) 08:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, no I disagree. It's not "straightforward" at all as I'm sure you realize. Assuming the information is accurate (and I haven't checked the source at the library yet), it's simply a preface to the author's book, thus hardly making it an independent, third-party source at all. J Readings (talk) 09:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is accurate (I can send you a scan), and I did say that the quote came from one of Polak's books ("in "Sabre et pinceau", 2005). Cheers. PHG (talk) 13:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

(Outdent) What I would like to know, in all seriousness and after great scrutiny, is why we are unable to find serious third-party academics (indeed any academics at all) and third-party journalists (emphasis on the word "third-party") who have reviewed Polak's work. Surely this is a puzzle and problem for even PHG because he is essentially relying on the limited soundbite quotes of a Japan Times staff writer (who made the "expert" comment in passing), two ostensible colleagues and/or friends of Polak writing in 2 of Polak's book forewords (hardly reliable third-party sources by any means), and the passing mention by an outside author of art books to make the case that Polak is a notable academic. Slp1, DGG, and I have looked through several databases and indices without being able to find anything of third-party substance on Polak. Rather, what surfaces is always the same: the sporadic throw-away comments of someone who is occassionally used for soundbites for an obscure newspaper staffer. The argument that these -- what I would call "throw-away" -- comments somehow merit an encyclopedia entry are still a puzzle in need of explanation. J Readings (talk) 13:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

William the Good

Hi Slp1

Well, many thanks – congratulations to you too. You certainly deserve it!

Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 22:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Treatment of Multiple Sclerosis

Thanks for your message. I know warnings are not usual on drug treatment pages but perhaps they ought to be as Wikipedia is very vulnerable to manipulation by pharmaceutical companies. The following is long - please bear with me because I believe that it is important. A bit of background: drugs companies have very high front-loaded costs in terms of research (clinical trials are very expensive) and most therapies fail either in terms of toxicity or efficacy. For these reasons and because they are financially motivated, there are pressures on drug companies to positively manipulate their results to present a favourable picture of their product. Pharmaceuticals are not allowed by law to advertise directly to patients in the UK and in the US there are strict controls governing such adverts. However, because anyone can edit pages in Wikipedia with almost complete anonymity, they provide the less scrupulous drug companies the opportunity to reach potential patients with very little regulation. This gives them an opportunity to oversell their products directly to patients. Because patients are typically ignorant of the clinical trial process and of what constitute adequate controls, the companies can omit to mention trial flaws and statistical errors. The multiple sclerosis drugs in question cost about 10,000 GBP per patient but, because of the front loading of expenses, the vast majority of that is profit – quite an incentive! Cochrane reviews exist to aggregate trial data and review methodology and have found that none of the drugs in question were proved to delay disease progression, the single most important goal for any MS treatment. One of the cited interferon beta studies in the Wikipedia article was heavily criticised for failing to include trial drop-out data nor to control for the fact that drop-outs tend to be patients fairing poorly on the drug - this obvious skews results in favour of the drug. All the trials cited in the article were conducted before the unreferenced Cochrane reviews and it is generally acknowledged amongst professionals that the drugs have not been proven to delay onset of the progressive form of the disease. Rules were introduced in the leading journals a few years ago (but after the cited drug trials) to ensure full disclosure of conflict of interests by those carrying out the trials and they are now a little more transparent as a result (although not fully so). Even before that, peer review was mandatory in leading journals but it is completely missing in Wikipedia. I strongly feel that measures need to be taken within the Wikipedia framework to protect vulnerable patients who, particularly in the case of multiple sclerosis, have quite enough on their plates as it is.

All the best, Paul, Laetoli (talk) 02:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Christian Death

I am not trying to engage in an edit war. He is reverting my edits as much as I am his, and I feel he should have been given the same warning, in all fairness. And if you will notice, the person making the edits that I am undoing has admitted to being one of the members, actually the lead singer, of Christian Death. Not only is this a biased first hand account, but it is mercilessly riddled with formatting, grammar and spelling errors. I am merely trying to revert the page to its previous article, which came about through much discussion and hard work amongst editors. Thank you.98.220.43.195 (talk) 15:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

HELP! After all the hard work we have tried to do on this article, INCLUDING adding and IMPROVING on the submissions Valorkaend made, he is STILL trying to undo all of our edits OUTRIGHT and insert his original article, poor spelling, grammar, punctuation, formatting and all! He needs to be put on ice from editing! HELP!98.220.43.195 (talk) 01:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Male editors

Quoting your talk page: "As someone with an interest in language and communication, I am very intrigued that other editors have assumed I am a 'he' when I'm not. Do I use a register in my internet posts that appears male? Or is it just because most editors here are male? Scope here for someone else's PhD perhaps."

I think there is a strong tendency to assume other editors are male. My impression is that the great majority are.

Many editors take such a belligerent approach that it is natural to assume they are male.

Cheers, Wanderer57 (talk) 05:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. You have the same general theory that I do about the preponderance of male editors, though it is a bit discouraging to have people assume a male gender when they really shouldn't in this day and age. Though to be honest I often do it myself, though I try and catch myself as much as possible. I hope you are not implying that I take a belligerent approach, though! It is not my intention at all! Funnily enough in a recent little problem I have been assumed to be male AND congratulated for my polite, calm approach in the face of an uncivil editor. So who knows! ;-) --Slp1 (talk) 13:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Slp1: No, I was not implying that you are belligent, combative, hostile, militant, pugnacious, quarrelsome, scrappy, truculent, warlike, bellicose, or even abrasive. Not in anything I have seen. I suppose that you maintain an alter ego to use when you wish to make ill-tempered edits. (If not, the name "Miserable SOB" is available. - ;o) Wanderer57 (talk) 23:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

See User talk:Doc glasgow#Simple instructions. Not for the main discussion therein; the last three paragraphs are relevant to our colloquy. I gather from the context that Risker is female. Wanderer57 (talk) 17:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

low dose naltrexone

Hi, that guy who posted on "low dose naltrexone" on the MS page has a point, it is like novantrone, a low-dose chemo, and is used quite a bit off-label, more so in the EU. If you do a google for "MS" and "LDN" you will get a lot of hits. However I have not looked at his citations, and perhaps they should be excluded. Maybe you want to approach him and suggest a mention. Or if you like, I will do it...ps....I love your city having visited this time last year, sunshine and snow together..io_editor (talk) 01:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Ok, will do, thnkx. Will tell him/her that I will come back to it mid-week when I find something better.io_editor (talk) 02:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Multiple Sclerosis Treatments reversion

Thanks for your note. I have followed up your suggestion with this text:

"My removal of this table was because it contains unsupported assertions which are not generally accepted by neurologists. Two professional reviews have analysed the interferons and both concluded that it was unproven whether they affect disease progression. The table's author is replicating this work without allowing for control group selection, drop-out group constitution and other factors. It also counts as original research. The table is the reason for the NPOV dispute. See the talk page for more info. While the dispute is being resolved, it seems to me to be inappropriate to display the table, especially in view of the fact that it may influence people choice of whether to use these drugs (which have significant health & financial implications)."

Reluctantly, I shall leave the table as it stands. I hope people with MS are not influenced during the intervening period. Laetoli (talk) 18:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Wilberforce

That's a tough one. This article strikes me as right up Awadewit's alley—have you met her? She's quite a specialist in late 18th-century British history, but she's popular and busy too. She'd give you a very thorough peer review. I could attempt some copyediting, but the article doesn't look particularly in need of it, at a glance. You could also check Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers for peer reviewers interested in history. –Outriggr § 01:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to look at it tomorrow. If not, probably the weekend. Do you want me to comment at the peer review or on the talk page? qp10qp (talk) 15:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for getting this moving, Slp1 - I feel bad that other things have prevented me from doing as much as I wanted to progress this further. I may have some time (but not much) over the next few days, so will try and do some bits, as and when possible. Meanwhile, I'm following the various Talk pages – it's great to have folk so willing to help! Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Awadewit (talk · contribs · count) says she will help out probably this weekend. See User talk:Awadewit#William Wilberforce. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I've hopefully fixed the quote re Prince of Wales and W's singing. I'll go through the list of proposed peer review changes again, and also look at standardising the date range style – I've added one or two that may not be consistent. It'll be tomorrow now, though. Let me know if there are any of today's changes you disagree with, or just revert them. Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 22:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

I have a niggling doubt about that last image I inserted, and I wonder whether I, and the designers of at least a couple of other websites, have been fooled! At larger size, it's so like a photograph that I find it hard to believe it's not. Theoretically, it's just possible that an early dagguerotype of Wilberforce could just about exist, but the composition of this is too perfect, and I suspect that it was taken at a much later date than his death in 1833. I think it could be a "reconstruction" of the painting by George Richmond that the original engraving was based on (see the picture reproduced in Hague's book, last plate). If you agree with me on this, I'll have to replace it ASAP with another illustration, as everything has got to be absolutely correct this time. Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 21:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's an early use of a "look-alike".... I've found another now. Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 22:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with moving Sierra Leone higher up William Wilberforce. It's looking good – you've been working very hard on this in the last couple of weeks, and your additions have improved the article no end. Hopefully, I'll be able to do a fair bit during this weekend (it's a holiday weekend here). Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 14:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Brava! Bravissimo!

Wanderer57 (talk) 21:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Genie

Hello Slp1:

I made the change back.

Best wishes, Wanderer57 (talk) 11:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Help Wanted

Hello Slp1:

I posted the following on the WP:BLPN page. I'm putting a copy here in case you are interested.

Please will some people with an understanding of BLP policy look at

this discussion, and provide some input if you think it is warranted.

Thank you, Wanderer57 (talk) 23:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It will probably help if I explain that "MOFB" is used in the discussion as an acronym for the subject of the article, (Viscount) Monckton of Brenchley.

The Viscount's grandfather, by the way, was made a Viscount in recognition of extraordinary service to the British royal family.

Wanderer57 (talk) 00:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Chiropractic

Take a quick look at the main chiropractic article. I am on a journey to reach the ever elusive GA status. Feel free to join in. It's fun. QuackGuru 00:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Take a quick look. It is very interesting to see how various content disputes evolve year after year. The chiropractic article has always been under dispute. From beginning to end. QuackGuru 00:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I thought you may be interested in this discussion. I find it to be very interesting. The source is reliable per WP:SPS. QuackGuru 03:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I read your third-party opinion about the article but some editors have dismissed your comments that the source meets Wikipedia's standard.[10] QuackGuru 08:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I have a feeling even if I purchased a Ramey book and added information to the article about the safety information it could be deleted as no consensus. Anyone could say the book is not a peer-reviewed source and say take it to the noticeboard. Then if a third-party observer said it is reliable they can still say no consensus as they are doing now. Your third-party opinion was that both sources are usable and the book can be a substitute for the article. I think there is consensus based on your third-party opinion for the inclusion of the article. And the book can be used in its place after someone has read the book. But the info on the book can easily be deleted too. QuackGuru 15:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

It has already started. At least one editor claims Ramey is not a notable expert on this topic.[11] If a book is used, the author must be an expert on the subject. Oh well. Thanks for all your help anyhow. QuackGuru 05:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Friendly

Hi Slp1,

I think you might already be using the Twinckle script, so I wanted to let you know about another useful one. See:

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

I tested it. It saves the editor a lot of time when searching for edit tags, welcome signs, and prods. Give it a try. You might like it. Best, J Readings (talk) 12:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Samuel Watson

I can't do anything about it. It doesn't meet any criterion for speedy deletion. Just wait out the prod or take it to CSD. ;) Malinaccier (talk) 00:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I rolled back that little stunt to your userpage. He's now blocked. Keep up the good work, Malinaccier (talk) 00:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Polytechnique

Thanks, though I'm not wholly confident that it'll do any good. Mainly because the whole Cheri DiNovo thing has thoroughly sapped my confidence in patient reasoning as a strategy against POV vandalism. But meh, I guess we'll see... Bearcat (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Targetting

Compare this to this. Targeting is clearly the preferred spelling. Have a nice day! :) asenine ^{say what?} 21:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I read that a while ago but clearly didn't remember it correctly, thanks for the link, I will revert myself. Have a nice day! asenine ^{say what?} 21:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to say hai

Tinucherian has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend or a possibly new friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Have a great day ! -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 10:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

William Wilberforce PR

Hi Slp1, I reverted my archiving of William Wilberforce - just keep it active (make an edit at least every two days on PR page) until you are done (although there is also no real problem with adding to the peer review after it has been archived - that just means it has been removed from translusion at WP:PR). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC) PS Always nice to cross paths with you again, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

William Wilberforce images

Hi, I dropped a note on the talk page a few days ago, do not know if you saw it. If not here it is - I got some photos of the monument from my trip up to Hull, do not know if they are suitable for you. I have put them here for you to have a look, I can put them on commons if required. Keith D (talk) 21:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Interested in being an admin

Hi Slp1, Your name was passed to me as a person who would make an excellent admin. Having done a quick glance at your talk page/edit history, I'm inclined to agree. You already act like an admin, which in my opinion is a key. If you are interested, I'll take a closer look at you and potentially nom you. (I can't promise as I'd have to spend more detailed time checking you out.) If you are interested in seeing my past nom's feel free to check out my talk page. (My last 3 nom's have all exceeded 100 supports.)Balloonman (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Slp1. You have new messages at Balloonman's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

• I would support your nomination, if you choose to try an RfA. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

5/13 DYK

On 13 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Samuel Gesser, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bedford 22:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletions

Hi Slp1, I'm going through your edits right now... as I am not a fan of Speedy Deleter's I really take a close look at what they tag and how they tag it. So far, most of your tagging has been fine, but some of the things you tag G1 should be tagged with something else. G1 explicitly excludes, poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, fictional material, material not in English, badly translated material, implausible theories, or hoaxes. Thus your tagging of Alvin and the Chipmunks meet Garfield should probably have been tagged with a vandalism tag instead.Balloonman (talk) 05:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA

Hi Slp1, I went ahead and created a nom for you. Before answering the questions, I would suggest reading my essay How to pass an RfA. One thing that I need to add to the essay is guidance on when to transclude the RfA. When you decide to run, make sure that you have 2-4 hours to respond to questions and can watch the RfA. There is an expectation at RfA's that the candidate respond to questions/concerns almost immediately if the RfA has just begun. In other words, when you decide to transclude the RfA, make sure you do so at the start of your editing, not just before going to bed! I'm going to let Sandy know about the RfA as she is the one who recommended you to me.Balloonman (talk) 06:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey Slp, if you would like for me to co-nom, I'd be happy to !! Just say the word, and I'll add on a blurb (after I've had my coffee :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Great; I work better on this sort of thing in the evening, so I'll work on it later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

I would just like to add that I would also support you if you are interested. We don't know each other but you have intervened in articles that I have on my watchlist. I find your contributions to be informed and even handed when trying help with the most contentious areas such as "here". You give your opinion and even went and found links to help try to get the editors to co-operate with each other. Plus your comments on your talk page and others talk pages about [12]. I think you would make an excellent administrator from an outsider's opinion. Good luck with whatever your decision may be. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Slp, I've been feeling really unwell since last night; don't know what it is, but I can't shake it. I haven't forgotten your RfA; just don't want to try to write right now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I added my bit ... I'm really not feeling well, so if something doesn't read right, pls say so and I'll fix it :-) Be sure you finish the questions, sign, and transclude it to RfA *before* anyone else signs. Good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

If you are interested, would you please weigh in

Since you have tried to help with the Chiropractic articles I thought you may be interested in weighing in here [13]. The talk page is tedious to read in my opinion and that's unfortunate because it makes it difficult to read for an outsider. But if you have time and/or the desire I thought I would bring it to your attention. Just for your knowledge, I do not edit this article and I have very little editing on the talk page, mostly I try to turn down the heat. But I really think that more outside opinions are needed for this Rfc before things get boiling again, which looks like a small simmer is starting already sadly. If you are not interested, don't worry, just ignore my post to you, I promise my feelings won't get hurt. ;) Have a good day! --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the response; things are definitely heating up since I last posted to you, over night no less. :( An editor is listing changes made recently "here" which I think may make it easier for you to check into the problems going on without reading a lot of verbal vomit on the page. (Sorry, but I think that terms is very useful on a lot of talk page discussions, no offense intended.) Most of the changes were done by an editor just off a block to the chiropractic pages. There is mediation being attempted which can be found at the top of the talk page, I can't seem to get the link to work, not awake enough I guess. I am just trying to help you catch up when you are ready to so you might know where to start to get an idea at least of what is going on there. Reading the talk page is an all nighter for someone who would want to try to catch up and add anything. There was an Rfc [14] recently on the page about the first major edit which to me showed that most outsiders' views approved of the change. Now things are spiraling quite quickly out of control. Question? Why do an Rfc if no one at the article is going to accept what the outsider's have to say? I have to admit I am quite confused about this aspect of things. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Goodness, you're on this, too? See Eubulides (talk · contribs) talk page where I commented on the MedCab; I recommend moving to another venue. MedCab is informal, any editor can offer to mediate, and there's no guarantee an experienced editor will take the case, which is the situation here. It needs an experienced mediator or a new venue. (User:Eubulides wrote most of three FAs, including Autism and Asperger syndrome, as well as Daylight Savings Time, and is an extremely civil and knowledgeable editor). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Your RFA

Best of luck for your RFA -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 15:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks!

		RfA: Many thanks
		Many thanks for your participation in my recent request for adminship. I am impressed by the amount of thought that goes into people's contribution to the RfA process, and humbled that so many have chosen to trust me with this new responsibility. I step into this new role cautiously, but will do my very best to live up to your kind words and expectations, and to further the project of the encyclopedia. Again, thank you. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

jbmurray harvard question

... I answered it. Cheers. Ling.Nut (talk) 13:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I only fixed Hague 2007. Go to note 4, or any note that refs Hague 2007. Click it. It takes you to the ref at the bottom... Ling.Nut (talk) 13:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Ping

Email headed your way. Risker (talk) 18:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

I fixed Pollock

.. on Wilberforce. The problem was a mismatch in the years in the templates: that the harvnbs all had the year 1997, whereas the ref at the bottom of the page had 1977. Ling.Nut (talk) 08:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the whole article. Ling.Nut (talk) 12:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

• These refs are repeated, so you can use named refs:
• Hochschild, p.139
• Hochschild, p.252
• Hague, p.511
• Hague p.446
• Ackerson, p.12
• Tomkins, p.207
• Pollock, p.9
• Ling.Nut (talk) 13:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Back

Yey - major improvments! It turned out I was away for two weekends, and just couldn't find time to contribute in the last two weeks. But I'll try and get up to speed today and see what I can do during the remainder of this week - we have another Bank Holiday weekend coming up, so I may get more time then. But well done on getting things looking even better.

I'm still slightly worried about images (the column looks as if it's falling over!) and we could possible use a different one that Keith took. It's proving difficult to use some images which I've negotiated for use taken by non-Wikipedians, as there are copyright issues I wasn't aware of, unless they upload them personally (which is a lot to ask of someone who doesn't understand the complexities of Wikipedia licensing). Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 07:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll talk to Keith about that later – I think this is the least good of the new photos he came up with. I'll suggest that we use instead one of the others which has more impact – and without that dreadful building in the background!

Regarding your unreferenced quote from Hague: "Later in the same year he was publicly denouncing slavery itself, though he did not demand immediate emancipation, as They had always thought the slaves incapable of liberty at present[144]", I have looked for it but haven't been able to find it yet. Was your point to contrast his view at that time with his later change of mind and speeches in favour of emancipation? See p.434. Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations

I've pressed the button, and you're now an admin. Have fun using the new tools to make this place better. Spend some more time on the admin reading list and I'm sure you'll do well. Don't hesitate to ask if you need help. - Taxman ^Talk 02:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, Slp; I've never been so confident that the tools will be put to good use. All the best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Woo-hoo! Congratulations - for what its worth, I found Admin school useful Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I understand completely. The first time I updated DYK and knew if I made a mistake it would be on the Main Page I was very nervous. One of the tricky things about being an admin is that most admin tasks don't have directions, but the new admin school explains most of the common tasks well (I have gone back to it on occasion). Let me know if I can ever be of assistance (i.e. reveal my ignorance ;-) ) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! I'm honoured to have been granted access to the tools in the same month as you. Risker (talk) 03:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Congrats... never had any doubts!Balloonman (talk) 04:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on getting the special mop. -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 06:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, Slp1. It's well deserved. Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 09:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the Club - please don't swing it too vigorously at first! LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I also want to congratulate you. Take care,--CrohnieGal^Talk 11:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Congrats! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 11:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations! J Readings (talk) 17:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm gonna add my name to this list! Congratulations! Don't make us regret it ;) Regards, CycloneNimrod^Talk? 19:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

All the best! Vishnava _talk 01:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the message on my talk - yours was an easy one! The fact that you were "nervous about RfA" means you were an excellent candidate - only insane people would ever be "comfortable" there. Nice work, enjoy the buttons, you'll do fine. Welcome to the club! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Congrats, and thanks for the note! Daniel (talk) 11:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations, I'm sure you'll be an asset. Also the thank-spam that showed you'd actually glanced at my page was kinda nice! Olaf Davis | Talk 20:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I want to say congratulations too, and tell you that it was your posts at the Genie talk page that made me give you strong support rather than just support. Keep up the good work. Ashton1983 (talk) 22:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Ivana loudová

With all respect, this article does meet WP:CSD#A7 because it doesn't assert importance in any way. Simply being a composer is not a claim of importance. If she is notable, someone needs to modify the article to explain why. --Rividian (talk) 20:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Response to comments on my talk page.

Hey, I understand how you are a little burned out from the nomination to it being passed. Don't worry about the problems over at the chiropratic article. I suspect the problems to remain for quite some time so take your time to get yourself settled in and learn (I assume you have a lot to learn now) your new tools and new responsibilities. I think you will be an admired administrator by all and I was honored to be able to vote for you. I voted for you because of the way you handled yourself with others (and me of course) about the chiro page and saw some other threads of yours after that helped my decision to vote for you even though I didn't know you well and we had limited conversations. I saw what you tried to do at the MS article too when you tried to calm the waters there. Good luck and good health on your future administratorship. Again, don't worry about the chiro page right now, I totally understand as I am sure the others that have talked to you about it will too. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

If I could ask a favor . . .

An editor has repeatedly removed a speedy tag from the article No Harm Day, which he created himself. I'm not sure if I'm allowed to continue to revert the change, as it may violate WP:3RR. Could you take a look and assess the situation? Thanks for your assistance! TN‑X-Man 01:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I guess I've learned something today. I thought the speedy tag itself was what caused it to be listed on the noticeboard. I'll file that away for future reference. Thanks for the help! TN‑X-Man 02:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

istartedsomething page

Thanks for the help! - Thekittenofterra (talk) 02:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Admin Candidates

Hey there Slp1, Thanks for the excellent recommendation of J Reading as a potential admin candidate. I agree he would be a great one, but he currently isn't interested in running. If you know anybody else who would be a solid candidate, let me know---I'll be happy to take a look at them.Balloonman (talk) 07:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

G12

Hi. I see you're already doing the good work. :D I just wanted to drop you a note to point out that WP:CSD#G12 is a little idiosyncratic in that it is the only copyright speedy deletion criterion where we are required to notify the contributor the reason for deletion. (See the CSD page and administrator notes in the category). Not sure why the exception here, but I suspect it may be a protective measure to demonstrate that we're making all necessary steps to be sure that copyright violations don't happen. It's been that way since before I came on the scene. :) I'm sure you know about {{Nothanks-sd}}. I always felt a little odd using that one, since it suggests the article hasn't been deleted yet. With substantial help, I created a template for my own use at User:Moonriddengirl/carticle based on the then-wording of Nothanks. It's been a little wonky, as sometimes URLs don't stick, but a more tech-savvy user than I may have fixed that. You're welcome to use it yourself if you'd like. It saves me some time, anyway. :)

The inspiration for this note is the article Adrian Carvajal. The user who tagged it for notability concerns came by my page to ask if I agreed, and while looking into that I noticed that the creator had not been notified of the copyright policy. I know that it might have been an oversight in this particularly case, but figured I'd point it out to you in case it was an idiosyncrasy of which you were unaware. :) I've gone on ahead and notified this one, so it's taken care of.

Hope things are going well, and I am glad (though unsurprised, based on your contrib history) that you came through the RfA process okay. It can be grueling. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

P.S. While I replied to your note at my talkpage, I just wanted to note that the advice and help thing is a two-way street. :) I'm always open to input and assistance myself! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Laugh...

I know I am disobeying your no RFA thank you message edict, but hopefully you won't mind a personal message on a related subject! Your vote on my RFA gave me the biggest and most prolonged laugh of the whole week and I know I wasn't the only one. Thanks a lot! --Slp1 (talk) 13:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. And you are right, I don't mind. Congratulations on your RfA. Perfect score! I'm thoroughly impressed. But you didn't answer my question! The Transhumanist    14:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Welldone. --Realist² (Come Speak To Me) 18:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

you're welcome...

... for the !vote of confidence, and the tidying up with Wilberforce. :-) Ling.Nut (talk) 02:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Thanks

You're more than welcome. I thought the patience and thoroughness you displayed while working on Christian Polak were admirable. You do good work here, and I doubt you'll "goof up." :) Kafka Liz (talk) 10:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Should you accept ...

... the mission, this situation needs the kind of thorough investigation and careful attention to detail you are famous for :-) Since I've got to catch a plane, I know I can drop on it on you and count on you not to mess anything up, or take it to AN/I if it doesn't settle down. Someone needs to spend some time in google to figure out the coordination aspect and if SPA/disruption blocks are needed or warranted (ah, the joys of being a lowly editor and not knowing blocking policy :-). That's why the admins get paid the big bucks :-)) I'd help, but I'm not going to be home for another week. Laser brain (talk · contribs) really didn't deserve this. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Have a good trip wherever you are going. I will try and keep an eye on things, though it looks like the most immediate sock has been blocked. I'm afraid I am still very foggy on lots of this stuff, but will do what I can, as best as I can! --Slp1 (talk) 00:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Hellw (Rt. 66 Article copyright)

Im sorry ill be working on it and make it into my own words sorry for the inconvinience ohh and i have family that live in Montreal, Quebec too! Salcan (talk) 04:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Thanks

no thank you for the last message it should really help me! Salcan (talk) 23:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Congratulations on your promotion. I'm very happy for you! Hope your adminship life is getting off to a good start. Take it easy, I know you'll do a great job. :) --PeaceNT (talk) 07:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Yuri Ryazanov

If and when you get a chance, I'd appreciate a second-opinion about this page. Attempts to communicate with the page's creator have not been too productive. I'll let the edit history speak for itself. Thanks, J Readings (talk) 09:47, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. This situation is actually part of a much larger problem with the obvious absence of notability guidelines for sports teams, athletes, geographical locations, transportation sites, etc. The sheer abundance of these types of articles on Wikipedia that are created daily makes me wonder why the community hasn't agreed yet on what to do. In fact, in the case of athletes/sports, as far as I know, there isn't even a draft proposal yet. I'm tempted to say something at the Village Pump or Jimbo Wales' talk page. J Readings (talk) 17:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Question... answer

I appreciate your comments. Yes, I do want this to be a fair representation of the facts, but I feel that we have moved away from the original accepted view that Wilberforce’s mission (and that of some of his colleagues) was determined more by his religious views and what he felt was a God-given call. That’s why I have promoted the (as I see it) key passage that indicates his the strength of his conviction “God has set before me...” I guess that the way the sentence is written is my summary of how I read the essence of his “call” and his decision to put it into action. Pollock is very strong on this.

That’s not to say that we should ignore the interpretations of Brown, Williams, et al – in fact the library has mailed me to tell me that Brown is ready for me to collect today. The word “unchristian” is not one of my favourites – apart from the fact it has a lower-case “c”, it seems to presuppose that everyone should act according to a “Christian” morality, whether believers or not. “Immoral” may not be the best alternative – if anything, “depraved” says it better, but I’ll look at rephrasing the sentence.

I’ve brought Pollock with me to work today, and will have a look for the passages I’m referring to. I know that his is not the only authentic version, but it was for many years regarded as the standard biography of recent years. – Cheers, Bruce Agendum (talk) 10:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I take your point and I'm willing to listen to the argument that we should reflect alternative views – as long as it's clear to the reader that's what we are doing, and we avoid confusing her. I guess I was getting a little over-enthusiastic last night! I now have my hands on Brown's Moral Capital and will be devouring it at a pace of knots. It's very informative and will be extremely useful in my research about Beilby Porteus also. Many thanks for the Google Books and Amazon links a couple of days ago, which whetted my appetite – but (characteristically) omitted some key passages just as it was getting interesting...!

I'm about to revert one or two things I wrote last night, but keeping the quotation where it now is. But I will probably make further changes when I've had time to read and compare Pollock and Brown – Cheers, Bruce Agendum (talk) 21:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Slp1 – I'm very grateful for the recommendation of Brown's 'Moral Capital'. Although I already had it on order, I hadn't fully appreciated how important and relevant it was to the subject of the Evangelicals and abolition, and I'm now much more aware of the reasons why you referred to it in re-writing the article. I've had trouble in putting it down! Very well-written, researched and sourced, too – having now read parts of it, I will certainly be using it as a source for my biography of Beilby Porteus. I agree, too, that it's important also to have a non-traditional perspective from a modern historian (and an African-American at that), who certainly knows his subject. Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 23:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Images

Just to update you on what’s happening about the images. I had previously approached two Flickr contributors for permission to use their work in the Wilberforce article. One was uploaded and added to the article, but swiftly deleted some time ago (before Keith took his photos), because it did not have the correct licence.

It just seems to be a minefield, and difficult to know the correct licence to use - unless images are uploaded by the photographers themselves, and cleared for use under the Creative Commons "GNU Free Documentation License".

So I feel that we we have been somewhat stymied. I’ve contacted both photographers to see whether they would be prepared to upload the pics themselves, or allow me to do so on their behalf. I’m awaiting a reply. If nothing happens this week, we’ll have to continue as originally planned, using one of Keith’s. – Cheers, Bruce Agendum (talk) 11:45, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

<butting in> I saw the "images" header while posting below and had to read on... Do you have the links to the images on Flickr? I'm trusted on the Commons, so I can upload and tag them as reviewed (assuming they have wiki-compatible licenses, of course). If the licenses aren't compatible, WP:COPYREQ is a decent walkthrough of how to ask permission and what to do once you get it. ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 18:53, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes - I already replied to ElCobbola's note above. See the foot of his Talk page. I'm going to work this morning accompanied by Prof. Brown! – Cheers, Bruce Agendum (talk) 05:38, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Learned Hand image

I apologize for not getting to the Learned Hand question until now. The talk page discussion is a bit jumbled; is an accurate summary of the conundrum that we have two reliable sources, one of which claims 1910 and the other of which claims 1930s? ЭLСОВВОLД _talk 18:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Request

Hi, Slp; I'm sorry to drop this on you, but I'm just returning from travel, trying to catch up, and I'm actually not certain where to follow up on this. An editor named TimHowardII is editing Tim Howard; I'm fairly certain that would not be Tim Howard, and that editor shouldn't be using that name? Would you have time to deal with this? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I changed it back and left him this [15] Adding the II makes me think he isn't really trying to impersonate Howard, but it would be good to get it clarified none the less. BTW, not much was findeable or needed doing about the Elderly Instruments situation. From what I can see things have calmed down.--Slp1 (talk) 22:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks so much for handling that, Slp1; I'm still trying to catch up here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Would you be interested in dealing with the situation at Alex Wolff (a minor BLP)? (And whenever there are problems at Alex, it usually also goes for Nat Wolff as well.) I'll also leave a note for Jbmurray in case he wants to practice. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:59, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm out and about in real life for the next 24 hours or so, but will try to take a look if I have a minute. Not sure what is required, but in fact, I've only mastered deleting things so far. My learning curve is rather slow! --Slp1 (talk) 22:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

There's always room for practice at the Wolff brothers; vandal magnet for blocking, and sometimes needs protection during school breaks. Anytime you want to practice, you can peek in there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I've got them watchlisted and will learn the ropes about blocking and protecting soon, so that I am ready if and when it should become necessary! --Slp1 (talk) 11:38, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Slp1; there are days when those boys occupy most of my time (mostly during school breaks). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Joss Stone

Napoleongrl thanksyou Slp1 for those changes to avoid defamation of character issues. June 8, 2008

TimHoward at WP:RFCN

Just to let you know that I removed the listing for the above user because there was no reason given. Feel free to add it again, or let me know if you have any questions. Alex Muller 12:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

re: Genie

Thank you for the notice. -- JLaTondre (talk) 23:38, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey! Hows it going?

Are you having fun yet? lol. I have a funny feeling this whole thing will be over soon. Then again, I wouldn't surprised if we're still here after another two months still saying the same things. Some people can be really stubborn. Like me, I never change my mind once I know I'm right. :-) Thanks again for all the effort you've put into this. Take care! For An Angel (talk) 14:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Rt 66

Hi remember you deleted my Rt. 66 page, well im remaking it and I dont know if I should because User: Amerique is saying Iam a suspected sock puppet because I did a edit to San Bernardino, California and I know about San B. because I am working alot with San Bernardino International Airport (SBD) and the RT. 66 Car show and I am talking by email to them by email for 1 reason and thats so they can tell me if they are really going to have passenger service for real and that its not fake. I have have trieded not to vandalize and I ont think I have Im just here to work on film, Canadian and tansportation articles so what can I do to be prevented from being blocked I realy like editing here on wiki, and I am working not vandalism and I'm going to get blocked all because one edit to San B. article Im going to get blocked? What can I do...can you help me in any way or give me helpfull tips??Salcan (talk) 18:45, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

What do you think?

My word – you've been busy! I want to give it one last detailed look over, and will try and spend this evening, but definitely this weekend, doing so. Maybe also, by then, ElCobbola will be back and will have had time to help the Flickr contributor to upload and correctly license the image of Wilberforce's notebook, which will greatly enhance the article, I think. So, if we think in terms of early next week, would that suit you? I also have next week off work (although I have some real life things to do, I'll be able to keep a closer eye on things. Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 07:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

blog quoted as source

The "other article" is Summorum Pontificum. My main objection is that inordinate attention is given to just one man's opinion. This I indicated in my edit summary. I have not removed the topic or written about it on the Talk page, since there would certainly be a discussion with the other editor that I don't think would be worth the effort. Lima (talk) 04:27, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for having a look at it. I intend to leave it as it is. As for "making controversial claims about a living person" - I do think it is a controversial claim to declare that there is a rift between the Pope and the Catholic Bishops of England, adding - originally it was not in the form "DT believes that ..." - that the Pope has a low opinion of the bishops; and, as far as I know, both the Pope and the bishops are living persons :-) ! But I suppose you are thinking about biographies of individuals. That's enough on this matter. Lima (talk) 17:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Hand

Looks like we're closing in on each other. About 150 pages to go. Then we can step back, I reckon, have a look at the lie of the land, and think what we need in the way of philosophy/legacy sections, or whatever. qp10qp (talk) 21:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think Gunther is being perfectly frank about the marriage, do you? After all, he was a friend of Hand's. Still, no matter: makes a change to come across an unprurient biography. qp10qp (talk) 22:13, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits to William

Hi Slp1 - you'll see that I have again changed the wording slightly to incorporate the fact that "enthusiasm" was regarded as "extreme", as well as socially a faux-pas (is that correct use of a French expression?) However, I don't want to do anything that will prejudice this article's chance of success at FA level, and will look to you for guidance on that, as you have far more experience than I. So, please change it if you feel it is necessary, in the context of the para as a whole.

I just had a look at a typical Good Article assessment page (not FA, but I assume the process is similar) with which Elcobbola was involved, and was amazed at the detail of the criteria and the assessment process – at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Lessons_for_Children – I guess we have to be ready for anything!

I'm thinking that I must find the source for my "extreme" comment (I couldn't find it today – I am reading a lot around this whole period, because I am also researching the life of Beilby Porteus, and now have so many books from the library!) Please let me know if there's anything else that I can do to improve prose, sourcing, etc. Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 22:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Great! I've just got in twenty minutes ago. I hope you got my message re my recent changes, etc (which I actually wrote earlier, but just sent) – so I'll be guided by you. I'll also try to find that reference ASAP. More importantly, we both have to keep an eye on this over the next week or so – I would rather not have any surprises, especially from those with an axe to grind. We could do without an edit war at this stage. Elcobbola is sorting out the new images I've sourced from non-Wikipedia contributors, and hopefully they will be included in the article soon. Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 23:07, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I've just read your nomination. Many thanks for the mention – but I can sincerely say it's been – and will continue to be – a joint effort. But, if the quality of the writing is rewarded, it'll be down to you. Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk)

This is great! – your recent additions to the text do the job very well, I think. I just wonder if we could find another word for 'conservative', as we have that at least twice and, in England, it's also associated (when it has a capital 'C') with the Tory party – just a subliminal thing. I'm trying to think of a suitable alternative.

I wonder if also we could restore the Westminster Abbey memorial to its original place? Obviously, it should strictly be where you have moved it, but the part about pall bearers seems to be a rather sudden end to the paragraph. Unless we can find some other detail about the funeral to replace it.... Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 19:26, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, 138pp – that would certainly be a book. I thought it was a pamphlet, though. Bruce – Agendum (talk) 21:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I had it wrong, hadn't seen the Google Books version – I got it somewhere else. Thanks! Agendum (talk) 21:54, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

William Wilberforce

Your comment: I hope you are having a great holiday!!! Since you've been an interested and involved editor with William's article, and so helpful in pushing us gently to the next level, I thought you might like to know that we finally did the deed and listed it at FAC. Hopefully it will all be alright! [16]--Slp1 (talk) 22:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, summer is great! I took an hour and read through the latest iteration and read the various comments. I don't see any reason why this can't be FA! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:56, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Corrections & changes

Just a tad concerned that some of the (what seem to me) somewhat drastic recent revisions and changes to your prose have been detrimental, and rather lose the flavour of your syntax. Are we bound to accept all of the corrections that Malleus Fatuorum has made? I thought I would ask your opinion before challenging some of his changes.... Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 21:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

You'll see that I've now asked him how strongly he feels about the past continuous.... Agendum (talk) 21:33, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

To answer the question directly, you are by no means bound to accept any of the changes that I made, particularly any you have good cause to feel may be detrimental to the syntax. I assume you mean the prose though, or at least I hope you do. :-) There'a a more detailed explanation of the -ing issue on my talk page. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 22:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

FA!

Congrats on the William Wilberforce FA! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Wow!!! We did it – fantastic! Congratulations to you too, Slp1....

Thanks for your congratulations – please accept a bouquet of flowers as a token of my appreciation for your company during this marathon, and for helping me through what has been for me an extremely long, but very pleasant, learning experience.

Cheers, Bruce

IPA help for L'Occitane en Provence

Hi, Slp1, could you add IPA to the article in question if you have the knowledge? Since it is an English encyclopedia, many people don't know about French, so somebody requested an IPA for the article. I have little knowledge of IPA for French language, and although I posted the same request at WikiProject France, the project seems less active. If you help me, I would be very glad. Thanks.--Caspian blue (talk) 02:40, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Oh, thank you very much. Nighty night. --Caspian blue (talk) 02:45, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! --Caspian blue (talk) 23:14, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Hand

I don't think we should consider expanding the material on ALCOA, patents, Carroll Towing, or whatever. Schick argues very strongly that if you take away Hand's constitutional philosophy, libertarian reputation, and popular image based on his speeches and books, you are left with a series of decisions that do not deserve to be thought of as more influential than those of many other judges. It is the former things that make Hand notable. There seem to be two types of literature on Hand: popular material, like Gunther, Griffith, and Schick, which looks at the whole man, his life, times, and thought; and gritty legal books which delve in mind-numbing detail into a few cases, aimed I should think at legal students and specialists. I think our article should echo the first type of material, since we are providing the general reader with an introduction to Hand. It is the same for any biography on Wikipedia: when Awadewit and I were working on Mary Shelley, we probably didn't go into much depth about each novel. There's a limit to what this type of article should attempt. qp10qp (talk) 17:11, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I tend to agree. I don't think this article needs to be a law review: I actually think we do quite well by mentioning the high points, and if people want to find out more about the specific cases, they can click and read... though as One points out, those articles need a fair amount of help! I wonder whether we might do more about the Patents though. I rather glossed over that in the federal section, in part because it was a very tedious read in Gunther! And Posner, well, maybe he is worth a mention at some point, though as One said in a subsequent post, his promotion of Hand's formula is fairly roundly criticized. How notable is it as compared to other judges? Not sure, will need to look further. I do wish an American lawyer would crawl out of the woodwork to advise! --Slp1 (talk) 21:55, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I am starting to suspect, though, that the lawyers' Hand is not the same as the peoples' Hand, so to speak. Schick argues that view strongly. It's true that there are published analyses of patents cases, ALCOA, etc., and I waded into some of them in my reading, but one quickly loses sight of Hand. One might say more about these things, but at the risk of moving away from Hand himself. One difficulty I had in working on the article was deciding when to pause and talk about an individual case, because there is the risk of losing forward biographical momentum. I think we have the balance right at the moment. qp10qp (talk) 15:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Richard Williamson

Hi, a few weeks ago you to provided some advice to those wanting to add a views section to Richard Williamson. Can I ask you to review it? As far as I can see it still fails to provide enough reliable sources. Thanks. PaulSoms (talk) 18:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Give the cat another goldfish!

		The Collaboration Barnstar
		Thanks for being such an ace colleague on Learned Hand. You stick at things, madam, and I respect that quality above all others. I'm off to dance round the garden blowing my basset horn. qp10qp (talk) 21:20, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Main page

Oh, is that right? Should we be expecting vandalism? - hmmm, I'll try to be around more. But I, too, am tied up with a time-consuming situation at work. I'll do what I can, though, of course. Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 05:47, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah - I see you had to deal with some of those "sensible" (?) changes earlier! I was perhaps a little summary in my reaction to him/her last night.... whereas you were a little more tolerant... guess I'd better get used to it! Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 12:04, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, that wasn't as bad as I thought! I tried to keep a watching brief during the lunch hour yeterday, and at short periods during the day (although I no longer officially have internet access from work, which is a real pain), and last evening. I'm grateful there were so many other editors obviously on duty to deal with the vandalism – which they did very effectively! And you just got to User W4rg on the Talk page before I did.

I'm also pleased that one or two suggestions were actually very constructive (notably the use of the word 'shrewd' rather than 'smart' - how did that ever get through?), and some of the others didn't matter too much, anyway. Thanks again for everything. Here's hoping that we can collaborate on something again in the future – it's been a pleasure working with you. Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 12:34, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey, you removed a speedy delete tag I placed on an article...

......and you were correct in your action -- I was at fault! The article was for John Brimhall and, I am glad to say, you did the right thing. I just wanted to give you a thumbs up on that good call. Thanks! Ecoleetage (talk) 11:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

deletion review of Brian Eddy

Hi! I just wanted to let you know I've started a deletion review for the article on Brian Eddy that you deleted:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_August_10

Please chime in! Thanks! Luvcraft (talk) 06:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey!

Great to hear from you. I missed Sue's return this spring as I was busy and I'm even busier now. Bu t I still check in from time to time. I hope things are going well with you too! Dina (talk) 00:02, 11 August 2008 (UTC)