User talk:Dev920/Archive1: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 23:21, 8 August 2006

Welcome!

How can you be one of those who believes homosexuality was depicted in Greek literature? It wasn't. There wasn't even a term for homosexual in Ancient Greece. You guys misinterpret everything to support your rediculous fabricated myth. Take a look at this source for example and learn.http://198.173.87.101/debunking_the_myth_of_homosexuality_in_ancient_greece.htm It's sad how ignorant people like you help deface history.

Hello, Dev920/Archive1, 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:

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:Where to ask a question, 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! --Myles Long 22:48, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dev920 04:05, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Employment Tribunal

Re the above, I would not normally have a stub so short but the page formerly simply redirected to Employment and Labor law.--Lucifer(sc) 13:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

Aspirant states of India looks much better now. Thank you. RJFJR 16:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome!Dev920 16:47, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Snakes on a Plane

Hey, I saw that you included the userbox: This user can't wait to see Samuel L. Jackson in Snakes on a Plane, which is no longer on your page anymore. If you want it again, you can just go to my user page and grab it. It is the second to the bottom userbox. I'm sorry if it disappeared on you, since somebody kept deleting it for some reason. So if you want it, you can get it. --Nehrams2020 21:04, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

George Carey

Hello! I see you added George Carey to Category:Anglican priests today. I'm going to leave this completely up to you, but it does occur to me that George Carey is not a priest but a bishop (in the threefold division of bishops, priests and deacons) - i.e. that bishops cease to be priests. So maybe he should not be in this category. A quick look at the other names does not suggest that bishops are included. But it's just a thought, see what you think. Cheers! Chelseaboy 13:36, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Wal-Mart

In response to your recent edit on Talk:Wal-Mart [1], please tell me how to use this template without making the respective article appear in the category. I used to know how to do this, but now I can't remember, and the MediaWiki handbook isn't really helping me out here. Thanks in advance. Tuxide 18:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion

Hello! I noticed that you have been a contributor to articles on Anglicanism and the Anglican Communion. You may be interested in checking out a new WikiProject - WikiProject Anglicanism. Please consider signing up and participating in this collaborative effort to improve and expand Anglican-related articles! Cheers! Fishhead64 22:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bush and terror

Of course there was Islamist terror before Bush. Just as there was Christian fundamentalism before Bush. It's just that Bush and al-Qaeda needed each other to catapult themselves to worldwide notability. And still do. Without the external threat of bogeymen like Bin Laden, Bush would be finished. Without the "American devil", al-Qaeda would pale into insignificance. This is nothing new, you can read it up in Orwell's 1984, and 20th century history. dab (ᛏ) 20:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well, be that as it may, we can agree to disagree even, while we certainly agree that both Bush and terrorism are notable, the entire point is that they have their own articles, without h2 treatment at Islam or "Freedom". Don't forget that the terrorism article was linked before your edits, and it is linked twice now: It is not disputed that this link belongs, just that WP:SS makes terrorism a h2 (or even h3) subtopic of Islam. Our disagreement is not a fundamental one, but one of pertinence and article layout, and on these topics you certainly have to be prepared to compromise on Wikipedia (the compromise suggested at present being the "Islamism" h3 section, which would not be there but for your campaign). dab (ᛏ) 21:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you are right, we only linked to Islamism, not to Islamist terrorism directly, I got that wrong. I agree with having the link, but not the section. in your words, I think causing the casual reader to read Islam to access Islamic terrorism is unnecessary. As for a "terrorism" h3 section, I don't seem to quite understand your argument that Islamist terror is not a part of Islamism. I could live with such a h3 section, but I do not think it is a good idea. And since many editors will obviously not put up with it, you are asking for a prolongued dispute. A dispute where I do not think you have a good argument, so I'm for mentioning terrorism without giving it its own section from the outset. dab (ᛏ) 21:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would not consider such a section an improvement. If it was between the two of us, I could accept it as a compromise, that is, as a still acceptable deterioration of the article's organization. Others will feel more strongly about it, and because of what I just said, I will tend to take their side. dab (ᛏ) 21:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

well, yes, this "group of people" is known as the community of Wikipedians, of which we are but two members. dab (ᛏ) 22:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

people tend to be involved in articles they have an interest in: many Muslims will edit the Islam article, just like many atheists edit the Atheism article, and many many mathematicians edit the number theory article. This is self-evident; you make it sound as if that was a dirty secret of Wikipedia. We cannot allow people to mis-represent their favourite subjects, but I have full understanding if they defend them against ostentative association with the barely related. dab (ᛏ) 07:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you are right, the deadlock is a tad frustrating: I will stand down for the time being, meaning that if you add the section again, I won't remove it (but other people will, so that won't help you much). Note that I oppose the section not because I'm afraid of Muslim editors as you seem to imply, but because I honestly do not think it belongs. It is not as offtopic as a section on the Inca Empire, therefore I said I could accept it, but in a poll, I'd still vote against it. I have been pursuing it because the article ToC was approaching stability, and the article at 44k should not be substantially lengthened. Historically, we needed to run a rather tight ship, because editors (both Muslim and non) tended to add clutter all the time. My motivation is a tight article more than whitewashing of Islamism or anything. btw, "be bold" is advice to shy people who don't dare edit an article for fear of messing it up. It does apply up to and until you run into a dispute. In a dispute, "being bold" is useless, because it applies to both sides (except for third parties being bold in advocating a compromise). peace, dab (ᛏ) 11:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC) Fair enough. I'll go read it again. I can't edit the article for an five hours anyway; or I'd be breaking 3RR. Pax wikipediorum. Dev920 11:28, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The link I am referring to is the famous Islamic extremist terrorism, I'm getting tired of typing this. As for past disputes between pov-pushers of all convictions, I invite you to review the talk archives. It was quite bad last autumn, with much hubbub about how the topic of apostasy should be presented. dab (ᛏ) 11:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR and Islam

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert an article to a previous version more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.

This identical warning is being added to the other user's talk page. You are both close to violating the rule. Please discuss on the talk page and seek a way to find consensus and agreement. GRBerry 19:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You asked what next steps to take. See Wikipedia:Resolving disputes. You have partially, but not yet fully, implemented the step entitled "Discuss with third parties". There are steps above that you might try, as well as steps below that that you might try. I would suggest you both give the discussion more time and then visibly try one of the mediation steps. (Remember, not everything needs to get done right now.) GRBerry 19:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Part of the same step could include posting requests on the talk pages of relevant Wiki Projects in order to get a wider audience. You could also try informal or formal mediation (listed as two separate steps). You could conduct a survey, but until there is someone truly engaged in discussion with you, it will be hard to formulate a survey well. Arbcomm is unlikely to get involved unless there has been a clear attempt at mediation.

Also, there is a drive to get Islam up to featured article status. I'm not a regular on featured article drives, but I'd be surprised if this could make featured article status without doing a better job of addressing the criticism and terrorism issues. Sooner or later the other editors will have to face this. Merely linking in see also is not enough NPOV. So you could also try the steps at Wikipedia:NPOV dispute, but I do not recommend this; it is mroe likely to ruffle feathers than to help reach a mutual agreement on how to proceed. GRBerry 20:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sermon of the roar of a camel

Hello, Dev920. Unfortunately, my expertise is identifying and tracking down the source of copyright violations, not the legal aspects. I'll give you what help I can. I gather that copyright may not apply because of the age of the material. If everything is over 100 years old or so, it probably isn't under copyright anymore. However, if the translation took place more recently for the sermon or the notes, the translations may be copyrighted. It depends how long ago the translations occurred and, in some cases, whether the copyright was renewed. There was a mention of the format possibly being copyrighted. I would guess that that refers to the placement of the footnotes and such. I don't know whether that can be copyrighted or not.

I suggest that you try to find someone more knowledgeable about all of this than I am. You can try the talk page of Wikipedia:Copyright problems or Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance). It might take a while to receive a response, particularly at copyright problems (if you post at both pages, mention that you are doing so). You could also ask the owners of the website whether the material is copyrighted and for permission to use it if it is. They may not know much about copyright and/or try to claim it when it does not exist, so you might want to ask them when it was written and translated. -- Kjkolb 01:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jake

Hi there, Iv left messages on this persons talk page, this is so annoying. I really dont want to let this go . Stevenscollege 17 June 2006

They're an aoler, so we can't actually do anything without blocking a huge number of people. I think. You could try ANI, but I think they'd just tell us to complain to AOL.

If defamer was the "most reputable" source you could find for this information, it raises the likelihood that the information is suspect at best and untrue at worst. Until and unless something actually reputable can be sourced, the info cannot be included—"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." Thanks. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 23:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed—especially considering that any quote from the rep must also be considered suspect if it's only been made to someone or something that isn't reputable. Essentially, you're stuck still looking for something better, and I wish you well. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 00:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything from US Weekly—and, a lot of celebs complain that it's no better than a tabloid—and the link I see to the New York Daily News is its gossip page, which is of dubious reliability. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 01:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject

Why don't you join Wikiproject Islam or the Muslim Guild? BhaiSaab ^talk 18:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The merger with the Muslim Guild probably won't happen. There's too much opposition. By the way, when you notice a copyvio, you're supposed to revert to the last non-copyvio revision. I did that at Abd-Allah ibn Abbas. BhaiSaab ^talk 19:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Latin

Please go ahead with the atholic Church spoken article, but pleaseedit it first to confirm to NPOV.Cygnus_hansa 13:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for page protection

Hey Dev920, you've left your unprotection request in the "protection request" section. Just letting you know so you can fix the mistake. — Nrtm81 15:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thanks for all the work, Dev920. I guess you got knowledgeable and updated on a new topic, anyway !! Sandy 21:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome, though I have to say, I barely did anything. You guys are much more civil and communicative than most of the pages I work on... Dev920 21:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

oh, we've had our moments I'm less than proud of :-) Thanks, again. Sandy 21:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cloistered Dominicans

There over 200 cloistered Dominican convents around the world. [2] The USA has about 20. The original Dominican nuns were all cloistered. Williamb 00:30, 29 June 2006 (UTC) Ok, but how many is that out of the total? Dev920 19:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Francis Cross

Hi Dev920,

I'm doing some research into the author Albert Francis Cross and I see you've made entries on his page. Do you know any more about him?

I'm doing some research into him and am stuck for sources. Are you able to help?

Thanks

Sctb

I am deeply sorry, but I only copyedited that article. I cannot help you. If you try looking up the Enquire service at the people's network (google it), you can have English librarians find you some sources. Sorry I can't help more. Dev920 19:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jordanjames

Jordanjames seems to have stopped for now, so I didn't block her. -- Where 19:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it looks like she has been trying to meet WP:V. -- Where 19:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see what you mean. But Jordanjames has not made any such edits after you gave her the last warning, so I am hoping she will stop by herself. -- Where 19:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes. Looks like somebody blocked her now though. -- Where 14:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spocks brain

No warnings for past 3 days -- that's why I gave the new one. Sometimes the admins are very picky about not giving blocks if there hasn't been a recent warning. NawlinWiki 15:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dev (not your real name :) ) -- my impression is always that it is the shortest block that is effective. You might want to write the admin who gave the one week block and point out the conflict. NawlinWiki 21:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Islam

Re: subject Islam, which you left on my page - Great. Thank you very much. I very much appreciate you taking the time to answer my question. --Brasswatchman 18:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Text of poems in articles

Hello Dev920. You re-added the text of London to London (poem), citing WP:S&P— which doesn't seem to exist. Were you referring to an existing page? // [admin] Pathoschild (^talk/_map) 02:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that. I meant WP:L&P - it says short songs and poems should be added. Additionally the guidelines for Wikiproject poetry also say to add short poems. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dev920 (talk • contribs) 11:08, July 9, 2006.

Thank you for pointing that out. I've added the link to Wikisource back in, as it allows users to visit Wikisource and browse the rest of Blake's collection. // [admin] Pathoschild (^talk/_map) 18:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the defence

on the battle field's AFD. I see they are keeping you busy over at the JG article :)

--Charlesknight 21:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fansites

If you want to be a big creepy stalker, and keep the fansites, fine. I'll leave your idol's page alone, but I know, and you should realize, that fansites have no place on an encyclopedia. Desertsky85451 21:22, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sweetie, adding relevant information to a bio article makes you a contributor; adding fansites to assist creepy stalkers makes you into *gasp* a creepy stalker; and reverting edits just because there were no edit summaries makes you into a bad editor. Keep up the good work. Desertsky85451 22:27, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pookie, if helping the stalkers is what allows you to sleep well at night, who am I to judge? I'd just assumed that you'd want Jakey all for yourself instead of putting up ways for other "Jake-oholics" to track him down. It's very philanthropic and noble of you to share those links to juicy gossip, on an encyclopedia no less! I'm so sorry to have ever interfeared in the first place. Desertsky85451 00:46, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my god, Dev920 and her english school buddies are going to JUDGE ME? I won't be able to look in the mirror without crying. The scorn of under-18 Jake-ophiles is scorn I can never take. I shall forever be fearful of wikipedia, unless I am personally taking time to add every fansite on the internet to every actor's bio entry. You have taught me a valuable lesson, Dev920. For that, I am forever in your debt. *bows* Desertsky85451 17:35, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jakes page

Hi there, iv been away myself and taking things easy so I stayed away from Jakes page on purpose, it can get stressful, Ill keep an eye on things, now im back and ready for battle.--Stevenscollege 15:05, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Research Survey Request

Hello, I am a member of a research group at Palo Alto Research Center (formerly known as Xerox PARC) studying how conflicts occur and resolve on Wikipedia. Due to your experience in conflict resolution on Wikipedia (e.g., as a member of the Mediation Cabal) we’re extremely interested in your insights on this topic. We have a survey at http://www.surveymonkey.com/s.asp?u=400792384029 which we are inviting a few selected Wikipedians to participate in, and we would be extremely appreciative if you would take the time to complete it. As a token of our gratitude, we would like to present you with a PARC research star upon completion. Thank you for your time.

Parc wiki researcher 00:00, 26 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PARC User Interface Research Group

jake, fansites and the meaning of life

I am not abusing anyone, and I am quite seriously done talking about this. Policy that you quote so religiously says one fan site is acceptable, but not necessary. Not dozens, not 5, not 3, not the 'best one ever'. As such, I plan to keep deleting fansite links, wherever I go, especially when I find more than 2. Do what you will with the jake article, I really could care less; I promise you I won't go near it again. Desertsky85451 16:25, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

welcome back

welcome back, hope you had a nice break, everythings tickety-boo on jakes page and I see you agree with me on jakes future films, but I will say the section I was complaing about has been tidied up and looks a lot better, but still....--Stevenscollege 20:27, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userbox change

I changed the User Broadsheet userbox to User newspapers|b|1 in preparation of a TfD of User Broadsheet, User Compact, and User Tabloid. Those three userboxes are handled by User newspapers. It was so you didn't have to do it upon seeing a redlink when deleted. - LA @ 21:21, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 '''Welcome!'''
+How can you be one of those who believes homosexuality was depicted in Greek literature? It wasn't. There wasn't even a term for homosexual in Ancient Greece. You guys misinterpret everything to support your rediculous fabricated myth. Take a look at this source for example and learn.http://198.173.87.101/debunking_the_myth_of_homosexuality_in_ancient_greece.htm
+It's sad how ignorant people like you help deface history.
 Hello, {{PAGENAME}}, and [[Wikipedia:Welcome, newcomers|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: