User talk:Anachronist

If I left a message on your talk page, please reply there; I have it on my watch list. If you initiate contact here, I will respond here, so make sure you put this page on your watch list. Thanks!

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

Invitation to join Wikipedia Wine Project

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

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

MBA Rankings

Hi,

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

I chose the FT rankings for two reasons,

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

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

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

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

Daviegold 17:00, 10 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Hi Amatulic,

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

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

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

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

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

use of "vanity"

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

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

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

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

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

Sloan Valve Company

Let me just say that I can state with official authority that this is not original material. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 00:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And what is that supposed to mean? "Official"? Again I ask, please reference the original material from which the article is copied. You didn't do that when you tagged the article. If it isn't an online source, then you should still state the source. -Amatulic 02:14, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

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

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

help regarding Matt Tilley article

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

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

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

Third opinion: Wikipedia:Notability (web)

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

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

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

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

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

Need Help Please

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

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

Isis peer review

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

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

Tadeusz Kantor

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

Muhammad al-Durrah

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

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

Georg Cantor

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

The Wedge (TV show)

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

Million/billion

"Millions" is both the standard of financial reporting and the standard for that particular infobox. —Joseph/N328KF (Talk) 04:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know. My point, that "billions" has different meanings in different countries, is one reason why "millions" is the standard. -Amatulic 21:03, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help request: Linking to images on other wiki projects

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

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

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

To upload an image on commons:

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

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

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

Template:Did you know

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

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

Steviol glycoside

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

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

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

RfC? (re Talk:Herbert W. Armstrong)

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

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

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

Invite to WikiProject Spam

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

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

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

IIPM article

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MBA specialization

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

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

Thank you for your information.

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

Wikipedia:Changing username/Usurpations

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

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

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

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

Solid Angle Formula

Hi,

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

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

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

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

Bgerke 18:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bgerke 19:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

New Wine Discussion (by Agne) : Input Requested

Dear Wikipedia:WikiProject_Wine member:

There is an ongoing discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Wine#Vintage_Infos_.28part_II.29 that has become

Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a wine guide

Please add your comments/input to the talk page Wikipedia_talk:Wikipedia_is_not_a_wine_guide.

Thanks! Regards -- Steve.Moulding 19:55, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:68.55.106.131

I wouldn't bother with the 3RR warning, since I've blocked him for 24 hours, which is the usual block length for a first 3RR anyway. But, if you see further vandalism from this user after the block lifts, feel free to notify me and I will be happy to impose a more substantial block. Thanks for your help, Gwernol 23:35, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to other accounts

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

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

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

Invite to participate in Wine Newsletter

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

Thanks

Hello Amatulic,

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

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

Re:

Thanks for the heads up - I've protected the article for a month now, but I guess its time for either mediation, RfC or blocking. Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 23:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Video journalism third opinion

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

Third opinion at User_talk:Awiseman#Third_opinion

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

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

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

Stevia

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

Third opinion at Template talk:LandmarkForum

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

ID "derivativations"

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

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

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

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

Response from Marvin Shilmer

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

User_talk:Reddi

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

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

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

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

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

User_talk:Huw4beynon

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

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

Third Opinion - Elvria Arellano

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

300 Jews in Singapore??

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

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

Request for Third Opinion

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

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

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

King of the Hill

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

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

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

Pugs

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

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

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

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

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

template:History of Manchuria

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

Singapore

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

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

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

American Biographical Institute

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

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

smoker???

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please do not save test edits. If you want to experiment, please use the shitbox