User talk:Axlq

Hi! Use this page to talk to me about my articles, edits, or reversions. I will respond here. If I contact you on your talk page, please respond there. =Axlq

Sailing hydrofoil

Omg. What was I thinking. :D LOL I was being absentminded when I slapped navy instead of water stub. :D Thanks for fixing that in.''F3-R4'' 06:08, 22 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

''F3-R4'' has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

No problem, thanks. =Axlq 16:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Xylitol

Thanks for the discussion in Talk:Xylitol today. I created my account so that I could add that comment. I appreciated your quick response to my first comment and your supportive response to my reply.

Someone came by this afternoon who was able to cite the medical journal the report appeared in. They did much better than I could have come up with just my Reuter's story.

By that time I'd built up enough confidence doing little edits that I felt comfortable refactoring the section.

Thanks again... BigrTex 03:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome — looking forward to seeing your contributions. You may find that participating in Wikipedia is addictive. =Axlq 04:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Spambot

That could be, but we generally don't indef block IPs, simply because they can be used my multiple users who might be innocently affected. If they continue spamming after the block expires, I will enact a longer block, but not indefinite. Thanks. --Mr. Lefty (talk) 17:27, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

antiquarian

This conversation has been moved to User talk:68.101.67.16 for continuity. =Axlq 14:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for alerting me to the peer review. 68.101.67.16 16:25, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikiproject Marine Biology

Conversation moved to User talk:Shy1520 for continuity. =Axlq 03:42, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Link deletion

I was just curious why you deleleted the 'UK independant health site' on the link for Netdoctor within the Erectile dysfunction article ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melisclark (talk • contribs) 07:55, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't remove the link. I edited the description. The link is still there. =Axlq 21:24, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Governorpataki.jpg

Regarding Image:Governorpataki.jpg, you have disputed that the image is a replaceable fair use image and you wrote: "Replaceable fair use tag above was placed erroneously by an overzealous editor. The image comes from a free source that clearly states its purpose as a place for anyone to download images. It makes no sense to demand a "free replaceable image" for an image that is already free for public use.".

I have replaced it with Image:Pataki cropped.JPG, which is available under a free license. If you believe that this replacement image is not an adequate replacement then you can comment on the image talk page, but if the replacement image is adequate perhaps you could consider removing the disputed tag?

Sincerely, --Oden 17:49, 16 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the information. I have removed the tag I placed. =Axlq 04:25, 18 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IIPM Advertising Controversy

Hi AxlQ, thank you for voting on the RfD. Do you know of any other precedent for handling a similar controversy on Wikipedia articles? Iipmstudent9 18:17, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you look through other AfD discussions over a period of time, you will see other examples of consensus preferring non-notable content to be merged into another article. That was the basis of my vote. =Axlq 21:41, 25 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

speedy delete

If you say that the article does not meet WP:NPOV , why don't you edit the article, instead of suggesting speedy delete?

By the way, is there a definition for vanity article in Wikipedia:Portal ? Tonytypoon 21:57, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I did not suggest speedy delete due to NPOV, but rather non-notable bio reasoning. I also don't see the point in fixing up an article I believe should be deleted. I do occasionally fix up articles in danger of deletion, see Xtracycle for example. Not this time.

I haven't seen an official definition of a vanity article. I think it's understood that vanity means the article's author is also the subject, or it was written by someone associated with the subject (friend or family, for example). I only said the NPOV language suggested a vanity article; probably a poor choice of words on my part. =Axlq 22:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you speedy deleted music thanatology this is a definition of music for the dying. Music for the dying is a copyright infringment? Water for the thirsty is a copyright infringment? Saying that coke/pepsi is a drink is copyright infringment? What? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mark v1.0 (talk • contribs) 11:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I speedily deleted nothing. An administrator deleted it after agreeing with my deletion proposal. All the text was copied directly off another web site as I detailed in my deletion proposal; therefore, yes, it was a copyright violation. -Axlq 04:24, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sea Shepherd

Conversation moved to User talk:71.54.193.153#Looking for help?

2000s in comics

Thanks for that. The whole area has been a niggling concern to me since I discovered there were similar entries for comcs as there were for other media but despite sketching others out, linking in to them and adding Comics Project headers there has been little activity and as it stands it can't sustain those decades in comics entries and I've given thoughts for fixing things: Talk:2000s in comics#PRODed. Hopefully this should get things moving and finally resolve the situation and get more editors working on the avrious entries. I've dropped a note in here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Comics#200X in comics. (Emperor 15:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I don't have a problem with the individual articles listed in 2000s in comics, but with the list itself. I'd say, just make sure the category "2000s comics" or whatever is applied to each of those listed articles, then the 2000s in comics page is no longer necessary. That's really what categories are for, and this article is trying to imitate a category. =Axlq 05:48, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TWT

I suggest you remove TWAT from the TWT entry as an acronym as it is virtually never used anymore in vacuum electronics circles by those who research, design, and use these devices. I would consider it archaic since after 15 years in the industry the first time I have ever seen that acronym is in your edit to the Wikipedia entry. Go to ieeexplore.ieee.org and put TWAT in the search box. Nothing. Then put TWTA in the search box, which is the acronym of choice today (Traveling Wave Tube Amplifier). You'll get 100 papers about TWTAs.

Of course it isn't used much anymore; that was the point. However, in my 22 years in the industry (defense-related radar measurements), I heard the term frequently until about the 1990s, and there are sources verifying its use. It's hard for me to justify removing an historical acronym that has verifiable sources. If the article doesn't make it clear that this is an historical term, then certainly it should. =Axlq 16:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, but I'm still not wild about sticking the TWAT acronym in the first paragraph. It's irrelevant today and probably ought to be put more towards the end of the article as a historical footnote, but I'm not going to fight you on it.=Willus

Um... this conversation really belongs on the article's talk page. I don't mind if the mention occurs later in the article; you're correct that it isn't enough of a critical fact to warrant being right up front like that. I just moved it (you could have also; I wouldn't have complained). =Axlq 05:47, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, this is the last I'll post here. You're free to take this whole conversation and cut and paste it into the article's talk page. Thank you for being accomodating. I just didn't feel it was my place to make the change--I wasn't sure how strongly you felt about it. =Willus

Regarding your spam warning on User talk:Mpreter

I believe these were well-intentioned additions by a new user. Please refer to WP:AGF and WP:BITE. Jerry lavoie 23:41, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree - please see discussions related to level 1 warnings. The wording is written to assume good faith. A warning was necessary however, as a means of conveying information. =Axlq 23:45, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

fair enough. Jerry lavoie 23:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No Deleting

There is more than enough "proof" that Killer Instinct 3 is rumored to come, this isnt me using a crystal ball, its a page listing all the articles, pages, and hints at the possibility of a KI3

trying to make a page in Wikipedia is frustrating and complex —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PseudoKirby (talk • contribs) 05:32, 31 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It certainly is. After reading your article again, I have retracted the deletion prod. =Axlq 05:37, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

quick question, how do I submit my article for cleanup? I cant seem to get the organization right, and my writing could be worded better, more encyclopedic PseudoKirby 07:04, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just add a {{cleanup}} tag at the top of the article. The presence of that tag will automatically add the article to the category of articles needing cleanup. =Axlq 07:19, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Stevia

I just wanted to let you know that I have left an explanation for the edit that you referred to as a "bad bot edit" at Talk:Stevia. Deli nk 20:48, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I didn't notice that the edit you reverted was a pattern of linkspamming. The link seemed OK to me. The real reason I labeled it that way was because I was peeved that there was no explanation for your reversion. Something like "reverted link added by serial spammer" would have helped. =Axlq 06:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Infinite bans

Hello Axlq. Well no bans for absent-minded editors such as the above (and myself!). But all anon editors must be banned, as they are the majority of the vandals and abusers. Its okay for the likes of me whose work is on very obscure subjects and usually confined to my home country. Be we have all seen great editors driven away because of abuse of one sort or another. We must take action on this or else Wikipedia will be reduced to utter spam sooner or later. Any thoughts? Fergananim 13:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Radar Cross Section editing

Conversation moved to Talk:Radar cross section#Removal of statement about downtime

Fishes

There is a new proposal on naming conventions for fish being discussed at WikiProject Fishes. As a member of said project your feedback would be appreciated at the WikiProject Fishes talk page here. Cheers, David. MidgleyDJ 07:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Golden ratio

Obviously I understand the relationship between Fibonacci numbers and the golden ratio. But I don't see how that make's Tool's use of Fibonacci numbers relevant to the Golden ratio article. This article picks up way to much random cruft, so we have to keep pruning away the irrelevant bits. Try to be part of the solution instead of part of the problem. Dicklyon 05:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You don't see how...? And you say you understand the relationship?

I never even heard of Tool before today. I have no clue what their music is like. However, a few simple google searches revealed that the band uses the golden ratio in their music. The fact that the golen ratio can be expressed in Fibonacci numbers doesn't seem like a valid reason to judge any mention of the band as irrelevant cruft. Your denial of encyclopedic inclusions is part of the problem. =Axlq 05:30, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your text didn't say they use the golden ratio; if they do, and you say so, and the ref verifies it, then it's fine. Just saying they use Fibonacci numbers is not enough. Dicklyon 14:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree - but I'll continue on the article's talk page. =Axlq 03:46, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not so futile

Thanks for the info about the multiple IP vandal – I've shamelessly pinched the info you gave and put it at WP:ANI#IP spoofing Jerry Falwell / Baptist / Ministry spammer which I should have notified last night, but it was rather past my bedtime. Note that at least one article's been protected to stop the spam advertising a demo, no doubt admins with more knowledge than me will sort this out. Thanks, .. dave souza, talk 08:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, should have checked more thoroughly first. Too sleepy this weather . :-/ .. dave souza, talk 18:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Featured article nomination for ocean sunfish article

After lots of work on the article, I've nominated ocean sunfish for Featured Article status. I noticed your post at Talk:Ocean sunfish, and thought you might be interested in taking part in the nomination discussion. I hope to see you there! PaladinWhite 01:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. Although, I think you should have nominated it for good article status first, or even a peer review. Peer review is a good way to getting the article up to GA or FA standards, making the GA or FA process smoother. =Axlq 15:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't realize that so many issues would be brought up with the article, and as Wikipedia:Featured Article Candidates reads, "Articles should not be simultaneously nominated here and at peer review or good article candidates," I thought it appropriate to go straight to FA. I'll know better in the future! PaladinWhite 13:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind taking a look again at the ocean sunfish page, and add your support to Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Ocean_sunfish if you believe most concerned are now addressed? I have edited the article extensively to address questions raised in the nomination page. Thanks! Fred Hsu 18:22, 30 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!!! Fred Hsu 01:29, 3 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Recreation of deleted pages

You seem to have accidentally recreated a couple of pages that had already been deleted while trying to add a {{db-empty}} tag. You seem to be an experienced user, so I just wanted to let you know that you were overlooking something. BassoProfundo 01:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those couple of pages appeared because an anonymous user created talk pages without corresponding articles. I put a speedy tag on the talk pages, then decided it would make more sense to tag the empty articles instead. I didn't exactly recreate the articles; they were already there by virtue of an anon user creating their talk pages.

This seems to be a loophole — Wikipedia requires a registered account to create articles, but it appears anonymous IP addresses can still create talk pages without registering. =Axlq 01:38, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the speedy deletion template {{db-talk}} may be what you are looking for. BassoProfundo 01:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes. I missed seeing that tag somehow. Thanks. =Axlq 18:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Breaching fish

Yes, I know and might have written a bit unspecific. My point was that I consider both a mola mola and a basking shark as slow moving, heavy fishes, I was surprised when I learned that a basking shark can jump out of the water and would therefore not be all that surprised if a mola mola can do it also, 10 feet yes that is quite a bit. I hope that Tierney Thys will review and add references, she promised me that she would do it over the weekend, I will give her a reminder next week if she does not get back to me, she sounded so positive of helping so I think she will, she just have lots to do. Stefan 06:01, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Online M.B.A. Programs

I removed the copyright violation. I checked random sentences when I checked for the copyright violation, but must have missed this section. It wasn't a really big section to begin with. Also, that the article's existence came about from the author's conflict of interest is not a reason of course to delete it as a copyvio, hence the proposed deletion. Garion96 (talk) 17:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. The article's purpose is clearly to advertise the author's site, and after reading the talk page, a copyvio message seemed the best way to go. A prod works too, though. =Axlq 03:29, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Re to Third Opinion

On your comments here:

I would like to know what part of WP:POINT I have been disregarding? David Fuchs^(talk) 18:41, 18 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not any specific part, just the general spirit. I felt, rightly or wrongly, in reading your exchange, that he was trying to explain his good-faith actions in the face of repeated goading (in spite of the fact that his behavior wasn't acceptable). That's a personal impression I got, and I apologize if that impression was mistaken.

I have issued a number of third opinions, but always for a dispute concerning an article, never for a dispute about an editor's behavior. It seemed odd to me that a third opinion was even requested. =Axlq 03:38, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have nothing wrong with you offering an outside opinion, I just don't see exactly what I did that was against WP:POINT in letter or spirit. Perhaps I could have rewritten "And I'm asking you to desist with the canvassing, lest I have to report you" in a more neutral tone, but in that case I see the problem being with him, not as much me. Whatever though, I'll leave him be. David Fuchs^(talk) 13:17, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responded further in e-mail. =Axlq (talk)

Spamstar of Glory

		The Spamstar of Glory
		To =Axlq for exceptional work in the battle against Spam and other nonsense on Wikipedia. --Hu12 04:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for your tireless efforts in keeping articles clear of spam and other nonsense. Wikipedia is a better quality project because of hardworking and conscientious editors like you!--Hu12 04:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aw, shucks. Thanks. I do make mistakes, but we all do our best. =Axlq 05:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

GREETINGS FROM PORTUGAL

HELLO THERE AXLQ, IT'S VASCO FROM PORTUGAL, user nº217.129.67.28.

Thank you very much for that tip in the RUDOLPH DOUALA (CAMEROON FOOTBALLER) article. I missed the external links which could have been of much use. I am glad you took the time to help in there and i hope we can wiki-meet again one of these days!!!

HAVE A NICE WEEKEND AND KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK, VASCO AMARAL, PORTUGAL

WP:FLAGCRUFT

Hi. You said "WP:FLAGCRUFT says flags are appropriate in infoboxes" in your edit summary to BAE Systems. I'm having trouble finding where it says that. If you wish to respond would you mind doing so at Talk:BAE Systems, where I have gone into more detail and where others have made comments. Thank you for your time. Mark83 16:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Says it right there near the top, it's appropriate to identify nationality with a flag in an infobox. I have responded in more detail at Talk:BAE Systems. =Axlq 17:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lung Cancer distribution

You posted on the Lung cancer article
That's a really cool graphic of the distribution of lung cancer in the United States. The moment I saw it, I was hoping to find a discussion about why the highest lung cancer rates seem to be concentrated in the southeastern U.S. and why the lowest seem to be in a wide north-south band just east of the Rocky Mountains. Did anyone ever see any reliable sources that speculate on the reason for the distribution? =Axlq (talk) 08:45, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd be willing to bet that the reason that the lowest rate is in Utah (and surrounding states) is due to the high concentration of Mormons there, specifically due to the LDS belief in the Word of Wisdom, which prohibits tobacco usage (among other things) Regoarrarr (talk) 01:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that would explain Utah, but the low rate band spreads a lot farther than that. I can sort of understand the high rates being in tobacco-growing states, but not the overall pattern in the graphic. =Axlq (talk) 02:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You tube links..

It is in general considered bad form to link to video clips whose copryight status cannot be determined, as it could potentialy create issues for the Wikipedia project. Other web-sites HAVE been shut down for merely linking to material whose status was doubtful

In repsect of the specfic clip you mention, it is accepted it's not clear cut. However your suggestion to approach You Tube is laughable, as You Tube (mistakenly IMO) no longer allow third parties to flag videos for possible infringment.

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 14:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know that YouTube doesn't permit third parties to flag videos as possibly infringing. I notice they do let the owner flag as infringing. In that case, take it up with the owner, and if they do nothing, then it's OK. As I learned in the military, non-response equals concurrence.

I'll also point out that copyright status isn't clear-cut for almost all YouTube videos, so I think that argument about "bad form" is bogus. -Axlq (talk) 23:34, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

meter (poetry)

Hi Axlq,

On 5 Dec 07, I read the article Meter(poetry) and found that it lacked the basic information i sought in a clear, concise manner. I couldn't remember whether the meter form was called Tetrameter or quadrameter, and i expected this page would contain it.

I found it elsewhere, and so I added the succinct info in the section i thought most appropriate:

The term monometer describes verse with one foot per line. Dimeter describes verse with two feet per line. Trimeter describes verse with three feet per line. Tetrameter describes verse with four feet per line. Pentameter describes verse with five feet per line. Hexameter describes verse with six feet per line. Heptameter describes verse with seven feet per line. Octameter describes verse with eight feet per line.

It was later deleted by you, calling it "redundant nonsense". Not sure why, since that info isn't given clearly elsewhere on the page (there's a lot of rambling examples, and a lot of discussion of poetic theory-- but nothing about forms of poetic meter itself). Just wondering your reasons.

I'd love to add the info to the page, as i believe people would find this fundamental knowledge rather essential to the discussion and understanding of poetic meter. After all, I came to to the page seeking the info, couldn't find it, and after finding my answer, used the info to improve the page. Jgoldschmidt (talk) 16:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the tone in my edit commentary. I called it redundant because the prefixes mono, di, tri, tetra, etc. are common on other words, their meaning is obvious, and listing them exhaustively is redundant and obvious. Only two or three examples are necessary. That, plus the fact that there was no source indicating that these terms are used in poetry (if they're obscure there's no need to include them), caused me to delete the section. =Axlq 15:38, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bubblegum worldwide popularity

On the bubblegum page you deleted this section. I was wondering if you could comment on why you did it, and changes you might suggest that might make it a bit more "edit-resistant."

Thanks.

User Bgumaly 12/11/07 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.37.53.255 (talk) 03:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I deleted it because it was written in a rather non-neutral, hyped, and conversational tone, like an editorial on an opinion page rather than an article in an encyclopedia, and it made claims that were unsourced. =Axlq (talk) 04:30, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ass to mouth

Please read WP:BLP: Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles. MaxSem^{(Han shot first!)} 18:05, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please look up the meaning of "contentious". There isn't any contention concerning particular porn stars mentioned. Please don't mis-apply Wikipedia policies. =Axlq (talk) 20:21, 15 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Paleolithic style diet

Thanks for your help Axlq! I was wandering if some criticisms I added in the "criticism" section are "original research" in the form of a "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position". I would greatly appreciate your opinion on this matter (see discussion page). Thanks! --Phenylalanine (talk) 20:44, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm impressed with the job you did. I'm looking the article over and I have some minor concerns, but I'll post them on the article's talk page. =Axlq (talk) 03:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I've responded to your constructive comments on the discussion page. --Phenylalanine (talk) 23:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to your help, this article has been promoted to good article status! Cheers! --Phenylalanine (talk) 23:50, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shucks, all I did was criticise it a bit. Anyway, congratulations. =Axlq (talk) 15:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Axlq, User:69.47.110.119 has done it again--he/she has vandalised Blue's Clues--again! You might want to think about a permanent block. Have you seen this user's contribution list?[1] He/she has a particular thing for this particular article. Man, what did Blue ever do to him/her? --Figureskatingfan (talk) 11:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an administrator, so I don't block. Also, a permanent block is unlikely for an anonymous IP address. In any case, no vandalism from that IP address has occurred since you wrote the note above. =Axlq (talk) 15:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Toolong

Hey there, I noticed you added a toolong template to Paleolithic-style diet, but can't figure why, the lead guidelines say for an article over 30,000 characters (which this article is), 3-4 paragraphs should be used in the lead. What was your reason for (reluctantly) adding the template? Murderbike (talk) 05:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning is explained at Talk:Paleolithic-style diet#Successful GA nom, as well as suggestion for improvement. Basically the lead has more detail than it needs compared to the actual text of the article (not counting the voluminous text in the references). =Axlq (talk) 05:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, never mind. I see it is under 30,000 characters.

Murderbike (talk) 05:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Werdnawerdna

The paragraph I typed in the article Virgin birth of Jesus is 100% proved, scientific fact. I don't know what kind of proof you believe I need to show - please inform me. Every scientist, doctor, historian etc could tell you the same thing as I wrote. The rest of the article reads like a fundamentalist Christian creationist's preachings from the altar. Most of the rest of it is not written in anything like from a neutral point of view. My paragraph of facts is necessary to balance the article; to tell the truth and to counter the propaganda that forms the bulk of the article. I have stated only solid facts, not any mere opinions. What I typed is just as true as irrefutable statements such as: "cheetahs run fast", "Antarctica is cold"; "the Earth orbits the Sun". If you really feel that I've not written it using acceptable wording, then please advise me as to which word(s) I need to change to make my paragraph a permanent part of the Virgin birth of Jesus article. The truth needs to be told - this isn't Conservapedia!

Werdnawerdna (talk) 19:40, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policy of no original research. This policy isn't negotiable, and has nothing to do with whether or not I agree with what you wrote (and I happen to like what you wrote). The fact is, we shouldn't write text, especially potentially controversial text, without also including a citation to a source that complies with Wikipedia's verifiability policy and reliable source guidelines.

That's the difference between Wikipedia and Conservopedia. Conservopedia is free to have lower standards of evidence and attribution in what they write. Wikipedia has higher standards, so you can't just write whatever you feel is correct without citing a source. =Axlq (talk) 01:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

smile

Calus (talk) 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. Cheers, and Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Thank you, Calus. What did I do to deserve a smile from you? =Axlq (talk) 04:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Marmaris Hotels Guide

This conversation has been moved to User talk:Dr.Fix and later to Talk:Marmaris#Third opinion. =Axlq (talk) 04:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon Kindle

I noticed you removed the link to the "Various undocumented/underdocumented abilities of the Kindle", with the comment: "deleted blog site per WP:EL" That article states that blogs (among other items) are to be avoided "[e]xcept for a link to a page that is the subject of the article or an official page of the article subject". Since this was a link to a blog post that offers further information on the device, I disagree with its removal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoone (talk • contribs) 21:21, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree all you want, but the link fails. Blogs about a subject are unacceptable unless the blog is an official blog on that subject (such as a blog run by the person who is the subject of a biography article). Unofficial blogs also fail WP:RS as well as WP:EL. =Axlq 06:03, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re Bathroom fly

Xlnt! I learned something, too. Julia Rossi (talk) 00:46, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Searl Effect Generator

Thank you very much for your the reversal of the recent edit at Searl_Effect_Generator. Since i'm not that good arguing, and since i am not that familiar with all of the wikipedia rules, i did not response/undo again but decided to leave it as is. Your help is very much appreciated. Greetings, Chris --213.160.11.146 (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]