I worked so hard on this, it really pains me to see you disordering it and pulling it in a POV direction. You do not even seem to have tried to address my concerns, which I will repeat for you here:
There is a name section. Rasta names belong there, because they are no more important than any other names.
There are now two paragraphs implying that Haile Selassie is a religious icon, in the opening. One suggests merely that he is a religious icon, without mentioning that only a tiny minority of people believe that: Haile Selassie is simply not a religious icon in general, only to a fringe minority.
Your version states "movement was founded in Jamaica in the early 1930s" twice in the same paragraph...
without citing "1930s"--that's what needs to be cited.
Lastly, although you may be passionate about it, the Rastafarian religion is not Haile Selassie's central legacy. The man ran an empire for six decades; that's who he is. For this reason, mention of Rastafari belongs at the end of the opening, just as the Rastafarian sections belongs last in the entry.
Is there anything you disagree with, that I've stated above? Let's talk this out, and let's talk it out efficiently, so I can get back to serious work on the entry and not waste my time chitchatting. I know a lot of people like to chitchat on Wikipedia, but that's not my style... And I think you know I'm the best thing that ever happened to that entry, so I'm sure you don't want to waste too much of my time, right? DBaba (talk) 01:30, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Er, what I did is absolutely not pulling it in a POV diorection but quite the opposite, it is keeping it NPOV. Selassie is highly notable as the Rastafarian God, and the Rastafari do venerate him as God. You appear to want to sweep that under the carpet. Him being a religious icon for Ethiopians is completely different from what has developed re the Rastafari and there is no probable about how they see him. Your claim that it is not his central legacy is precisely that, a claim, and indeed only history will judge that but you cannot in the meantime claim that it is only a tiny minority who claim him as the messiah. Please also do not assume I have worked less hard on the article or that it pains me any less to see you pulling it apart on what is clearly a POV crusade. Also names should always be in the beginning, your naming section is contrary to our style guidelines. It is easily citable that Rastafari began in the early thirties. Why do you challenge that fact. Your final assertion just demonstates that you are pushing a POV, please dont do so. Thanks, SqueakBox02:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most of that doesn't really make sense to me. Let's leave the part about my "POV crusade", which has featured meticulous research and 400 edits that you've not objected to until now, and talk about the names section first. Why are you claiming the names section is unacceptable, but only framing the Rasta names in the intro? What about the Ethiopian names and the royal titles? Is it neutral to pick your favorite names according to your POV? Am I picking names according to my POV too, or are you the only one doing that?
It still says "movement was founded in Jamaica in the early 1930s" twice in the same paragraph: Doesn't that look really stupid to you, too? I don't know man, this is so weird of you, especially to accuse me of trying to "sweep under the rug" the Rastafari angle after I've argued to maintain it in the opening, I just don't know if you're really hearing me at all. DBaba (talk) 03:40, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
just a general comment
Don't take any of that which is frequently thrown your way to heart. You're doing a great job, and you do it looking good. User:Dorftrottel 06:26, February 20, 2008
Question
I know you are a powerful editor or admin of some sort. I noticed that you removed a link to a video on the Fidel Castro talk page. Was there a reason for that, i.e. is it against the rules to post outside links? I fortunately saw the link before it was removed and it was some very interesting historical footage by the National Geographic and other sources. Just curious, as I can never figure out the rules around here. Regards, Mattisse01:13, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would be better coming from a site that was not dailymotion or similar, eg could be a copyright violation, etc. I don't consider daily motion a reliable site. Thanks, SqueakBox01:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has nominated San José Pinula, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/San José Pinula and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 11:59, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe there is a serious libel BLP violation at J Stalin. The source claiming he was a criminal drug dealer is his album notes. But its a non-notable album sold at his performances and out of his car. Its unavailable and unverifiable. Attempts to place the dubious tag were agressively removed by an editor with steadfast support of the article. WP:OWN issues.Icamepica (talk) 04:26, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
user wikidemo reverted my removal of the selling candy on the bart train, and also removed my {{fact}} on the non contentious claim that he started rapping at age 13 which is cited based on unpublished album notes which cannot be found. this is on the J Stalin article, would someone intervene and revert and also discuss?Icamepica (talk) 07:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re these comments by the two of you: "appears not to be acting in good faith either." and "Just what we need, a frequently blocked disruptive editor to jump in." etc. at Talk:J Stalin: Would you please keep your comments on the article talk page focussed on article content, not on editors? Thank you. I'm putting a similar message at User talk:Wikidemo. --Coppertwig (talk) 03:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have had enough of this and have removed all the connected pages from my watchlist, talk about being given a hard time for trying to help, and I am not referring to you Copper, but a certain editor is not being helpful. Thanks, SqueakBox04:00, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, me too. Regardless of whether the sockpuppet allegations re Icamepica are true or not (and they were still allegations last night) this makes no odds re the article or the possible BLP violations concerning this Stalin fellow. Wikidemo claimed it was a part of his image, and if it were proven then I would be happy to include it (like Bob Marley for instance) but that has not been proven. What I find really disturbing in this case is that Wikidemo believes that because there is sockpuppetry that this means we can ignore BLP. Convictions for drug dealing can really effect people, especially marginally notable people, and this is why I am appalled at has been happening there. Thanks, SqueakBox15:43, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
warning vandals
Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Jamie Oliver: You may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Enigmamsg!04:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are a previous participant in the discussion at WP:AN/I about User:Mikkalai's vow of silence. This is to inform you, that I have made a proposal for resolution for the issue. I am informing all of the users who participated, so this is not an attempt to WP:CANVAS support for any particular position.
Thanks for the heads-up, definitely appreciated. I see it has gone to arbcom (thanks to your header) and will post here. I welcome emails about this case as I am interested and intending to be involved as much as I can. Thanks, SqueakBox20:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, could you go to this link? I've created a proposal for the mediation to put new editors and SPA's editing the PPA page, and other related pages under the supervision of some neutral admins. Ryan Postlethwaite02:30, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hard to say whether that will affect the afd, but I will certainly keep an eye on this one. Cheers for the heads up. Thanks, SqueakBox22:57, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just wanted to say that it feels very good for us to be working together on an article. It's been too long. --SSBohio00:08, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see it is snowing a lot in Ohio. The rain of the past 48 hours here has gone and we are back to hot, sunny, even stifling weather. Thanks, SqueakBox15:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As part of the pro-pedophile activism mediation, I've created a mentorship page with appointed mentors for editors to report problems to. The mentors will be expected to keep editorial decorum on the pages and also help enforce policy derived editing on the pages. I would appreciate your input on the talk page. Regards, Ryan Postlethwaite00:07, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Big deal, I ma sure you can muck-rake, these sources are speculation, the cause of death is unknown and we are an encyclopedia not a rag trying to make money out of the misery of others. If you cannot see that perhaps you should get another hobby. I am disgusted at these flimsy accusations appearing ion wikipedia. Thanks, SqueakBox16:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And perhaps you should step back and calm down. We're only reporting what others have said. Others have said it may have been suicide, and so far there is no immediate proof it wasn't. To be equally fair, there's no immediate proof it was. We're not saying it was suicide, we're just saying it may have been. If it turns out to have not, we just re-edit it. HalfShadow (talk) 17:08, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We should not imply suicide when all we have is the musings of a few journalists, putting it on the Deaths in 2008 page is trolling and this kind of crap just makes wikipedia seem like a gossip rag, IMO repeating slanderous allegations is not something to calm down about, not that I was uptight, i just removed the offending material, perhaps you would care to help me. Thanks, SqueakBox17:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Shannon Matthews
Suppose this guy is never charged, or is charged and acquitted? We've labelled him a criminal and a particularly nasty type of criminal. How much do you think he would be able to sue the Foundation for? Answer in millions, please. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:02, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We are not labelling him a criminal at all, I assume he is innocent until (if ever) proven guilty, and I take BLP very seriously. If this were an article on him (and I would oppose having one) that would be different but what we are saying is that the disappearance of Shannon was a crime and it is quite clear that that is the case, as with Madeleine the other little girl who has disappeared in strange circumstances. The huge resources expended by the Police show they clearly were thinking a crime had taken place, and indeed the disappearance of a child and a huge police investigation is ample eviodence that a crime has taken place but none whatsoever that this chap has committed a crime himself, the crime is in the disappearance and her discovery doesn't affect that. Thanks, SqueakBox18:06, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your optimism, but I have practised law in the UK and his lawyers may disagree with you. He is clearly identifiable (or soon will be), and WP:BLP applies not only to the subjects of articles, but any person mentioned in articles. Sorry, it has to stay out until he's convicted. The huge resources expended by the police are normal for any missing child whether a crime has been committed or not. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 18:15, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I am no lawyer myself but I am not going to edit war with you over this point either. I suggest when his name is published we redirect to the article, BLP its talk page and watch vigilantly to make sure nobody creates an article, I certainly do not want to be part of in any way harming this individual and fully agree that BLP concerns anyone mentioned in any article, even in a case like this where he has not been mentioned by name, and while I am not in the UK I support wikipedia reporting these cases as if we were. Thanks, SqueakBox18:49, 14 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lets try and keep personal details to a minimum in this case, please, I would rather not even include who he is married to. Thanks, SqueakBox21:02, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I was not sure if it was because the biography was from his official site, so he could present a date of birth to pass off as being younger. RTFA (talk) 21:05, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For me the real issue is he objects tot he article existing at all. Therefore IMO if we just focus on his work (such as an opinion of his you added) I think that would be for the best, but as it happens I don't believe his website is a reliable source for anything concerning him. Thanks, SqueakBox21:08, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I understand. I am looking at this right now and use it to add more detail about his professional career instead. I think a version of that link already existed in the article, but it was not well-used. RTFA (talk) 21:09, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SqueakBox, I would like to inquire why you made your most recent edit to the intro of the "Pro-pedophile activism" article. There already is an explanation of how adult-child sex is viewed by the majority in the very first paragraph, and the words are even wikified. Furthermore, most would agree that PPAs advocate for a number of different changes in mainstream legal, medical, and social takes on pedophilia. Taking this into account, why should the issue of child sexual abuse be singled out, and put ahead of everything else? Also, even if CSA needs to be mentioned earlier in the paragraph, shouldn't at least pedophilia be listed first in the sentence, considering that's what this movement focuses on? Then, from a stylistic perspective, if your addition of CSA at the top remains, one of the wikilinks to the article discussing it needs to go, because there's only need for one wikilink per paragraph, especially in an intro. The other question I had for you is in regard to you adding an attribute of "claim" to the statement that PPAs would like to change negative societal attitudes towards pedophilia and pedophiles - is there thus an implication that the PPAs are wrong/mistaken to assess the community attitude as being hostile? Wouldn't you agree with this assessment (that most people react in a negative manner to pedophilia, pedophiles, and PPAs)? I really don't want another edit war to start, and this is why I'm not reverting your edit, but instead decided to inquire about your contribution to the article via your User Talk Page. ~ Homologeo (talk) 21:23, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe it is needed to explain what PPAs want, and what they want is to revoke the laws and social attitudes re child sexual abuse. The problem with the PPA claim is that it may not be correct. Anyway i have respionded to Jack's proposal at PPA talk. I think any committed editor should be at least trying not to edit war and I certainly am committed to that. Thanks, SqueakBox21:32, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I owe you a big apology
Dear Sir,
Last year (07 June), I behaved toward you in a very rude manner. You and another user had communicated on the Tony Blair talk page in what I took to be general chat rather than discussing improvement to the article. I chose to criticise this behaviour by referring to it as “stupid”(!) When you queried this disgusting outburst, I responded with an explanation of why I had objected but I did not bother myself to apologise.
On the principle of ‘better late than never’, may I now offer you my heartfelt apologies for my appalling incivility. I am very sorry (and very embarrassed) by my boorish behaviour. I have also apologised to ‘Gustav von Humpelschmumpel’, the other user whom I insulted. I am not normally given to this kind of conduct and I really do not know what came over me. There is simply no excuse.
Regards, Conval (talk) 12:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit confused. Last night you removed a James Bond villian succession box from the article with the edit summary stating "if you want to restore the Bod villain box you must mention it in the etxt witth refs etc". What exactly is in dispute regarding this if the role is already in the lead paragraph and is in the article further down, and once again listed in the filmography, as well as on the List of James Bond villains? Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 16:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no mention in the article itself about this, my point is if we are to have the succession box we need to mention his role in Bond films or film in the text itself. I simply do not/did not know whether this was true or not but if it is it certainly means mentioning in the bulk of the article. Thanks, SqueakBox17:02, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But there is mention of it in the article. See the section entitled "Hollywood" which says This would be the first of several villains that he would portray.[11] He became Alec Trevelyan (MI6's 006), the major villain of the 1995 James Bond film GoldenEye... which was the point I was making. Wildhartlivie (talk) 06:57, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That is strange as I ran the string Bond through my search and the only result was for the succession box. If you haven't already I suggest you revert me. Thanks, SqueakBox16:35, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
North America
Greetings, your change in North America ingnore that the Middle America region is not a pure North American region and may include South American regions, due this is the North America article, such fact should be informed. Cheers, JC 13:47, 20 March 2008 (PST)
I just found that article. As a Brit I have to say I have never heard of the term Middle America used in this way but the reality is that Venezuela and Colombia are never considered a part of North America in my opinion and therefore to restore that info you must ref it, verifiability being the name of the game. This is a difficult subject, I am aware of that so reffing any additions is necessary. Thanks, SqueakBox21:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is sourced see here: [1]. Off course Colombia and Venezuela arent considered North Americans, thats why their mention should be added. Cheers, JC 14:00, 20 March 2008 (PST)
You maintain that this minority notion should be included, even when many others clearly don't include those territories at all? The article is about North America, not what may or may not be in Middle America. Your rationale is as confused as your edits. Corticopia (talk) 22:03, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is rarely the case, as many other sources make no mention of these countries being in the region. You will continue to be reverted, J. Corticopia (talk) 21:48, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, without verifiability. I think the problem is that all definitions of South America include Colombia and Venezuela, generally its where to place Mexico and Central America that is controversial. And sure, Colombia (the coasts) and Venezuela are east of Central America but we aren't here to describe how things are we are here to describe how they are seen, hence the verifiability element. Thanks, SqueakBox21:53, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes: after all, the article is about North America and what comprises it, not what one of its regions (a region of the Americas which rarely includes countries from another continent) may or may not comprise. Thanks. Corticopia (talk) 21:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disappearance of Shannon Matthews
Per WP:LEAD, the break by her age is jolting for a reader, especially since it's stated on the next line. The lead is meant to provide an overview, which it does. Hope you don't mind. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 22:13, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A Beautiful Cherry Tree in Spring BloomTheres nothing like seeing a field full of spring flowers.
Just wishing you a wonderful First Day of Spring {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! ~~~~
If you live in the Southern Hemisphere and are entering the season of Autumn not Spring then I wish you a happy First Day of Autumn {{subst:CURRENTYEAR}}! To spread this message to others, add {{subst:First Day Of Spring}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Hi. Why don't I rewrite the article on Kurt Krenn? Why should I? The Catholic Curch of Austria is not my field of expertise, but I have been living here long enough to be able to assert that there is no incorrect or libellous information in it. Knowing that is one thing; proving it is another, and there are certainly more competent people around who know where to look up the missing references.
However, my main problem here is an over-reaction by an admin; others might even call it a slight abuse of admin powers. All the best, <KF>23:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would trust Doc's judgement. We need an article that is thoroughly sourced and deals with the complex issue of his resignation in a fair way. And aren't we here to write articles? Well I am, not to contest the judgments of admins. Thanks, SqueakBox23:30, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SqueakBox, thanks for starting a stub on Kurt Krenn. I don't know if you have read the deleted article, but now that I've reread it I cannot for ther life of me understand why it allegedly is a page "that serves no purpose but to disparage its subject or some other entity (e.g., "John Q. Doe is an imbecile"). These are sometimes called "attack pages"." Krenn is not attacked in the deleted article. The page serves the usual purpose of a biographical article and does not "disparage its subject", let alone only disparage it. The only shortcoming of the text is the absence of one or two, maybe three, references.
The Sisyphean task that has just started is to start from scratch without the help of the deleted text. My guess is that sooner or later a Wikipedian or two, supported by some casual browsers-turned editors, will come up with very much the same article again—just because there is nothing else to report about Kurt Krenn. Personally, I hate people working against each other, but if you are all happy with it, so shall it be. Happy Easter! <KF>23:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know nothing about this chap, or should I say I knew nothing about him, just noticed the thread on Doc's page. Feel free to email me the copy you have if you like. Thanks, SqueakBox23:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely to the contrary, I am an independent editor who has never met Jimbo, and none of mys statements could be attributed to Jimbo. People like The Rolling Stones have thousands of hardcore fans. What Jimbo isn't even allowed one. And by supporting Jimbo I feel I am supporting the encyclopedia as a whole and while I mostly like to edit biographies and related subjects I also think a bit of mop work is a good idea. I work to gain money, wikipedia is just a hobby, and I am not not cash short right now to want to be paid in my wikipedia endeavours in a way that would be controversial.
In my work I understand some of the problems with counting the number of words without a major software overhaul which would include it in the programme but it would be an interesting challenge. Did you hear the other day somebody deleted the sandbox, and mid-afternoon US time when Western Europe was still awake, ie at the worst time, and the servers crashed for a couple of hours as you can't do that kind of thing, an admin either not thinking or simply didn't realise that you can't edit 4 years of history on a page which had I have no idea how many edit revisions but clearly enough to crash the servers. Thanks, SqueakBox23:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply -I wasn't aware of that crisis no- just goes to show how fragile the system can be. Anyway in regards to Jimbo I gather he is very busy, I just feel a bit let down that he doesn't take more time to respond to editors as individuals. It seems he only comments if there is some sort of outrageous claim or editor on the prowl. I've proposed things to him like a new Wiki Translation system which I thought was a good idea, but he didn't even utter a word in response and at least say why it wouldn't be. It seems that more often or not you are the one answering his questions so this is why I asked♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦$1,000,000?11:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Signature Expert on wikipedia : www.hi.wikipedia.org
Greetings Friends on Wikipedia. I am vkvora, Male and many administrators on Hindi wikipedia say that I am terrorist where as I say all Administrators are involved in abuse of tools and three confirmed and three are in line.
I say Rajiv Mass Administrator on Hindi wikipedia and Ravi Jain are both one and same. Friend it is easy for you, where I do not know, good english to write you. I signed as vkvora. vkvora2001 (talk) 23:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An editor has nominated Don Murphy, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 02:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just to warn you that you added a vote after the nomination was closed, so other editor had to remove it [2], since you can't change an already closed debate. Cheers --Enric Naval (talk) 22:13, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Er no, that was me who reverted myself but I am glad I am commented anyway as I am one of the very few regulars at the Murphy article. Thanks, SqueakBox22:16, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit summaries are really hard to read and understand. — $PЯINGεrαgђ 03:29 24 March, 2008 (UTC)
Yes well that one was bad typos but don't generalise. Unfortunately edit summaries are both unfixable and unresponsive to spell check. Thanks, SqueakBox05:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here are six examples from the most recent (as of timestamp) page of your contributions. These are not all in order, but mostly they are. There were also two edits that were mis-spelt that I did not include here because the mis-spellings were rather minor.
Generally my opinion and experience with edit summaries (as well as talk page messages, e-mails, &c. &c.) is that if I have to read them twice, and especially if I have to read them more than twice, then it is usually not worth reading anyway. Not to say that your edit summaries are useless (they aren't), but in others it is often the case. Just trying to help. :) — $PЯINGεrαgђ 04:12 27 March, 2008 (UTC)
Chill out, Springeragh. Point taken, and with total respect. I actually appreciate your thread (I wouldn't dream of removing it) and am taking what you have taken time to tell me on board, but don't expect instant results (long lasting ones are so much more important) so cheers for taking the time, and you might say my response was a revelation to me because I couldn't see what I had meant for the life of me. And my first teacher on this subject, El C, then posted a lovely card (he told me way back to always include na edit summary and I do now and for a while, so I will now work on getting my edit summaries right and interesting but always coherent. Thanks, SqueakBox04:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't really mean to sound stressed or anything. I actually edited my original post (see page history) because it sounded somewhat dickish as well. — $PЯINGεrαgђ 00:35 28 March, 2008 (UTC)
And for the record i am developing a lot of pain in my right hand from RSI, I don't believe we are even close top replacing a mouse but a voice response keyboard is the way to go. Thanks, SqueakBox00:37, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Xavier/ Eide Real Name Sources
I can see no reason why you are attempting to remove relevant sources from an article. Please review [3]. There is nothing is wiki policy that suggests limiting sources to support a particular fact. There is nothing on the PJ Talk page that suggests a consensus to remove the extra sources for the Eide alias. Your removal of these reliable sources is unbecoming a wikipedia editor. Vagr4nt (talk) 05:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Policy? We are encyclopedia writers not wikilawyers and the factuality is not disputed nor ever has been so even one ref is the absolute maximum needed. Thanks, SqueakBox05:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps you have not been editing this article very long, but if you have you would remember that this point is often challenged on the basis of relevance. The additional sourcing has been established to support the inclusion of this point.
Furthermore, I can't see why any wikipedia editor would deliberately remove sourcing of facts. It seems downright contrary to everything we're doing here. Vagr4nt (talk) 06:14, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No I ma someone who has challenged it on the basis of relevance over a long time. But the refs don't help notability which is why we only need one at most. If you can't see why editors would remove refs in this case where there are too many (to the point of WP:POINT) then you perhaps need to ope your mind a little. I have been editing far more than you and know exactly what I am doing so your assumptions about this contradicting everything we are doing is just plain wrong, yuou may need to get a better handle on what we are doing. Thanks, SqueakBox06:28, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Daniel Brandt DRV
If you were reading the DRV at all, you might notice that the discussion is about the redirect not restoring the entire article. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do realise that, Josh, ie it was the redirect that has been here months that was deleted. I was actually responding to suggestions of restoring the full article both on DRV and at the talk page. Thanks, SqueakBox20:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Then I suggest you make clear that you aren't necessarily intending to endorse the deletion of the redirect. If you are intending to do so, I suggest you say so. JoshuaZ (talk) 20:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Probably Tokerdesigner was right to remove that picture of the ludicrously large joint. ;) I dunno about his/her other edits, though...
Here is the thing with Tokerdesigner: He or she believes that joints are part of a giant conspiracy by Big Tobacco (or "Big Tobackgo" as TD likes to say for some reason) to sell people on an "overdose smoking method" that allegedly heats marijuana or tobacco, take your pick, to an extremely high temperature that denatures the chemicals and makes it harmful, and that everyone would just stop smoking this way and use vaporizers instead, then nobody would die from smoking tobacco or cannabis. I am not making this up, he/she has said as much on my Talk page.
Now, there is likely some merit to some of these claims. I dunno about joints being part of a "Big Tobackgo" conspiracy, but it certainly at least seems plausible that burning tobacco or cannabis at higher temperatures and with more contaminants is going to be more harmful to your health.
But whether I think the ideas are plausible or not, it's still all original research, and Tokerdesigner is pushing it hard. A lot of his/her recent edits to Cannabis smoking are WP:OR, are not verifiable, and none of them are sourced.
I don't want Wikipedia to become a place where people can push their own personal agenda. So I am very concerned when I see Tokerdesigner removing a picture of a rolling machine and calling it an "advertisement for overdose smoking". Is the picture of the rolling machine appropriate? I can see an argument either way. Is TD's reason for removing it appropriate? Absolutely not.
I rolled back a bunch more edits after you reverted me, but then I saw your comment and decided to undo my revert until we can get consensus. But just check some of TD's edits, keeping in mind what I have told you about the conspiracy theories, and let me know if you still think these are mostly constructive edits. I am very skeptical... --Jaysweet (talk) 21:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that Tokerdesigner actually had the cajones to tell me that I should start going by my middle name instead of my first name, because when I tell people my first name is Jay I am creating a "propoganda effect" for "overdose smoking" and thereby benefiting "Big Tobackgo". I don't want to delve into ad hominem attacks here, but uh... Yeah, I dunno, take what you want from that exchange. [4][5] --Jaysweet (talk) 21:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads up, I'll do some looking around but not right now. I agree with the soapbox issue, and especially re cannabis, anyway I'll let you do what you think is best in the meantime. Thanks, SqueakBox22:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your more recent edits already caught some of TD's unsourced pov edits, and I moved his pro-vaporizer paragraph down to a subsubsubsection under the smoking methods, instead of being the first primary section in the article. I don't think it's situation-critical anymore as far as letting him have a soapbox, and the whole article needs so much work, it would be a little unfair for me to remove TD's unsourced claims and leave the other 500 unsourced claims in the article :D
BTW, I loved the pun about the "chronic" problems with the article, ha ha ha... Anyway, I gotta go, and this article has way more problems than either of us can fix in five minutes ;) So another time... Thanks, and keep up the good work! --Jaysweet (talk) 22:13, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re Cannabis smoking
You are wrong about warnings. Our only goal is to create a good encyclopedia, even in Europe many young people do not start smoking tobacco just because they smoke cannabis and we are not here to deter people from smoking tobacco, its just completely off topic (and if we were to warn of the hazards of smoking we would surely wasn't to warn of the hazards of smoking anything but that is not our role). Thanks, SqueakBox 21:42, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
See, I followed Jaysweet's instructions and quoted the item to be answered, putting it in italics.
You are right, young people "do not start smoking tobacco just because they smoke cannabis"-- off topic, because rather, they get hooked on tobacco from following bad advice and mixing tobacco in with the cannabis. If you will check the article you will see as of 1 a.m. GMT Jaysweet has moved "Mixing with other herbs" to the top of the article, and changed the title to "Mixing with tobacco". As a former addict who got off the habit (something I haven't had to do), please think what it means when Google sends millions of youngsters around the world to this article seeking to find out how to smoke cannabis and the first advice they get is how to mix with tobacco.
censorship
I will be looking around to see if there is a policy on how to report or debate this, but it looks like censorship to me. Trying to be charitable, maybe Jaysweet is one of those who feel safer if the cannabis article has a facade of tobacco in front of it to protect against being cracked down on by the tobackgo police (read US Drug Enforcement Administration etc.).
I don't believe either Jaysweet or Until are pro-tobacco. You could just as easily say my wanting to move the joints section up the page is pro-tobacco as certainly in Europe the habit is to mix tobacco with cannabis. This is partly because until recently most cannabis was hashish in Europe and one cannot smoke hashish in a joint without mixing it with something. When I was young people who started smoking cannabis did occasionally get hooked on tobacco smoking cannabis but most people who smoked cannabis were already tobacco addicts. I then saw the next generation much more open to using pipes to smoke pure hashish. I thought Americans just smoked grass in pure joints, as Latin American do. Thanks, SqueakBox01:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you planning to restore my edit. If it isnt open it looks it, it also appears you are tam[pering with it, presumably with the idea that your support can be before others opposes, which smacks of cheating to me. I am posting at rfa talk. Thanks, SqueakBox01:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Without violating Wikipedia:Mediation#The_privileged_nature_of_mediation could you explain on or off-wiki the reasoning behind your position? Usually when you and certain other user disagree on something, I agree with you. So obviously, the fact that both of you were eager to vote in opposite manners in this RfA interests me, and right now, is the primary basis of my Neutral. I can accept and respect an answer like "Opposed due to things at privileged mediation", but if you could explain more, I'd appreciate it. MBisanztalk20:45, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Asking him to elaborate to inform your own decision is fine - if this thread turns into a call for him to do so in order to justify his vote, then that is inappropriate and folks should recognize that it is given to voters on both sides to make a decision without justifying it extensively or at all to the community. Avruch T 20:50, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously if I defend Kurt's right to oppose without being berated for it, I would never dream of asking a user to justify their vote. But yes, this thread is only to help me form an opinion, not to make him, make public his opinion (thats why I left open the option of an email). MBisanztalk20:56, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)Avruch, I see where you are coming from here, but I have the very strong feeling that it is the first: MBisanz is looking for more information to base his own vote on, not a justification of Squeakbox' vote. Martijn Hoekstra (talk) 20:59, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know, that is clear from what he wrote. It won't necessarily be why anyone else follows on to add their own request for the same bit of background. Avruch T 21:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hear what people are saying, I am not well today but I will try to find something else to say, but probably not till tomorrow. I clearly know Martijn as we have done mediation together. Thanks, SqueakBox21:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like its been said by everyone else, having looked at the Rfa. I find my interest is increasingly in making good article edits and not in too much drama, though the child sexual abuse articles will definitely remain very much an interest in the sense of the work to make them good articles. Thanks, SqueakBox03:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I've got doubts about the accuracy of Calendar year you are using and, as you will see, I've reverted a couple of your recent reverts that you sourced from it. Do you want to look at it again? Best.--Old Moonraker (talk) 14:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am very confident with Battle of Agincourt: the historian Juliet Barker has three pages in her account of the battle on how the day and date were calculated, and I have given her as the citation. Calendar Converter by John Walker, the source I used for Schubert, has worked accurately for me in the past (Siege of Sevastopol) and concurs with the edit before yours. I did not revert Beethoven, from Walker again, because there was no corroboration. Please check out Walker's page for yourself, I think you'll be impressed! Good luck with with your checks for other (or not) discrepancies. All the best. --Old Moonraker (talk) 19:21, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll take a further look. I find this stuff fascinating and really want to get it right, so thanks for your interest. Thanks, SqueakBox19:30, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You left a newcomer welcome message on my talk page when I first joined a couple years ago and I never thanked you for it. So I'd just like to say, thanks for the warm welcome. :) Haddock420 (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Adventures of the little wooden horse
Thanks for taking the time to work on this. Its my first and currently only article, so its nice to have someone else take an interest. --BrucePodger (talk) 23:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was my favourite book as a young child (6 or 7), the first real book I ever read, and on many occasions, so it was a real pleasure to work on this particular article. Thanks, SqueakBox23:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I remember being read Prince Caspian at school age 8 and getting my parents to buy me the Narnia books but my reading the Little Wooden Horse definitely preceeded that, and I imagine my dad's copy from his childhood as it was an old blue hardback book (whereas I had a paperback version of Gobbolino). Certainly Ursula Moray Williams was hugely influential in giving me that love of reading, and it was the first book nobody read to me, I did it all myself. Thanks, SqueakBox02:18, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sanger initially proposed Wikipedia (originally a Nupedia wiki) as a feeder project
Here is a historical ref. --> Sanger initially proposed the wiki concept to Wales and suggested it be applied to Nupedia. * Sanger, Larry (January 10, 2001). "Let's make a wiki"(Email). Nupedia-l mailing list. Nupedia. Retrieved 2008-03-28. Sanger initiated Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 02:02, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well if he did it while a paid employee of Wales that would indeed indicate they both initiated it. Anyway have a look at The Guardian reference I added. Lest just keep working at getting it right, eh. Thanks, SqueakBox02:09, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wales, "Larry had the idea to use Wiki software." * Wales, Jimmy (October 30, 2001). "LinkBacks?"(Email). wikipedia-l archives. Bomis. Retrieved 2008-03-28. Thanks, QuackGuru (talk) 03:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since its expansion he has been a public speaker and promoter of Wikipedia. <-- Here is the current version in the article.
I still think it belongs in "Roles of Wikipedia creators" section. The lead already says Wales is the de facto leader of Wikipedia. QuackGuru (talk) 22:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry SqueakBox, I was responsible for deleting March 28 on recent deaths. Someone vandilized it so on that occassion I removed the whole thing. Hope this clears things up. Raphie (talk) 03:00, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you feel what I was doing here is a blockable offnse, then take it to ANI. I sincerely doubt you'll find an admin who will consider what I or the bot did to be "tampering" or a "blockable offense", but you're welcome to try. I do find your objections to "tampering" with the posts of others extremely ironic, since adding "fact" tags to someone else's post is certainly that! I certainly doubt that User:Vgmaster posted the comments in April, then returned in June to add "fact" tags to their own posts! - BillCJ (talk) 05:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC
I did not say I wanted to see you blcked, please don't misinterpret my words. I made my complaint and directed it to the bot owner. The bot was inappropriately tampering with user comments, we dont use the tags on talk pages in order to maintain anything but to give examples and it was an inappropriate use of a bot. All the same interfering with user comments is a blockable offence, that is a fact,a nd of course by reverting you took personal responsibility for what your reverted to, if you check my first revert of the bot it was adding the maintenance to some tag examples that a user had added to a talk page, if on other occasions people were adding fact tags to user comments then that should always of course be reverted. Thanks, SqueakBox15:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Tags on talk pages
This is a minor dilemma, because some of these tags put talk pages into categories. However the crux of the matter is that those which should be putting talk pages into categories need dating, those which shouldn't be, need to be {{Tl}}'d removed or otherwise dealt with, and those that don't, if they happen to be in the same page as one that does, will not be affected by having a date parameter added.
As far as you be "extremely pissed off" that you couldn't add and edit summary,just leave me messages in the normal way if it's that important to you. RichFarmbrough, 10:42 28 March2008 (GMT).
Well I will now but I didn't know who you were until after I had left the message, I was writing to a bot with an unknown owner, and yes leaving edit summaries certainly is very important to me. Thanks, SqueakBox16:01, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, at first I thought your name was SqueakBot so I figured your edit there was just automated. Then I looked back and saw that you were a real person. So basically Im writing here to tell you that I am pretty sure the word there should be reusable. If you read the paragraph through it makes sense, and you can check it by reading up on the source. Basically, it comes down to this: plastic diaper manufacturers were getting scared when they saw environmentalist mommies buying into cloth diapers, so they put out some tricky pseudoscience showing that THEIR diapers were actually better for the environment. But they weren't; they were just twisting the numbers and using misleading statements such as comparing 1 cloth diaper vs 1 plastic diaper instead of 1 vs a whole truckload of them. SoapTalk/Contributions00:25, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I looked after your revert against me and didn't revert you again cos I figured you are being genuine, your response just confirms this. Thanks, SqueakBox00:32, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Lima Article
In your edit summary you said that you sensed that something wasn't right about that poster. Well that same guy has been doing the same thing for several months now via IPs (blanking talkpage discussion on the pics, removing pics on Lima's surround slums and adding pics of Lima's more well-off areas). I've had to protect the article in the past because of him and he just doesn't seem to want to stop. There is not much we can do if this guy finds different IPs to work with to continue doing this all the time.--Jersey Devil (talk) 17:49, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think "United States" is almost categorically preferred to "America" when referring to the US and not the larger N. American or S American continents, or some subset of those concepts. 72.0.180.2 (talk) 01:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I don't want to immediately appear combatative by engaging you in an edit war. Can you please tell me what was "tendentious" about my editing, and why they are being removed by yourself? Furthermore, please do not refer to me as a "banned" user, as this is not the case. My earlier account was blocked and I was told to choose another username, that is all. Putting innocents at risk (talk) 17:14, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We are not here to promote pedophilia activism or to claim that it is natural and harmless, especially without sources but you are very lucky not top have had this alternative account blocked given your stated aim her ebeing to promote pedophilia. Given your history, if you want to edit why not edit other areas of the encyclopedia, gain a few months experience and an idea of how we work and then return to the pedophile articles. If you had come saying you were promoting an anti pedophile agenda or a pro-cannabis agenda or really any agenda you would be told the same thing, wikipedia needs dispassionate editors whose interest is the encyclopedia as a whole. Thanks, SqueakBox17:17, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
about the "Bong" edits
its just that way, i live there and i know how it works. how is there supposed to be a source for this?
maybe i can add "Mega-anecdotal evidence suggests that..." if you want?
ok i see you have answered me in my talk page.
but when the "Hookah" article saying this: "The Double-Apple (Persian:دوسیب,Do-Sib) is also a very popular flavour in the middle-east by the every day hookah-smokers because of the strength", i don't see a reliable source here! (BTW, ill tell you that its not true. the double apple flavour (made by Nakhla tobacco) actually is the most popular here in israel AND in the Palestinian territories, but its popular by taste- not by strength at all).
so what-to-do in a situation like this?
if that's called also "original research", i suggest you just remove this line from the "Hookah" article and then ill understand that i cant post what i wanted to in the "Bong" article.
Thanks!
79.177.159.149 (talk) 18:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sources do not have to be in English, a Hebrew source, for instance, would be fine. While I know we are not 100% consistent in terms of removing original research we do try our best, mega-anecdotal is not oaky as it isn't verifiable. Thanks, SqueakBox18:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok then so what if i just depict the Bong smoking method without linking it to a place (as Israel) as a fact, as is with the other methods? will this be accepted? Because these smoking methods cannot be verified as being true or have no scientific research about them. ill try and post it this way, and you'll see how it looks like. 79.179.112.203 (talk) 15:49, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The great Doctor, a "hero" of mine and compiler of the first encyclopedia, also allowed a few sly bits of humour to be published in that work. Clear the articles by all means, but allow the interested to realise that there are real people - with real problems in regard of perceptions of how funny they really are - who work at building the encyclopedia. It is likely to encourage more folk to join than it will dissuade (and who wants 'em, anyway?) In short; "bread and circus' "! LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:56, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What sort of reasoning is that? While children may be living people, Children's rights is in no sense a biography. In order to be a BLP, an article must both have living people as its subject AND be a biography (that is, it must contain information about specific living individuals). Otherwise, Human, all anatomy articles, and a good chunk of Category:Medicine would be considered BLPs. --erachimaformerly tjstrf04:46, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not able to follow your line of logic here either, and have also removed the tag. BLP does not == anything remotely related to living people. -- Ned Scott05:49, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To those with an anti-BLP agenda perhaps, but you could not be more wrong in reality, we don't respect living people in bios and not elsewhere and the bio refers to biographical information not a biography per se, this kind of behaviour and attitude is so tedious and just harm,s the project. Thanks, SqueakBox06:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We realize that BLP applies to articles which contain substantial or contentious biographical information about specific living people, whether they are formally "biography articles" or not. But Children's rights is not such an article. It's an article that discusses issues related to an entire class of people, and contains no biographical content about anyone specific. It's an article like Human, or Black people, or Women's suffrage, or India (the home of 1.12 billion living people, and counting!). Not like George W. Bush, or even like Essjay controversy. --erachimaformerly tjstrf06:22, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I am not going to edit war over this, for me the important thing is to expand our article coverage over BLP, if I made a bad call so be it. Thanks, SqueakBox21:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway on reflection I want to say, thanks chaps, I dont want to push BLP too far but I was experimenting and you 2 showed me where the line is. Funnily I thought that the {{PAW}} tag would be more controversial as there are fringe groups who want to assert pedophilia's rights over children as a part of children's rights and we need to be vigilant of this but I was wrong and your challenging has been cool and instructive. My BLP specific comments are elsewhere, that any article that contains any living person should be blp tagged and people without articles but mentioned in articles should be blp tagged. And children's rights fails this test. Thanks, SqueakBox03:51, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BLP Discussion
Hello SqueakBox:
I want to say I much appreciate your comment here, about my contribution to the discussion.
PS (Usually a PS is shorter than the main body of the message. Not this time.)
The recent discussion about the article Merle Terlesky was a real eyeopener for me about editor's attitudes. I was appalled.
The discussion was scattered widely. I'll insert links just in case you are interested to read it. (I intended to get the links together so I'll do so now.)
Hey, whats the point of making an image crop from Commons and uploading it to ENWP? Commons is supposed to be a database for images so all Wikipedias can use them, it would be greatly appreciated if you used Commons in the future notwist (talk) 19:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Marcovia, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Marcovia is unquestionably copyright infringement, and no assertion of permission has been made.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Marcovia, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click hereCSDWarnBot (talk) 22:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding you recent edit: removing the copyvio part of an article does not resolve the copyvio issue because the offending text remans in the history. This is why usually copyvio pages are deleted including the history. I assume that the correct way to do this is to have an administrator restore the page in its pre-coyvio state. Andreas (T)22:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We do not allow copyviolationists to delete articles by vandalsing them and if you wish issues with this please go to WP:Oversight and the revisions can be removed. But the article which is perfectly good cannot be deleted because of a troll or the trolls would delete thousands of articles. if this happened at Barak Obama the copyvio would be oversighted and the thousands of edits would not be removed because of one idiot. That is why we have oversight. Thanks, SqueakBox22:50, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your help on this; I'd already decided to make those changes because I didn't like how they looked, but you beat me to it! I have added back the second woman because the BBC says in terms that she was arrested. BlueValour (talk) 22:54, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Independent says arrested here and The Guardian here says arrested in the initial para. I think that the Grauniad's use of detained, later, is just to avoid using the word arrested too many times. I think everyone is working well on this page to pick a responsible path through a minefield of sensitivities. BlueValour (talk) 23:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As someone from the Philippines you really should no better than to prod an article that is the main news in Argentina and has received extensive international coverage. I would classify this as medium importance, there are hundreds of thousands of articles about less important American and British subjects, please go and prod one of them, this article would never fail an afd because it is so obviously about a notable subject. Sigh. Thanks, SqueakBox06:58, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Maria Eugenia Sampallo 1
Hello Squeakbox:
I saw your edit. I also looked at the request to reword the article, couldn't figure what to do, so I left it.
It is tricky. The problem with saying "legally adopted" is the BBC news report (ref 1) says her parents were jailed for "illegally adopting" her.
Thanks. What I meant and should have said is, have you a translation you can post here so I can read it? My knowledge of Spanish is very limited. Hola, adios, muchas gracias, and a few other fragments.
Ok, thanks, I will take a look but won't translate right now as I am bogged down with real life work, though Tibia means weak,, ie the sentence wasn't sever enough, its a word used to describe luke warm water for instance, and the fallo is the judgement so the headline complains the sentence wasnt harsh enough. . Thanks, SqueakBox20:48, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Anyway having thoroughly read the article methinks the BBC article was takenm from this one but it contains a bit more info which I am slowly adding. Thanks, SqueakBox22:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cool, I started learning my Spanish (years back) through good quality films, and still dream of visiting Argentina and the South Cone. Thanks, SqueakBox22:43, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Two discussions and other comments have gone in favor of "Personal legal issues/history" and no good argument (or argument at all, really) has been presented for your version of that section heading. You asked Phil if he has posted to the talk page, which he has - your last was March 13, and you have not commented since. I'm sure we would both appreciate it if you would explain your objection to a neutral heading on the talkpage before continuing to revert changes. Avruch T 18:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Abject apology
This was an edit-conflict; I didn't intentionally remove your comments. Still, I think that RBI is the best strategy here; my own opinion. Sorry to accidentally revert you; please don't block me. :) -FisherQueen (talk · contribs)22:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
seeing as you've just signed up as interested - I thought I'd better drop you off the general note about this week's conversation.... hope it's not too awful a time for you, and look forward to chatting!
Hi folks,
I've confirmed a time for the next conversation on Tuesday night, US time, (Wednesday, 02.30 UTC). Huge apologies that this isn't going to be good for Euro folk, and I know Anthony and Peter will likely be unable to attend therefore. It's possible we need a bit of a wiki effort at the project page to better organise and plan conversations - and I'd also like to encourage all interested folks to watchlist that page for updates / changes etc. which will probably be a smoother way of staying in touch than many talk page messages (though it's great that more people are expressing interest in participating...). With that in mind, if you'd like to reply to this message, please do so at my talk page, and I'll respond as soon as I can.
If you are able to attend at the given time, please do head over to Wikipedia:NotTheWikipediaWeekly#Confirmed_Participants and sign up - this is a great help in making sure everyone is around. We generally chat for about 10 minutes before 'going live' and the whole process takes about an hour, and I very much look forward to chatting to all!
No its actually a good time as I am on the "other side" of the pond, all I would need is to make the initial skype connection but anyway I'll sort it out tomorrow, knackered (from working) and off to bed. Thanks, SqueakBox04:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
AfD nomination of Lauren Harries
An editor has nominated Lauren Harries, an article which you have created or worked on, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").
Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lauren Harries and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).
You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 23:59, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tinkered a bit, please take a look. The problem is it's hard to find coverage that is favourable:):) I have to go to sleep now but I hope one of us can come up with something from the google news hits I linked to on the AfD. Unfortunately a lot of them are subscription etc. only, but they are archives from real newpapers, so should be obtainable online somewhere. special, random, Merkinsmum03:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you now wish to Keep the article, or do you Support deletion? Your comment in the AfD is a little unclear. PC78 (talk) 19:04, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, regarding the above AfD: you may wish to change your "vote" from "support" to "keep" -- it's not as if she's running for admin. ; ) --77.96.133.241 (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe I need to do that. You need to provide reliable and verifiable sources not direct me to do some original research. This is a BLP vio for obvious reasons and will be treated seriously in the run up to the election, please let us discuss any additions on the talk page. Thanks, SqueakBox23:02, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Boris
No problem :) I haven't edited that article for a while, and reading it felt like something was oddly missing from the first paragraph.... Cheers, DWaterson (talk) 00:04, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RFA thanks
Thanks for your support in my RFA, that didn't quite make it and ended at 120/47/13. There was a ton of great advice there, that I'm going to go on. Maybe someday. If not, there are articles to write! Thanks for your support. Lawrence § t/e17:39, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes well you certainly got a lot of support. One can styill be an effective player without the admin tools, being well known helps, plus we all have to work all the time on being better editors and getting on with our fellow editors better. Thanks, SqueakBox17:42, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst I respect there's still problems with the intro to the article, might I suggest that making edits which are obviously going to start an edit war might not be the best way forward? Would you consider filing an RfC? I think it could help here and get wider, neutral views for how to proceed. It's certainly worth some consideration. Ryan Postlethwaite00:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear SqueakBox, I can understand why you feel strongly about this subject (most of us do), but let me remind you that we don't need to say that Hitler was a bad man. Also, we should avoid using emotional tabloid newspaper lingo just because we dislike a topic. In this edit you have equated "pedophilia" to "child sexual abuse", citing neutrality as the reason. But this is a factually incorrect statement. A pedophile is someone who is sexually attracted to children. Child sexual abusers are a subset of pedophiles who choose to act on this attraction. They are not the same thing. Cambrasa14:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: this distinction is not actually corrct. A pedophile is someone who is sexually attacted to children, whether they are caught acting on it or not, is more accurate. The DSM does not make a distinction between pedophiles who merely obssess and pedophiles who are also prosecuted: it includes both. Where anyone got the idea that pedophile=nonoffender, I don't know. It may be accurate to say that not all pedophiles offend (or are caught offending) but it is not accurate to say that the definition of pedophile excludes offenders, because it does not. In additon, there are absolutely no studies claiming that there is a significant subset of pedophiles who are nonoffenders. The insistence I have seen around the pedophile articles on Wikipedia that there is a "large" subset of nonoffending pedophiles, that the definition of pedophile excludes sexually abusing, and that there is no link between pedophilia and sexual offending does not line up with mainstream views and research at all.-PetraSchelm (talk) 21:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was very spooked last night. LCH and Ztep were clearly, IMO, troling socks whose sole purpose was to troll me. I suggest we unlock the article. Thanks, SqueakBox15:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Squeak, thanks for your note. I posted a message that I think addresses your concerns re the songs article on the theater article page. (Eventually these should be bundled; I agree with whomever said that at the AfDs). Best, -PetraSchelm (talk) 21:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
edit
I'm not sure what your edit to the Greif article was referring to - my edit you reverted never mentioned 'vandalism'...it merely stated that the material blanked was not spam and that an article re-write would incorporate the refereneces into the article via citations and persuant to the notice. A Sniper (talk) 23:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you should both start respecting Guy, a long term admin here whose editing I fully endorse, and rollback was being used to revert Guy's edits which are not vandalism as it happens. Thanks, SqueakBox23:50, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine but I don't know which user 'Guy' is, nor which edit you're referring to. Why not just tell me instead of blanking a whole section with no explanation? If 'Guy' is who removed all the links in the reference section calling them spam, then yes indeed I rolled it back, as did another user. It wasn't anything personal, but those references are needed there so that they can be cited during the re-write of the article. There isn't any spam in the bunch, according to his spam projects own essay. None solicit for anything, and all mention the subject of the article in question. No animosity intended. A Sniper (talk) 00:39, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Guy is user JzG who deleted what he considered spam. I agreed with his judgment when I saw you had reverted him, and I trust his judgment more than yours on this issue. Thanks, SqueakBox00:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Paedophilia list articles
Hi SB - you seem to have missed my point. Petra removed all items from those lists - including any articles which had been correctly cited. There was no need for that, since by doing so it rendered the articles completely worthless. Certainly where there are BLP problems, the items should be removed, but in many cases hunting for citations and secondary sources was a far more logical way to go and definitely one that should have been attempted prior to the removal. I did not realise that she was a newbie (though it makes sense) - the way she was referring me to various policy pages made it sound as though she had been around on WP for years and simply needed to refresh her memory of some of the pages in question. My main point, though, is simply that removing everything from the lists, sourced as well as unsourced, was a mistake on her part. Grutness...wha?02:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I note a couple of calls on her talk page for confirmation that she's not a sockpuppet. I think that if this hasn't been done it would be very useful; she certainly seems to be a SPA, albeit probably a legitimate one as opposed to a sockpuppet - over 80% of her non-usertalk edits (140 of 171) have been on paedophilia-related subjects. However, she arrived here with very fully-formed views on Wikipedia policy and process pages - 18 of her first 25 edits were to AfD, 21 if you include here three nominations. That's a level of knowledge of process that would be rare in a complete newbie. And even if you exclude my recent run-in with her, I'm surprised to see how disruptive many of her edits have been. Though assuming good faith is the acceptable thing to do, I must admit that some confirmation of that faith would be welcome. Grutness...wha?06:52, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How about some confirmation of your good faith, Grutness? Certainly if you are capable of looking up my edits and coming to ill-informed derogatory opinions about them that you post on others' talkpages, you are capable of looking at checkuser, where I have already been cleared of any sockpuppet accusations. Squeak is accused practically once a week of sockpuppetry by characters who frequent the pedo articles and don't appreciate them being made NPOV, so I imagine that will happen to me too.-PetraSchelm (talk) 13:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is there anything in the above which suggests a lack of good faith on my part? All I have suggested is that if you haven't been checked, it would clear the air - several other users have accused you of sockpuppetry, and there are enough causes for suspicion in your early edits that producing evidence against it would be very useful. It is worth noting that SB's early edits were, like most users', characterised by working here and there on a large number of items, without launching into process pages the instant he arrived. From long experience here an early pattern of targeted process edits is often perceived as possible evidence of sockpuppetry - as such it is not "ill-informed". If you choose to regard my describing your edits as disruptive as "derogatory", that is your prerogative, though the comments generated on your talk-page certainly indicate thatt hey have been so. Similarly, if you think that my describing your account as single-purpose is "derogatory", then consider that I only did so because your account seems to be used for a single purpose only - as i pointed out, over 80% of your edits are to one topic only. That's perfectly understandable and quite common in users who have been on wikipedia for a considerable while; for new users it is quite unusual. If you do not want to be continually accused of sockpuppetry, the best way to stop that happening is to front up to the accusations as early on as possible. As such, asking someone who has been keeping closer track of your activities whether you have been checked (rather than going through the more formal approach check-user) is surely the logical and less offensive course of action. Grutness...wha?00:26, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Or, you could just apologize for making the accusation, now that you know you are in error. Also, calling my edits re the naming "disruptive" is in fact derogatory. And it would mean that you are also calling JzG's edits disruptive, since I followed his lead.-PetraSchelm (talk) 01:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Um... what accusation do you think I've made? Did you actually read what I wrote? Did you note that I said that I considered you very likely to be a legitimate user, but was concerned that there were people accusing you of being a sockpuppet? It would appear not. There was no error on my part in that - you have been accused by others, and for your own sake it was necessary to clear things up before they got out of hand. If you feel that I've accused you of something, then I apologise - but please acknowledge the fact that I have never accused you of anything other than disruptive editing. As to my referring to your edits as disruptive, I only called them that for the simple reason that they were. I mean no offence by it, and am merely using the term as it is used for the purposes of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Many of the comments by others on your talk page point to their nature - and if you have a look at WP:POINT and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing, you will see that many of the comments on your talk page relate to edits which fall well within the items listed there. However, given that this discussion seems to be going nowhere through your repeated misunderstanding or misinterpretation of what I have said, I see no reason to continue with this here, as there seems little point. Grutness...wha?02:25, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Squeak, I don't know if you noticed but I moved them all back to the original titles, as I did for the songs list. I think that will help with sourcing and POV issues. Guy (Help!) 12:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know of any "page on WP" that says how the flow of conversation works, I just know by observation. On article talk pages, user talk pages, AfD discussions, and other types of discussion pages, users almost always use : or * to indent to show who they are replying to. With two exceptions noted below, I've rarely seen anything else. This convention was here well before I got here and from the looks of things it was at least partially in place when you started editing.
The two exceptions are user-page discussions and discussions that migrate to a user page, such as this one.
User-page dialogs usually either work like other talk pages, with back-and-forth and indents, or each person writes to the other person's talk page. The former preserves the flow of conversation, the latter gets the recipient's attention faster.
Discussions like this one that are no longer relevant to the original page they were on sometimes move to user talk pages. From there, they may stay on one page or get split between the two editors' user pages.
In the case of User talk:N1995w, I joined an existing conversation and I chose to use the keep-it-on-one-page format rather than going straight to your user page. Once I made that decision, I adopted the same format thousands of editors before me have adopted: using colons to indent so you know which edit I am replying to.
davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 03:48, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Trolling"
Mate, please don't accuse VoA of trolling. The bot does a necessary job, but it broke for some reason, maybe getting revisions out of step or something. "Bot malfunctioning, please stop it urgently" would have been fine, and you'd have been thanked instead of attracting a load of finger-wagging. Have you ever done RC patrol? The level of vandalism is mind-boggling sometimes, and even humans get it wrong. Guy (Help!) 12:04, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop mucking about with the photo size in this story. I wrote the article and provided the photo. Appreciate most of your edits, but there is no good reason to change photo size. 13:59, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I will say the same to you, please lets reach a compromise, perhaps 250px, butt he pic without resizing looks too large and takes away from the article. Thanks, SqueakBox14:01, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I tried to remove a ref that is not a reliable source for this article, and somehow screwed up the whole referencing format. Can you take a look when you get time? Tks. -PetraSchelm (talk) 15:35, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello... I already made the repair. What happened is that when you deleted the references, you deleted the end part of a comment that went with the previous reference, and that left the comment bracket un-terminated. Comments are text that editors can only see when editing the page but that doesn't show up on the page when people read the article. Comments are made like this:
This is regular visible text... <!-- if this was a real wikitext-comment this part would be invisibile... --> ... and this part would be visible again.
I can see that, its a good idea to move said article given his new role but it has to be done by an admin, I suggest a proposal on the talk page. Thanks, SqueakBox21:57, 17 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ahh you see what I mean, I removed an unreliable source per JzG, nothing controversial there but you had already reverted JzG 4 times. Thanks, SqueakBox18:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please actually look at the edit you reverted before commenting in future, and, in this case, undo your revert. Please tell me what the "unreliable source" is that you removed, as I am interested to know. Please give the URL of the link you removed, and explain why it is not acceptable at Wikipedia; I sincerely want to know in this specific case. Badagnani (talk) 18:51, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You made a revert, blanking a link. I simply wish to know the URL of that link which you removed, and what about it is not acceptable. I asked you kindly three times to examine the revert you made and inform me why you did so. I don't believe you've done that yet, but do request kindly that you do so. The revert is here. Many thanks, Badagnani (talk) 19:03, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You know which link I have reverted and I did so because it is unreliable according to JzG and because you were on your 4th revert. I have nothing more to say, ask Jzg and be aware of WP:3RR. Thanks, SqueakBox19:06, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's much better if you actually examine the revert you made and tell me which URL you removed in your revert, and why you did so. I would appreciate it very much (and it would be less wasteful of the Wikimedia's bandwidth if I don't have to ask a fifth time). Badagnani (talk) 19:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I disagree otherwise I wouldn't have made the edit. And let me assure you I have been working with this article for a long time (have you, Enric?) and knew exactly what I was doing. Thanks, SqueakBox17:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't even know of the existance of the article until this morning. Fortunately, I don't feel any guilt about it since Wikipedia is free content that anyone may edit :D Even anonymous IPs can make the sort of reverts that I made, and not getting it reverted on sight if they provide good reasons from them.
Of course I suposse that you know way better than me what is in the article, and I normally respect that knowledge, but in this case it was removal of material sourced by notable sources that looked to me like trying to appease a disrupting editor an editor on very good standing that had decided to be disruptive on that article for whatever the reason he had in mind at that moment. Sorry for our first encounter being a clash on editing an article. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please, please, please possibly consider just maybe making more substantive comments to the talkpage before edit warring? If I'm not mistaken, there is no requirement that all citations be to a website where anyone can grab it immediately. Citations to newspapers, books, professional journals etc. that are offline are completely acceptable. You do a lot of useful work, but when you completely ignore policies in order to push your goals for this article you sacrifice your credibility. Avruch T 19:29, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not claiming that all refs need to be to a website but if you cite a book that isn't out of print and unavailable on Amazon etc then I can go out and buy it but an old newspaper that is not online and that nobody is willing to send a screenshot of is unveriable to me and given the extremely controversial nature with BLP violation if not 100% true and given geni's track record of errors this is not reliable, for all we know Geni made a mistake. While not unaware of the subtle issues behind this case I am baffled as to why you are going so hard after GDS, especially given the endless afd comments about how we need to take care. We need to take care not be reckless and this unverifiable edit is completely the opposite of helpful. Thanks, SqueakBox19:38, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seriously - you didn't look for it at all. It is online, but that is irrelevant. It is totally acceptable to cite something that is a newspaper or journal or other periodical that is not readily available to everyone in the whole world. More importantly, if you had taken 10 seconds to google it, you could have found the electronic version of the article (I posted the link to the talkpage). Given that, don't you think you should be a little more thorough before you edit war removing something in an article like this? When you remove something as libelous, defamatory, etc. you are providing ammunition to any potential lawsuit - and you should absolutely not do that if you aren't even willing to take 10 seconds for a simple web search. Avruch T 19:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And now that I've provided the link, and its clear that the removed section is sourced, will you restore it yourself and remove the disputed tag? Avruch T 19:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I am not going to revert on the basis of this particular story. This was in the article before and the user Pnazionale said this was another person, not him, but nor will i edit war over this. For the record I do n ot believe editing this article as I do is in any way reducing my credibility other than that edit warring per se is not a credible approac h for an experienced editor. Thanks, SqueakBox19:55, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another person based on what? The article pretty clearly is describing this particular Giovanni di Stefano, not some other one. If you removed information from the article because you thought it was unverifiable (it wasn't) and subsequently it was made crystal clear to you that it is verifiable and verified - don't you think you ought to put it back, and remove the tag you placed describing the article as factually inaccurate? Avruch T 19:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is simply no way I am adding that information, I bel;ieve strobnngly that even if verifiable we shoudl not be adding information like this to the article for reasons I explained above and which hopefully you are aware of anyway. We need to tread carefully around this article, if you add teh info yourself please do not remove the td tag. Thanks, SqueakBox20:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Policy
How can you possibly say that when a new person knows enough policy to defend themselves then they are not really new? Where is the policy document suggesting that --77.98.178.218 (talk) 22:06, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I am neither a policy document nor a wikilawyer nor a real lawyer, nor was I biting you. Just expressing my opinion. Happy editing. Thanks, SqueakBox22:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My great passion is biographies, and increasingly so, i just love reading about people's lives and then fixing things as I go along but I think any long term regular here should also edit areas that maybe they aren't so interested in but which are crying out for attention. Thanks, SqueakBox21:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quick Questions
Hello, you may know me as a user who cammonts on Jimbos's talkpage. Not that it is a bad thing but, do you always say "Thanks," after (almost) all of your comments? I'm just curious. Also, can users add anything to Jimbo's userpage like some images of wikipedia, info about history, ect.?--RyRy5 (talk) 02:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have made my raw signature say . Thanks,SqueakBox. I would have thought that given the effort you and many others make to have stylish signature that you would have realized that. I just add the 4 squiggles without a space after the last word I write whenever I sign. Thanks, SqueakBox02:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I do it because in the past I was given the feedback that I had incivility issues and its part of my attempt to redress that balance and become a better editor. Thanks, SqueakBox02:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Explain my comments
Hi Squekbox,
I just stopped to briefly expand on my comment here.
I read the Doc pledge and would whole-heartedly agree with it if it was stated as a best practice, or as food-for-thought for editors who are/aren't editing under their true identities. However the part that disappoints me is where the the pledgees label other editors' activities as "unethical", "cowardly" (now removed, thanks), or even "against the educational and charitable principles of wikipedia." I don't think editors, like me, who do edit anonymously but try to uphold the word and spirit of WP:V, WP:RS and WP:Do no harm deserve to be looked down upon or be so labeled. It is particularly surprising that such epithets are included in an essay that is essentially a plea for holding ourselves to higher ethical standards, and being acutely aware of the effect of our edits and comments.
Incidentally, I don't edit BLPs too often, but you can judge my edits at say Ronald Kessler, Lisa Daniels, Ivor Catt, Nathalie Handal, R. K. Laxman, John Kanzius, Michael Jordan etc and decide if they are beneath wikipedia's highest standards or if wikipedia would be a better place if I stopped editing all BLPs. PS: I don't see how one can change a pledge after it is signed. Won't it be proper to remove all signatures and ask editors to re-sign if and only if they agree with the modified language ? (I assume most will do so willingly). Regards. Abecedare (talk) 02:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for giving my spiel due consideration, but I'll leave the crafting of the essay to editors more involved with the issues and surrounding debates. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 02:48, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm making good prgress anyway. Category changes are visible in Category:Cities by country, but it is necessary infrastructure to prepare for filling in new articles and also to cleanup what we've got to prevent villages with populations of 200 being called "cities". Basically it marks it as settlements in a given area which is far easier and simplified I think. Then of course infoboxes and maps will need adding to every places in the world which with a locator map for most countries now, things should come on leaps and bounds ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦$1,000,000?21:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
More on Giovanni di Stefano
In light of the recent activity regarding this figure I have made some major structural changes to the article. It appears to be well referenced but perhaps covers too much of his "negative side" and controversies rather that actually documenting the bulk of his legal profession work to date. There is a tag and claims that it is inaccurate. Could somebody take the liberty and inform me just what is claimed to be false, is it his 1986 fraud case or what? The articles uses reliable mainstream sources BBC, The Guardian etc so an article on him using such sources mus thave some validity even if it is not written in a completely neutral and balanced way♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦$1,000,000?08:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Invitation to participate in a discussion Food vs biofuel debate
Hi dear editor. Would you be so kind to visit Talk:Food vs fuel and give us your experienced opinion on that discussion. We need more editors to give their input on the proposed article's name change. Mariordo (talk) 01:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are right it that it wasnt an actual expulsion [10]. I still would like you to clarify the rest of your objections, or say if you are still holding them after my comments. I would rather answer them now than getting reverted two weeks down the road. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe, this typo [11] was because I was using the word search function to look for "media", and I didn't notice that I had typed the first two letters on the middle on the article before the search box had time to open. I have made that same error like 3 times already on different articles. I'll try to be more careful with the damned search box, but I'm too fast typing --Enric Naval (talk) 00:47, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I did post the Adeyto article deletion to the Deletion Review like you suggested and it was a much better thing to do. Now it's here User:I Write Stuff/Adeyto and anyone can verify the text and see if the article is that much of a spam that deserves deletion. Please take a look if you have time! Tsurugaoka (talk) 13:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You and this editor apparently had a history at one time. I thought you'd like to be notified that he's back. So far, the edit's he's done have been constructive. --Orange Mike | Talk20:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion was a kid with good intentions and little self-control, hopefully (if my assumption was right) 3 years should have matured him considerably, I have re put his talk page on my watchlist. Thanks, SqueakBox20:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguation pages are only supposed to link to entries that we have an article on, or are likely to have an article on. If you think this is a topic that we will likely have an article on eventually, then the entry can stay, but it needs to follow Wikipedia:Manual of Style (disambiguation pages). One link per entry, and no external links. I've commented out the external link, so it is still there but unviewable, and removed one of the links. --Xyzzyplugh (talk) 19:03, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Myself and several other editors have been compiling a list of very active editors who would likely be available to help new editors in the event they have questions or concerns. As the list grew and the table became more detailed, it was determined that the best way to complete the table was to ask each potential candidate to fill in their own information, if they so desire. This list is sorted geographically in order to provide a better estimate as to whether the listed editor is likely to be active.
If you consider yourself a very active Wikipedian who is willing to help newcomers, please either complete your information in the table or add your entry. If you do not want to be on the list, either remove your name or just disregard this message and your entry will be removed within 48 hours. The table can be found at User:Useight/Highly Active, as it has yet to have been moved into the Wikipedia namespace. Thank you for your help. Useight (talk) 17:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mayor Boris
OK, he won; It'll be interesting to see how he does. Isn't it amazing how your Conservatives make our conservatives look like raving ideologues? I think Paddick would have made an excellent Mayor, however, and even Red Ken would've been better for London. I hope Boris proves me wrong. Happy editing! --SSBohio22:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As a young man I supported Ken (when he was GLC leader) and he is clearly a politician of class, indeed probably the only classy politician Labour has after Blair's retirement but Boris is also a very charismatic politician. And of course I am conservative, I work for a small internet start-up, pure capitalism. When Hugo Chavez raised the minimum wage by 30% on Thursday to enormous cheers and others were hoping such a move would spread through the region I despaired at the foolishness of socialists, though Red Ken is clearly not a fool. And I would prefer McCain to Clinton to win the coming US election. Thanks, SqueakBox23:02, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Boris has a way with people. He almost comes off as a caricature of the well-to-do British gentleman, which is endearing. Ken, who is leftist but not (AFAIK) socialist is a good man who's done a lot to improve conditions of the people of Greater London. Tony Blair, while an able politician, has as much value to me as a bucket of warm p***; Gordon Brown has half that much value. He's rather Tony Blair's own John Major. :-) That said, Paddick still seems to have been the one with the best plan and experience.
As far as conservatism & capitalism: I don't link the two. I'm a committed liberal & simultaneously I believe that capitalism is the best, most egalitarian economic system humanity have ever devised. We simply can't make ourselves wealthy without providing for the health, education, and welfare of all of our citizens. It's the definition of society.
Now, Hugo Chavez: I personally lost $2,000 of the money I was saving to buy a house when, on Thursday, the Chavez government went back on its word and denied final approval for the Canadian company Crystallex to begin gold mining under a contract already issued by the Venezuelan government. The had all the necessary permits. They paid all of the special fees and taxes that the Chavistas had come up with, they did everything asked of them. When their final permit was denied, the stock (KRY on TSX & AMEX) lost 2/3 of its value. It was a sucker punch, pure & simple. Chavez exemplifies all the dangers inherent in populism. His dream of a socialist paradise is an unworkable lie. You can't legislate prosperity. His nation could be immensely wealthy if he would only let it.
And the 2008 Presidential election: Has McCain been the Republican nominee in 2000, I would've voted for him; In 2008, he's shifted so far to the right, especially on social issues, and he's such an ardent backer of the Iraq war that I couldn't possibly vote for him. I don't think the Democrats have narrowed the field to the 2 best candidates; I'd have preferred to see John Edwards or Chris Dodd be our nominee, for example. However, considering the ones we're stuck with, either is equally appealing to me. --SSBohio23:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An unrelated query: The disambiguation page at AMEX says that it's "a term used in parts of England when talking about the USA." Could you demystify that for me? Why would the USA be referred to as AMEX? --SSBohio00:23, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Last time I checked I was part of this community too, while any attempt to try to reason with Bramlet failed. If Erik ever becomes notable we can give him an article but Bramlet seems to be pursuing his same old grudge against the WMF, and Erik is not notable right now. But anyway I will restrict myself to one revert if we get a repeat and instead inform admins such as yourself. Thanks, SqueakBox12:15, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, I have been following him or her and fixing errors but that does not mean I endorse the name change. Thanks, SqueakBox22:38, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I came down so hard on you. I respect your position on the adult film photographs, although I disagree with it. But I thought you were repeating the false allegations. Sorry. --David Shankbone21:58, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I have tagged for inuse, you are doing good work but I need to fix grammatical and style issues, i will only be a few mins, i ahve a slow connection amking me very vulnerable to edit conflicts. Thanks, SqueakBox16:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not really a fan of the blockquoting, it doesn't look that great in the article. And also per WP:MOSDATE, single years should not be wikilinked in the article, only full dates. Cirt (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think there are far too many quotes in the article, i have no strong opion on the linking of years not in dates. Thanks, SqueakBox16:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am now and the tag has been removed. I'll take another look later, please bring issues to the Moller talk page thanks. Thanks, SqueakBox16:54, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I saw your request at checkuser for Bramlet Abercrombie and found it very interesting, as I had reported the exact same user directly above you (but as a sock of another user). You may want to check it out. Thanks, Happyme22 (talk) 01:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I accept that the Essjay Controversy revert was probably for good reason, I'm curious as to what that reason was, as I assumed that my link to his old userpage would provide more information to browsers wishing to explore the history of the controversy themselves; can you provide more info please? Ta! cojoco (talk) 09:41, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is an interesting question. I always assume we do not link to user pages in the main space but I am happy to hear other input on this issue, as I said I don'tt hink it is a good idea but I may not be right. Thanks, SqueakBox14:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough in general, but Wiki's big enough now that references for these "Meta-articles" should I believe come from Administrative areas of Wiki itself: this was, after all, an article about the Wiki User themselves cojoco (talk) 00:37, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Irukanji vs Yirrganydji
I note you (possibly watching the Irukanji disambiguiation page) may have witnessed and been a little confused by User:Mikkalai's
recent moving first Irukandji people => Irukandji, then Yirrganydji people => Irukandji.
You will note User:Mikkalai gives his reasoning here .. and I have both posted on his/her talk page and Talk:Irukandji explaining why we/Wikipedia should favour the article being named Yirrganydji people in preference to Irukandji.
“chained up inches out of reach of a bowl of food in 2007, and with the intention of repeating the performance in Honduras in November, 2008” is all WP:OR (except the date and place). Can you source it? It appears no where else in the article.
How do my edits to ‘’Exposición N° 1’’ amount to a WP:NPOV violation? I included more details about the exhibit (including the correct name). No violation of NPOV there. I even searched for, found, and included the original source for the claim that the dog died. Please explain your revert. Furthermore, changing “states” to “claims” is blatant POV-pushing.
On what grounds did you remove the awards? They are sourced and relevant; need I remind you that this is an artist’s bio? Please justify your wholesale revert. -- Irn (talk) 01:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
They are not sourced in a secondary sourced, which is what would be needed to be notable. I'll find the other sources in the morning but the alleged ref from the Guaradian, making him appear Mr Nice Guy in what was an article that portrayed him completely differently is just typical of the way the article tries to portray him very positively. Really we need to move the article so it just talks about the dog scandal, not this highly unnotable artist. Thanks, SqueakBox01:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I notice that you've put an "Article for deletion" notice on Cast of Characters vs. The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen lawsuit, and I was wondering "why?", please. Clearly there are tensions being exhibited over statements that were made (perhaps inadvisably) and then subsequently removed by parties (party) involved in this case, but it is clearly very important as an issue and article: It was the straw that caused Mr Moore to withdraw full support for Hollywoodisations of his work. It caused the director to swear off directing, (albeit he is scheduled to be making a return this-or-next year). It caused the main star to officially retire. It called into question the moral character of Mr Moore, and highlighted oddities in how Hollywood cavalierly treats "adaptations" of works, adding, changing or removing characters, and maybe adapting in an untoward manner from materials they shouldn't. It helped cause Mr Moore & Mr O'Neill to withdraw their comic series from DC/WildStorm and take it to Top Shelf.
It's difficult to source: Mr Moore doesn't use the Internet. It was settled (allegedly, and "reportedly" - from the keyboard of the producer) behind closed-doors, and was thus ill-reported on. Sir Sean doesn't do many interviews. Mr Norrington doesn't do any. The only group who are really interested in the ultimate outcomes of the case are comics fans, and the comics industry's "investigative journalism" errs more on the side of "gossip."
However. I don't see that it should be deleted. How can it conflict with the policy not to defame living people? The only potentially-defamed parties are surely Mr Moore, Mr Murphy, Mr Cohen & Mr Poll and 20th Century Fox. Mr Murphy has been (instrumental in) excising things he wishes he hadn't said/doesn't want reported; Mr Moore is more defamed by the claims than mention of them/commentary on them; Mr Cohen & Mr Poll felt they had a case, and (allegedly) won a settlement to not comment further, so any critique of their case is academic. Fox is a company. A company which indirectly requested radical changes to the material, precipitating the lawsuit. Suggesting which individuals within the company were responsible for such decisions could very well be defamation. Nobody is doing that, however.
I'd be interested to here otherwise, though. :o) ntnon (talk) 01:08, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
SqueakBox my point is that the voseo feature is just regional in, as you say Honduras and Guatemala, the official pronoun in those countries is and has always been "tu".
Cheers
--Fercho85 (talk) 22:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I hear you, but it is the language of the people, in El Salavdor and Nicaragua as well I believe. People are much more familiar with the vos verbs than the tu verbs, especially the less educated people, and toimply voseo is more prevalent in Argentina than in Honduras is bound to be a false assertion givern its usage. The image on the page indicates the voseo use in El Salvador and refs re its usage amongst the perople's of central America are easy to find. Thanks, SqueakBox22:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed the comment you removed from my talk page. While I realize that you removed it after recognizing that you were mistaken in your belief that I had used a rollback on your edit, I am still concerned that you took offense by my revert. Please do not take offense as it was simply a disagreement over the removal of cited historical information. I did not state, nor mean to imply, that your edits were vandalism. --Ave Caesar (talk) 00:33, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Except it's not "cited historical information"--it's an OR inference from a fringe source, and you haven't addressed the talkpage discussion on that. -PetraSchelm (talk) 00:45, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Re. firecrackers
The main reason for Burma to stay Burma has nothing to do with the ruling junta, but with the common usage of the name of that country in the English language. You've actively participated in discussions about the name of that article and thus should know this by now. the Portuguese may wish Olivenza was theirs? Nobody in Portugal cares about Olivenza, most people haven't even heard of it. Again, you're assuming POV agendas at random. Húsönd17:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well somebody obviously cares enough about this Olivenza dispute to spread it over wikipedia. And since when did the common name directly contradict the official name in any country. Thanks, SqueakBox17:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment on my talk page and I couldn't agree more. I've read that that most children who are molested are girls, and that about 20% of women state that they were molested as children. I would say in my life, about 20% of the women I've ever known have been molested, and to some with tragic consequences in adulthood. I've been a long time editor of Wikipedia, and I never even realized the extent of the problem of with the informatino on pedophilia until I read it for myself. I consider what you, PetraSchlem, now myself, and others is a public service, since Wikipedia is now at the vanguard of information dissemination, for better and for worse. Googie man (talk) 00:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No Bias and thank you
Just to let you know I don't have any sort of bias against boxers of anysort and I'm sorry if you somehow ended up with that impression of me. I thank you for bringing the AfD to the attention of someone who knows more about the subject than myself though. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:01, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is bias against parts oft he world we cover poorly, such as Eastern Europe (or Africa or Latin America or large parts of Asia) that I am concerned about. I have no interest in boxing other than recognising it as a valid are wikipedia should cover. Thanks, SqueakBox16:56, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Defending personal territory
Let me suggest to you that our time here is best spend editing, and not attacking or defending personal territory. Haiduc (talk) 18:34, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not know what you are talking about but do hope you follow your own advice and refrain from attacking others in such a horrible way in the future, that is all. Thanks, SqueakBox18:43, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you actually have any real evidence that AnotherSolipsist is a sock? By that, I mean diffs showing similar editing habits (such as editing at the same time, making the same typos). Ryan Postlethwaite22:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like an RCU check. There has never been any evidence of me using socks, other than Skanking to evade a ban, and I am not banned right now. I am a bit drunk right now (its gran carnival here) but am happy to compile a serious case tomorrow, but my intuition says this is a much more valid claim than the endless claims againt me by those who oppose my ped editing. I believe that AS is German and have long wondered where Roman (a somewhat notable German), a long term user, went. Happy to take guidance from, you Ryan, as I do trust you, that is why i went to mediation in the beginning. Thanks, SqueakBox22:41, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another sensitive editor in relation to paedophila
Hi. There is yet another complaint regarding yourself at ANI. While this is a not infrequent instance, I would comment that the discussion prior to this diff does seem to contain some assertions that are not backed up by sources/references - and some which appear to be opinion. As we both know, ArbCom have decided that any discussion/dispute regarding paedophilia and related subjects should be referred to them, and I feel that expressing an opinion falls within the meaning of that decision. I am therefore asking that you withdraw from the discussion at talk:Googie man. Cheers. LessHeard vanU (talk) 22:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your link is red, and I have not posted at that thread in ages. I expect to see this situation resolved, pronto. What say you. And sure I will respect your wishes. Thanks, SqueakBox22:54, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I *would* offer you the same support you've offered me, but there are two people in this disussion I simply won't adress anymore.
Here's why distress is tricky when discussing child sexual offenders. You'll see there is a high comorbidity with narcisissm, (i.e. solipsists) and narcissists don't feel distress over their thoughts and actions, and oblivious and/or indifferent to the distress they cause in others. What they really want is for all these people who are so worried about harm befalling onto other people, and children in particular to just shut up and mind thier own business. Googie man (talk) 19:27, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Regarding the recent revert you made to Jamie Oliver: You may already know about them, but you might find Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace useful. After a revert, these can be placed on the user's talk page to let them know you considered their edit was inappropriate, and also direct new users towards the sandbox. They can also be used to give a stern warning to a vandal when they've been previously warned. Thank you. Enigma msg! 04:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
.jpg)
