User talk:Athene cunicularia

Overboard

I think going and calling "bad reference code" over at Fox News Channel is a little much... it's nothing more than a missing url= tag, and functionality is the same. Please go easy on the removal of descriptions or information, or claims of "bad coding" :) thanks /Blaxthos 17:34, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I came off as overly sensitive -- the Fox News Channel article has always been a serious flame and vandal target, and I was a little confused regarding the removal of information from the citations that had no error at all -- it's one thing to add "url=", it's quite another to remove descriptions from working citations. It's been no easy task keeping the trolls off of FNC article, and I'm sure my WP:AGF reserve is lower than it should be. No hard feelings? :-) /Blaxthos 19:28, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Off-road vehicles

The new edit is much better. Thank you. -- I already forgot talk 16:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I made a proposal it starts a paragraph above Talk:Off-road_vehicle#Build_a_criticism_section. Please come take a look and see what you think. Jeepday (talk) 03:43, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a desire to participate in writing a criticism section for Off-road_vehicle? Jeepday (talk) 15:16, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If your question is do I (Jeepday), make significant contributions to Wikipedia, look at Road and it's history. If your question is will you and I have different perspectives, I am pretty sure we agree in advance that will be true :) Hopefully I have outlined a process that will minimize the stress, in Place to discuss the steps and process I put an area to fine tune and reach agreement on what we are going to do before we actually start writting.

If your question is what body of work do I expect major participants (you and I, and who ever) to contribute. I expect at step 3, 4 and 5 we will each have an even division of labor on researching and writing about the subjects we select (maybe each will write 2 or something). I also expect that step 6 is going to be the hardest, but that can be minimized if we do a good job on step 1. I would expect that you I are probably pretty far apart on POV but I think as long as all participants are committed to working equally towards a WP:NPOV body of work and we do our best to assume good faith it should be fine. Jeepday (talk) 23:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have a paragraph posted at Talk:Off-road_vehicle#Place_to_work_on_the_paragraphs and a discussion about vandalism at Talk:Off-road_vehicle#Jeepday_paragraph_on_Illegal_activities_of_ORV.27s take a look and let me know what you think. Jeepday (talk) 13:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jeepday first draft of paragraph on illegal use of please take a look and give feedback. Jeepday (talk) 16:11, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How is it going? Jeepday (talk) 02:44, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

References

I found this one http://books.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9989&page=6 while looking for my stuff. Seems like a pretty strong reference, that talks to fuel consumption and such. Jeepday (talk) 04:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"punctuation always goes inside quotes"

I provided a Government Printing Office cite on my reversion of your edit with the above explanation at UCS since the Chicago Manual of Style site wasn't opening, but ran into a link to the Wikipedia MOS shortly after, so can now point to WP:PUNC (note the very first sentence) for examples of punctuation not migrating into quotes. You had me questioning my understanding for a sec, but... Andyvphil 08:56, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Thomas (disambiguation)

Thank you for your good-faith edit to the Scott Thomas disambiguation page. I have reverted your edit for a couple of reasons:

1. It has been incontrovertibly proven that Beauchamp fabricated his stories.
2. Per WP:MoS (disamb), the description associated with a link should be sufficient to allow the reader to find the correct link.
3. Per WP:MoS (disamb), articles should not be pipe linked. Since there is no biography article for Scott Thomas Beauchamp (and since he is only notable for one incident, there should not be), the link redirects to Scott Thomas Beauchamp controversy. When there are exceptions to piped links, they should be explained. The article is about the fabrication controversy, not the controversial articles themselves--hence, noting that he fabricated the stories will lead the reader to identify the Scott Thomas Beauchamp Controversy.

In order to maintain a neutral point of view, the article could be tagged {{NPOV}} and other editors could comment. In the meantime, we should refrain from editing it further unless someone can come up with a more neutral way to mention that he fabricated the stories in a sentence fragment.

Thanks. MrPrada 22:42, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Scott Horton (lawyer)

A tag has been placed on Scott Horton (lawyer) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. —Jonathan | Quality, not quantity. 00:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Big reverts by IP

Hi. I wanted to thank you for this restoration of a revert. I feel like this IP users is following me around reverting anything I write which he personally disagrees with.

Would you like to take a look at this reversion too? I would appreciate it. --Uncle Ed (talk) 19:08, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the rewrite of Politicization of science. --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry if I did not make it clear about the "reversion" thing. I mistakenly assumed you had read the IP's Dec. 3 edit comment, "Reverting quite biased recent changes by Ed Poor. We're not going to have the Hoover Institute defining what constitutes this topic and article."

I probably should have made it clear that it was my extensive changes to the article - rather than the longstanding prevision version - that I was asking you to review.

Please accept my apologies for confusing you and wasting your time.

I will butt out now, except to make comments on the talk page. --Uncle Ed (talk) 02:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring discouraged

You might not know it, Athene, but there is a Wikipedia:3RR which forbids multiple reverts of the same article in quick succession. You don't want to run afoul of this policy. --Uncle Ed (talk) 00:15, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Politicization of science

Hi, sorry for any misunderstanding on my part of your intentions there, and for linking you so directly to Ed in my comments. I feel that you were trying to improve the article, but weren't aware of the conflicts or of Ed's rather tempestuous history. Ed has been around for a long time and is known for persistence in subtly pushing his conservative pov. Several editors, such as the anon., have tired of it. Anyway, I hope we can work together to improve the article after it is unlocked and again, I appreciate your good faith efforts there. Vsmith (talk) 03:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Athene. I don't know what you mean when you say that you were "tricked". I've looked over the matter and it looks to me like both versions of the article have merit and it may make sense to incorporate them together. JoshuaZ (talk) 19:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your complaint about User:Steve Dufour's COI

Hello Athene. This COI item, which you opened on 11 December, appears to be winding down without much further discussion. Periodically I try to go through the noticeboard to see whether the various issues seem to be resolved, or if there is more to do. I really can't figure out what to do in this case. Your original complaint was a touch vague about what Dufour had actually done:

His m.o. seems to be to slowly remove information in an effort to prevent the appearance of controversy, or reduce notability, in an effort ultimately delete sections or articles. It is more difficult with a larger article like Insight, but much easier for a stub like Kuhner's.

Can you give an opinion whether the responses in this thread were of any use? If you wanted Steve to recuse from these articles, he seems not to have done that. Do you have a preferred draft of any of these articles to offer as an alternative to what's there now? Either respond here if you will, or add a further comment at WP:COIN. Thanks, EdJohnston (talk) 04:10, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to voice the strongest possible support for Athene's complaint. The combination of COI and tendentious editing among a small cabal of Unification Church members has NOT in any way been mitigated over time, and is rampant across virtually all Unification Church related articles, especially the Unification Church media properties. The effect is pervasive and pernicious. I will comment in greater detail, and Athene...let me know how I can help. WNDL42 (talk) 23:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Articles for deletion notices from articles, or remove other people's comments in Articles for deletion debates, as you did with Nuclear Information and Resource Service. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion of an article, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. I think you probably removed this template by mistake - but please just take special care as AfD templates should not be removed except by the administrator who closes the debate --VS ^talk 10:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this was unintentional. I had reverted to an earlier edit and accidentally removed the notice.Athene cunicularia (talk) 17:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I expected that to be the case. No problems everyone makes accidental mistakes. --VS ^talk 20:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Insight magazine

Athene, can you get the Insight magazine "frozen" long enough to get the issues hammered out? The politico's actions are reinforced by the UC member's occasional "chime in" that presents the illusion of a "consensus" unless there are equally comitted editors "riding" all of the UC related articles. The latest round of edits turned the thing back into a virtual "parroting" of the Insight speculations, with a few "alleged's" thrown in for techincal merit points.

Anyway, can the thing be "locked down" in a reasonable state somehow?

Thanks, WNDL42 (talk) 23:51, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Athene, thanks for responding on my talk page, sorry to see you drop the topic, calmer heads usually prevail in the end, but in the short term, life's to short...and I understand fully.

FYI, things seem a little calmer now but the political sensitivities remain high. Hope you'll check in from time to time. WNDL42 (talk) 22:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Athene, I support your recent re-addition of the "smear" aspects to the page at Jeffrey T. Kuhner. I hope you do understand that my reason for removing it was in hopes of avoiding an edit war over this controversial subject. I wanted to make sure my intentions are clear...I do not wish to mitigate or soften the impact of what are clearly seen as Kuhner's journalistic abuses, but as the article is a BLP wrt Kuhner, I hoped to "short circuit" any possible complaints from the subject regarding the portrayal of the incident. Again, I do not object to your edit, just wanted to clarify my intentions. Thanks, and I do enjoy working these topics with you!!! WNDL42 (talk) 20:18, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

You have been cunicularia granted with the rollback permission on the basis of your recent effort on dealing with vandalism. The rollback is a revert tool which can lessens the strains that normal javascripts such as twinkle put on the Wikipedia servers. You will find that you will revert faster through the rollback than through the normal reversion tools such as javascripts and the undo feature, which means that you could save time especially when reverting very large articles such as the George W. Bush page. To use it, simply click the link which should look like [rollback] (which should appear unbloded if you have twinkle installed) on the lastest diff page. The rollback link will also appear on the history page beside the edit summary of the lastest edit. For more information, you may refer to this page, alternatively, you may also find this tutorial on rollback helpful. Yamamoto Ichiro 会話 00:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Politicization of science‎

Hi there. I noticed you have contributed to politicization of science article, when you have time could you drop by to the Talk page to see my proposal for a NPOV leading paragraph and contribute to that discussion. Thanks. Mariordo (talk) 02:45, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

San Diego request

Hi Athene and Bovlb. Both of you indicate that you are in San Diego. I was working on the Psychotic Waltz and discovered that there was a legal case (see footnote 6 in the article) and the records are at San Diego County Courthouse, Older Records, 220 W. Broadway, San Diego, CA 92101, (619) 531-3244. The court records likely will have significant info on the history of Psychotic Waltz and may allow the article to be fully cited. If you have the time and inclination, would you please add the band biography material from the court records to the article? Thanks. JohnABerring27A (talk) 03:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

I've just nominated Julie MacDonald for deletion. Northwestgnome (talk) 02:52, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Julie MacDonald

Thanks so much for your efforts on that article! I was hoping that a third party would step in and drive consensus. hike395 (talk) 02:56, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Darn! I'm sorry it isn't working out: I can understand how you feel. hike395 (talk) 02:11, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Later: on reflection, I think your comment on my Talk page may have been feedback on my editing: I didn't actively participate on the Talk page. This may have been an error: I was just trying to not inflame things further. If my lack of participation on the Talk page was a factor in driving you away from the page, I apologize and I would ask that you reconsider. Thanks! hike395 (talk) 02:42, 23 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for re-engaging on the article. I'm hoping we can have a calm discussion about this, although many people say that I am a foolish optimist. hike395 (talk) 04:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion has died off: do you we should restore the 3 points that were deleted? Or wait some more? hike395 (talk) 02:28, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wilderness Diarrhea Getting Killed

Dunno, but it seems remotely possible you'd be interested in this. Wilderness Diarrhea is getting merged into Travelers Diarrhea by a couple of zealots who seem to have no concept of outdoor interests.

I get around a lot in the outdoors and rarely treat water, but WD article had some good stuff.

After a couple of weeks of calm discussion, I went ballistic and no longer want to participate. Rational voices might help.

These guys have irrationally convinced themselves that WD isn't a legitimate topic for a Wikipedia article.

I've pointed out several bomb-proof arguements to no avail. I'd say the strongest is the vast number of published articles that discuss WD as a separate concern from TD. They are both environmental health topics, and obviously the context of each are far different.

What's with deleting Julie MacDonald? Is Sarah Palin an editor here? Calamitybrook (talk) 05:48, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Left-Leaning

Hi. Those two sites are left-leaning and it is even mentioned on their respective pages. I suppose it would be better to argue our perceptions with those on the Washington Times talk page. Doug Sacks (talk) 16:15, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Seemed like a lot of scissor happy people. (Wallamoose (talk) 04:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Interesting Articles

Are there any interesting journalism related articles you're working on? That is an area of interest for me. Trying to find something fun to work on where people are happy for help instead of bickering like spoiled children. Party on.(Wallamoose (talk) 03:46, 14 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art

First off, I apologize for the spam. You are receiving this message because you have indicated that you are in Southern California or interested in Southern California topics (either via category or WikiProject).

I would like to invite you to the Los Angeles edition of Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art, a photography scavenger hunt to be held at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art (LACMA) on Saturday, February 28, 2009, from 1:00 to 7:00 PM. All photos are intended for use in Wikipedia articles or on Wikimedia Commons. There will be a prize available for the person who gets the most photos on the list.

If you don't like art, why not come just to meet your fellow Wikipedians. Apparently, we haven't had a meetup in this area since June 2006!

If you are interested in attending, please add your name to Wikipedia:Wikipedia Loves Art#Los Angeles County Museum of Art. Please make a note if you are traveling to the area (train or plane) and need transportation, which can probably be arranged via carpool, but we need time to coordinate. Lodging is as of right now out of scope, but we could discuss that if enough people are interested.

Thank you and I hope to see you there! howcheng {chat} 23:32, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:Pinsky-lat-fob.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Pinsky-lat-fob.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 02:33, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with File:Orv-damage.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Orv-damage.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|CC-by-sa-3.0|GFDL}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 05:55, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fab four?

The change you made sounds great! I don't think that the particular beetle we have described under ambrosia beetle is exactly the right one that affects redbay since they have a pointer under externals which seemed more specific. Always hard to tell with beetles (I assume). I am not a beetle expert nor do I wish to become one! :} Cheers! Student7 (talk) 22:01, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

You should find a better source for this edit, because Yahoo News links die in fourteen days. THF (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Julie MacDonald

You should read the material cited in the opening paragraph. You are misquoting the document. It is unethical for you to misrepresent the information and thus disparage this person. Julie MacDonald —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.253.160.92 (talk) 19:01, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been discussed at length and a consensus has been reached by numerous disagreeing editors. If you have further changes, please make suggestions on the talk page. I have replaced the disputed sentence with a direct quote from the article that shows the exact opposite of what you've written here. It's pretty clear that your edits--and accusation that I'm being "unethical"--are being made in bad faith.Athene cunicularia (talk) 22:00, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should cite the actual Inspector General's report rather than a NY Times response to the report. Does that seem agreeable to everyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.66.221 (talk) 00:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, how about now? I went back in and refined the reference from the report. Also, your last edit had broken the references section.Athene cunicularia (talk) 00:40, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you found a nice way to reconcile both sides. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.66.221 (talk) 01:23, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File copyright problem with File:Coastal-erosion-inland.jpg

File Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading File:Coastal-erosion-inland.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the file. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their license and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. Chris G Bot (talk) 00:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Ilhr.jpg

Dear Athene cunicularia, I have uploaded the above named file on fr.wikipedia in fair use logo, which is also allowed. However, I was asked for the original source of en.wikipedia. Could you please tell me? With kind regards, --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 16:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe I got it on their website.Athene cunicularia (talk) 00:47, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --Rédacteur Tibet (talk) 18:27, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Smith

I am not trying to "gloss over" the lynching of Smith. Please note that I changed the text from "guilty" to "accused" because he never had his day in court. Perhaps you should drop your accusatory tone. Jon Jonasson (talk) 17:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fiji Water

Thanks for your contribs to the Fiji water page! (Adding the POM Wonderful association to the owners. I don't know why I left it out!) And refining some of the grammar and sentence flow, its tedious to rewrite these small corporate pages when so much of it was flawed in the first place. It really helped what you did. Thanks! Retran (talk) 00:55, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Outing

Please refer to editors using their usernames, even if you know their actual first name - using real life names could be considered outing. ATren (talk) 20:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't realize it was a secret.Athene cunicularia (talk) 21:35, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not really a secret per se (some editors do know who he is), but it's still not appropriate to use it. There are many editors here who have had their identity revealed (or even revealed it themselves in certain contexts), but still wish to remain pseudonymous in their interactions here -- if that's their wish, we should respect that. ATren (talk) 01:27, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback

Hello, I am here because you decided, knowingly or not, to violate our policy on WP:ROLLBACK. Rollback is granted to users, and as any special permission, such as checkuser, oversight, or sysop, it comes with restrictions. The big one here is what rollback is restricted to. It is only to be used, and I really stress, only to be used to revert blatant vandalism. It is not to be used for good-faith edits, such as my own, on the water article as you did not so long ago.

So please, instead of blindly reverting, assess, and discuss. WP:BRD. In case you chose to not read my edit summary, which, I am pretty sure you did not, I cited the manual of style. At the time, I didn't really link to the relevant section, mainly because I couldn't remember the specific link. However, to the point, the MOS says that such sections should be worked into the article body, instead of having specific sections, which in and of itself, violates undue weight.

I don't know how much experience you have had with sockpuppets and alternate accounts, but please hear me out. I could, and I could not, be considered a sockpuppet. I am an experienced editor, on my username, with at least maybe.. or coming close to, 15,000 edits to my account. Due to ... complications I had half a week ago, maybe more, I'm on an enforced wikibreak. This is why I am logged out. I'm really trying to stay away from disputes, which, instead of simply reverting, I left a message on the talk page, and a message here. I have tried to be polite, and civil. If any of my messages could be taken as uncivil, then I apologize. The last message is in bold so it's double-hard to miss it.

c.c

I was on the wikibreak so I could calm down, but, as you may, or may not know, wikipedia is kind of addictive. I keep coming back to it as a point of reference, and if I see something I just can't ignore, I try to fix it.76.175.3.43 (talk) 07:43, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]