User talk:Kww/04022009

Ay Bitch

Stop changing the Yung D shit. He's an official Member of Hypnotize Minds now Look at his Myspace http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile&friendid=324667013

My reply

Hello, The photo comes originally from me and the family. It was a photograph. Nope I've not downloaded this one. I scanned it and edited ot from my Computer and Uploaded this one —Preceding unsigned comment added by Centuryking007 (talk • contribs) 04:48, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Headstrong Deluxe is true now! See the source!

Hey, this image is true...Image:Headstrongholiday.jpg. The source is here http://www.ashleymusic.com/holidaypromo/. Thank you. MSoldi 18:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC) MSoldi 19:18, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

PLEASE BE FAIR

Please read my post at bcn0209 regarding Digital Reality, Inc. I also notice that you have been involved in speedy delete disputes multiple times and the speedy delete is an aggravating means to accomplish an admittedly important job but please be conscientious, objectionable and interpret Wiki rules more carefully. For example, Wiki does not state in the rules that posting information about companies is necessarily grounds for deletion. In fact the rule on this is quite clear.

Thanks

Thanks for the comments in support of the CDC travel links. Craigoliver 14:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Kudos to you

I know I was originally kinda crabby on the Humanzee page, and I apologize. You've worked very hard in the past few days to try and fix some of the deeper problems with the article and I know it hasn't been easy. Even though I'm part of the paranormal Project, I am an Anthropologist and Folklorist. Topics such as the Oliver, Humanzee and the fascination people continue to have with Ape-human hybrids speak to some very deep issues of personhood, where we all come from, where we are going etc etc. Please know that I support your efforts to keep these articles NPOV, grounded in fact and well sourced. We could use an editor such as yourself over in Wikipedia:WikiProject Paranormal! ;-) Lisapollison 00:42, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Humanzee

You seem to misunderstand the purpose of the "See also" section. It is to include additional links for further reading. Yes, the word hybrid is important, but it is already used many times in the article and wikilinked in it. You don't list the words chimp or human in "See also", do you? `'mikka 20:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

OK I see you are a relatively new user. I suggest you to invest some time in reading wikipedia:Manual of style, to avoid future similar misunderstandings. `'mikka 20:16, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Holloway

Thanks for offering. I think what we do is keep reverting her nonsense, making sure we don't each violate the 3RR, and in a couple of days, ask for semi protection again, setting out that HollysMom was a new user, that she was warned (as it seems) by an admin but was cut a break because she is new and ask for semi protection or a block.--Wehwalt 19:57, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Is there any point in me getting into this discussion? I think not, but I will if needed.--Wehwalt 04:49, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

FYI, they were so outraged at my edits that they posted my name, my photo, and said I "looked like a perv" at Scared Monkeys bulletin board (run a search for wehwalt on the discussion boards there if you are interested). Also proposed complaining to the Bar because I posted "libel". Nice people.--Wehwalt 13:07, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

http://127.0.0.1 . Please erase this link once you've looked at it.--Wehwalt 21:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Pagey and his solos

Hi Kww. Yes, you are quite right to challenge me on this. I made a very quick edit to the STH page andf afterwards thought I may be asked for a ref (following). The reason I chopped the edit was it was preposterous to claim that Page always made three recordings and chose the best one in all his songs.

I can only find two refs atm - moved house so it's a bit disorganised - and can't find the bit about agonising but I think it is in one of the Zep biographies I have. Hope this satisfies the three takes on the solo though. (These articles are already refed in the article.)

---

Quote:

Back at Basing Street, Richard Digby Smith reckons he saw Jimmy Page get over his lead guitar-break trauma and finish the track: "He did three takes. He didn't use headphones, he monitored the backing tracks through speakers which was how the classical soloists who used that studio did it."

"Bustle in the Hedgerow" by Phil Sutcliffe p64, MOJO, April 2000.

---

Quote:

GW: You had the guitar solo demoed and ready I presume

PAGE: No, no, not at all. I winged it.

GW: You winged the solo?

PAGE: Yeah every time

GW: Even the call and refrain sections? The overdubs?

PAGE: Oh you mean the slide buts? That's orchestration. You want to know if I prepared the overall structure of the guitar parts?

GW: Yes

PAGE: Yes. But not the actual notes, though. But when I came to record the solo, I warmed up and did three of them. They were all quite different from each other.

GW: You mean there are different solos on the master tape that no one's even heard?

PAGE: Oh yeah! But the one we used was the best solo, I can tell you that ...

"Light and Shade" by Brad Tolinski with Greg Di Benedetto. Guitar World, Collector's Issue Jan 1988.

---

Cheers! Candy 06:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Bonaire Image Order

I don't understand your change. I wound up moving that diver image to the top because every time it wasn't the top image, people would come in and delete the ones that came before it so that it would be on top. By just moving it there and retaining the others, I kept the edit cycles down. Why do you feel that it needs to be lower? Kww 15:29, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I changed it because the image caused the article to have a large ugly-looking white space. This is because the text will only begin again when the picture can be shown on the right side of the article, and that is when the table ends. You probably don't see this because you use a low resolution (800x600 for example), but with a resolution of 1152×864 it looks very ugly. Cure to this phenomenon is to group together images and tables, or to place them lower in the text. Maartenvdbent 15:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm happy now :). Cheers! Maartenvdbent 15:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Re. Rename request for Sint Maarten

Sure. St. Maarten should be allowed to have its recognizable, official name left alone and not transformed into some new, odd, made-for-wikipedia name space entity. But about the song: it was written in English by Father Kemps, a Dutch priest active on the French side and I believe he wrote Saint Martin, you know. At least that's what they put on the plaque in Marigot in 2005. They use Sint Maarten here: Volkslied van Sint Maarten (and the French sing "Saint Martin, Saint Martin, si jolie en tous ses coins!"). But I believe Saint Martin is also the correct form in Kemp's original version because it's a song meant to inspire pan-island unity and includes the French side. Notice that the wikilink doesn't work as it is. Cheers, Afv2006 08:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Pronunciation of Curaçao

Hey, thanks for correcting my IPA on Curaçao. I've heard it pronounced rhyming either with "Warsaw" or "Palau" but assumed the former was the prevalent form. Good to have someone living in the Carribean, I'm currently trying to add IPA labels on all possible locations in that region, I'll ask you for advice when in doubt, if that's OK with you. --Targeman 00:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi,it's me again with a pronunciation issue. Namely, what is the usual pronunciation of Saint Lucia? Loo-SEE-ya? LOO-sha? Do people in the Carribean pronounce the "Saint" as "saint" or "sn't" like the British do? Thanks for help. --Targeman 21:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! That was fast :-) I'll insert that in a sec. If you want to learn more about IPA, you can read IPA_chart_for_English, although transcriptions I see around here are far from consistent. I'll raise the issue of standardizing them on Wikipedia when I find out whom to address :-) --Targeman 21:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Please understand the dispute at the article 'The Rocky Horror Picture Show" is not personal. It is completely a matter of what should be included.

We actualy have a great deal in common and would probably be good friends otherwise. I extend an Olive branch to you. I want to follow Wiki guidlines. I will stick to the outcome of the dispute should it go against my opinion.

I was born at Tachakawa AFB in Japan in may of 1963 and have worked in some great hotels. I wish I could own one myself. Sorry if this situation has caused you frustration. --Amadscientist 21:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Power Ballads (UK album)

Hi there - although I'm not the original author of the Power Ballads (UK album) page, I couldn't help noticing that you'd flagged it, and other pages from the same chain of albums, as being spam. I'd be interested to know why you think the articles are spam - to my mind there's little difference between the contents of Power Ballads (UK album) and the contents of, say, Garage_Inc., an album by Metallica. What particular wording makes you think that the Power Ballads (UK album) article is spam, rather than an entry listing the contents of the CD concerned? Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 13:44, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your message - I don't think there's any particular name for those sorts of albums over on this side of the pond, but we definitely have them (a series called "The Greatest XXX album in the world, ever", where XXX is replaced by folk, rock, driving, air guitar, etc., springs to mind). Whilst they're not exactly high art, I don't necessarily agree that they were spam - I appreciate that you only flagged them, and that an administrator agreed - as the criteria for db-spam says, having the product as its subject doesn't necessarily qualify the article for deletion, only inappropriate content. I think we'll have to agree to differ on this one! Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 13:57, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Tamika and the Beast

I've added some more context in the article, but tagged it with the notability tag. Pants^(T) 02:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

SANGREAL SODALITY

Hey Kevin -- I've made changes which I thought you would love based on our discussion and somehow that seemed to trigger this Eagle guy who is frankly not one I have found reasonable to talk with

Eagle is labeling it a COI and not stating reasons..but he didn't last time he wanted to delete it either. Especially with the changes the article is now more scholarly and less advertisement than most occult and magical and fraternal organization listings! Yes it links to the Sangreal website..er..so does every other group link to their main website. I'd really appreciate

1. Your opinion and possibly you could join the talk page (PLEASE) 2. Your help and advice on what to do if some editor seems hell bent on getting rid of an entry like this and won't even talk. Plus he probably hates my guts because after his failure to talk I did say that he is being inappropriate to him(or her) And frankly I'm now pretty angry. I spend time making changes based on our discussion and another editor deletes and tags it COI.

If the source of the problem is outside Wikipedia I should know that and what claims are being made. There is one person who might have problems with the description --.. I and some other contributors have avoided embarrassing the guy to death by actually sharing certain letters from the groups founder written over the past years and shared with his official biographer and the current Warden.

Hey I know wiki articles can be changed deleted etc..But I do think I deserve more than a TAG and some conversation for all my work on it

Thanks

Renee

Speedy

Please do not try to use speedy to solve an editing dispute. If there is any possible controversial element to the deletion of an article, and the article talk page for London Action Resource Centre makes it clear that there will be, the method to use is AfD, DGG (talk) 16:23, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Bleep OR straw poll

There is a straw poll being conducted on the Bleep OR issue. Your input is welcome. Dreadstar † 16:55, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Due to continued confusion around the scope of the Bleep OR straw poll, I’ve added a clarification note to say that the poll is primarily meant to see if everyone agrees that a majority of that content identified as unsourced or improperly sourced OR in the Bleep sandbox, is indeed OR. Please feel free to change your vote if necessary. Please post a message on my talk page if any of this is unclear. Thanks for your patience! Dreadstar † 17:52, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Watch the A7 criterion

I hate to say this because you are doing great work with catching these new non-notable articles... but be careful with the A7 criterion. It is not for all non-notable articles, it is specifically only for non-notable "people, groups, companies and web content." The vast majority of your CSD noms seem to be right on the money, but I found at least a couple where you technically misapplied the criteria because it did not apply to one of those four things. In one case I left the db tag in place anyway as per WP:SNOWBALL, but PUNISHher really should not have been CSD'd.

Cheers, and happy new page patrolling! --Jaysweet 21:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, don't worry, I'd never heard of that rapper either. ;D I'm a little iffy on the validity of Wikipedia articles about upcoming albums, etc. anyway (if you wanna see a train-wreck, check out Drake & Josh In New York!, particularly this frikkin' hilarious edit) --Jaysweet 15:40, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

OneCleveland

Well my advice is to bring it up on the WP:OH messege board because I really have no clue...Im not going to get into that because it was not my idea and I was just helping my WikiProject out...MarkDonna 22:55, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Spiritual QP

LOL! [1], You're right! I wasn't paying enough attention! Thanks for reverting my blunder! Funny! – Dreadstar † 23:16, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

2the Max

Please undelete the 2the Max article. You should at least notifying the author and relative projects before submiting any deletion request. It is ridiculous to not letting other to improve before any furthur actions. — HenryLi (Talk) 03:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I really wonder you and admin completely ignore the notability guideline. In the guideline, it has clearly written that:

If an article fails to cite sufficient sources to demonstrate the notability of its subject, look for sources yourself,6 or:

Ask the article's creator for advice on where to look for sources. Put the {{notability}} tag on the article to alert other editors. To place a dated tag, put a {{subst:dated|notability}} tag.

If the article is about a specialized field, use the {{expert-subject}} tag with a specific WikiProject to attract editors knowledgeable about that field, who may have access to reliable sources not available online.

Have your look for sources yourself?

Have you ask the article's creator?

Have you put the notability tag or expert-subject tag?

I cannot see you follow the procedure stated in the guideline.

I am really disappointed that even an administrator agrees with you so carelessly. I also hope you can follow the consensus and the guideline.

— HenryLi (Talk) 15:09, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

In the guideline (Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion)

Non-notable subjects with their importance asserted: Articles that have obviously non-notable subjects are still not eligible for speedy deletion unless the article "does not assert the importance or significance of its subject". If the article gives a claim that might be construed as making the subject notable, it should be taken to a wider forum. However, articles with only a statement like "This guy was like so friggin' notable!" can be deleted for lacking context, because it gives no context about the subject.

When you said it because of notability, please follow the procedure in WP:NOT. The article has asserted that the product is sold to multiple nation and important product. I think you never carefully read the given link and even do a web search on the subject. I know I can recreate the article in a minute, but I hope you can follow the notability guide before putting any tag. — HenryLi (Talk) 16:17, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Re:Let me make this perfectly clear

kww, sorry for making you feel comfortable, but, it is necessary. I appreciate your effort to read 2000 articles a day. On the other hand, I noticed that you have involved in several disputes on speedy delete recently. You should not be amazed that more contributors would take this kind of matter seriously if you continue to ignore the consensus made, namely guideline. You have joined Wikipedia for 7 months and you might be eager to do some administrative works, maybe later run for administratorship. My recommendation is, before you do administrative works, read relevant guideline. Deletion and notability are two of most controversial matters in Wikipedia. To read and applying the guidelines carefully do help you to avoid unnecessary disputes. User:HenryLi 05:08, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll try one more time. There is nothing wrong with speedy deletion, and yet speedy deletion is essential. But it require to follow the deletion and notability guideline. People usually get disputed when they do not like to admit they are too lazy to follow the guidelines. — HenryLi (Talk) 15:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

RHPS

"He didn't just cut the nerves to the frontal lobes of Eddie's brain"

Show-off. :P Atropos 01:22, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

RHPS cast

Amadscientist has disagreed with the inclusion of the cast. If you could voice your opinion I'd appreciate it. Atropos 01:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a note that, though you added the cast section back, you didn't remove it from the infobox (that is, replace it with the short one with only four cast members). I think everyone involved can agree that having both include the complete cast is redundant, no? Atropos 02:43, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

MotivAction, LLC

The criteria and guidelines for proving the notability of an article are vague. The references included in the current iteration of this article are reputable and factual and have been provided in good faith. If they do not qualify, then please provide more specific guidance so that I can be sure to include appropriate references in the article. Thank you kindly. Robert Burmaster 21:21, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, they aren't all that murky. wp:notability provides an overall guideline. The problem you had the last time was simple: it doesn't count as a reference if the person mentioning you is being paid to mention the subject. If you work for MotivAction, one question to ask yourself is "Why hasn't somebody else written an article about my company?" If the answer is "because no one outside the company thinks it's interesting", then you haven't achieved notability. Kww 21:45, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

(Copied from Talk:MotivAction, LLC DES ^(talk) 16:40, 4 August 2007 (UTC))

DaFont Article

Hey Kww,

I noticed you tagged the DaFont article as a candidate for deletion. Please read my response here. If you're satisfied with it, then we can settle the issue quickly and painlessly. :)

xDanielx^Talk 08:48, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a gentle reminder

In response to your 3RR complaint, I blocked User:Bloggerhead several days ago for his reverting on Spam Prevention Early Warning System. Since then he has resorted to meatpuppetry and had the block extended to a month.

So he may well not be troubling you for a while. However, I noticed this diff] and thought it only fair to remind you that, as exasperating as dealing with him may have been, you are still obliged to be civil. OK? That's all. Daniel Case 00:44, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Scrooge

Did you see the to-do list for the article and the question any information on which characters he might be based on? I want to improve that article. By putting the statement there I can attract attention. If I have to find the info my myself this search is doomed. I'm a moderate Scrooge fan. I read the Carl Barks library, I have Thomas Andreae recent book but that's it. What can you contribute?

Pardon me

You misspelled "vandalizing". If you insist on wasting my time further, I suggest you first learn to spell.

List of lists that list lists of list lists

I noticed on a few AFD discussions that you seem to feel the same way about massive lists that I do. I just stumbled across this mindnumbing category: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Lists_of_schools_by_country which contains links to 72 lists that just have no reason to exist. Somehow, I don't think submitting 72 independent AFDs is the right procedure. Any advice as to how to proceed? Kww 16:07, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Damn... You're right, there's to much of this around to eradicate it all with AfDs. Besides, some kid will eventually come back and re-list his or her school again. I honestly don't know what action to take here. I'm still a relative newb and I don't know whom to address to propose a radical change in policy that listcruft warrants IMO. I thought maybe an automatic listing of recently created articles beginning with "List of" on a separate, heavily patrolled page would make it easier to shoot them at sight. (Preferably together with another pet peeve of mine, "...in popular culture" articles). The overwhelming majority of ordinary schools is patently not notable - articles about them, and lists of them, would be a speedy delete offense if I had my way. I reckon a very hefty proportion of all time-consuming AfDs are this type of articles. However, I can't really throw my weight around to get things done because I don't have any. A lot of things still bother me on Wikipedia and even make me regularly consider quitting, but as a newb I'm unlikely to be taken seriously. --Targeman 18:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't think of an action to take either. A massive AfD would be far too time consuming. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps•Review?)} 19:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems that all of you do not seem to understand that the reason for the existence of lists like this is to aid (together with the Category mechanism) in creating another way to find information by creating a lateral and/or hierarchical browsing mechanism, supplementing the normal hyperlink mechanism. Mahjongg 00:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for typo fixes in my essay.--Alexia Death the Grey 12:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I was told to put the image back =

For the Ashley Tisdale Image, in my last message i got, i was told to put it back, so i will do as instructed.SuperWiki5 13:47, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Mark Tinley

Because I've communicated with him, I have reason to believe he will do better with communication and patience, and I intend to watch what he does closely. If he misbehaves, I can and will take care of it myself. — Catherine\^talk 17:24, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: FredAbbey

Re your message: I blocked that particular editor for spamming as you can see in their block log. -- Gogo Dodo 18:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Lawrence Mujari

I was in the middle of editing the article when I saw the template. What gives?--SGCommand (talk • contribs) 16:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I am busy getting it in the style of the other characters so please bear with me.--SGCommand (talk • contribs) 16:46, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Eurominuteman 3RR

Thanks! I was thinking of making that change, but since I didn't make the initial report, thought I'd leave it as is. Perhaps I'll suggest that to the editor who made the report. Thanks for the notice! Dreadstar † 23:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I took your advice and changed the versions to diffs myself...thanks for the nudge in the right direction...! Dreadstar † 00:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Hey, it worked too..finally got the block! Dreadstar † 17:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Yung_D. No clue, it's a protected article transcluded into the Main page. What's the problem with it? Dreadstar † 00:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, yeah..I see...I thought it was just a weird name they had. I'll check. Dreadstar † 01:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I figured it out. It was a redirect. Interesting puzzle..! Got any more? Dreadstar † 01:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Yung D.

Template:Yung D. has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Mbisanz 19:42, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

AFD

I think your understanding of AFD may be a little skewed. Just because an article may be filled with OR, doesn't mean that it can't be fixed. Saying that the present content of an article is original research isn't really a valid reason to delete the article. - Ta bu shi da yu 09:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Edits/reverts

Wikipedia is about editing. Some edits go unchanged some are reverted. That is simply the name of the game here. Neither one of us likes the other but I am not immature enough to liable you with remarks like you have left on my page. I do not revert everyone else's edits. Request for me to stop editing Wikipedia....denied. Amadscientist —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 20:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

=="mistakenly" is not the same as "accidentally"==

The thesaurus disagrees with you. See: http://encarta.msn.com/thesaurus_561567881/by_mistake.html Please, in the future, before you edit relevant, cited information, look into the basis behind your reasoning. Oh, by the way, I reworded the paragraph to give a more accurate idea of what happened and DID use mistaken since that is the word that is used in the ref. Though they are synonyms so either would be acceptable. Thanks for the thought, though. - Jarn 05:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

A7

The idea of a ten day delay in speedy deletes fills me with horror - it's a terrible terrible idea. --Fredrick day 14:08, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

How to

to nominate at AFD: follow the directions at WP:AFD. After you save after adding the {{subst:afd1}} template to the top. Edit again and add " (2nd nomination)" after "cupcaking" to read "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/cupcaking (2nd nomination)", save. Follow the link to create the debate at that name, and add that name to the daily log (all set out at the template that appears on the cupcaking page. Try it first and if you have trouble I'll do it for you, but it's always a better learning experience to try it yourself - you really can't do any damage by accident, so don't worry, be WP:BOLD. Carlossuarez46 00:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Kosovo massacres

How was my move unjustified? There isn´t anything substantial on that article besides the list.Paulcicero 12:39, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Chicag ball

That's why I added WP:SNOW as another ground for closing the AFD. After four speedy deletions of the predecessor (and identical) article Chicago Ball by four different administrators, I feel pretty confident about this one. Thanks, NawlinWiki 23:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Follow the rules

And establish the notability of the section instead of blindly inserting pov into the article. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a gossip rag. Turtlescrubber 23:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD on Human chemistry

Hi there, the article has been changed substantially since your vote so you might want to have another look at the new version. All the best Tim Vickers 16:01, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The Rocky Horror Picture Show

In view of this AfD and this DRV, please consider adding references to the songs listed at the AfD. -- Jreferee t/c 19:07, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Sadi Carnot

Hey there. I just started an ANI thread on our mutual acquaintance. Since you also expressed reservations at his contributions, you might want to chime in. — Coren ^(talk) 03:24, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm somewhat concerned about your message on my talk page. You seem to imply that we should revert all 8567 edits that Sadi Carnot has made to wikipedia. This is ludicrous, and shows that you have not consulted this user's contributions (first one was on 2005-12-27). If you attempt to do this, you will be blocked for disruption, and that certainly wouldn't be impetuous. Physchim62 (talk) 17:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Kww has suggested no such thing, Physchim62. There's no reason for you to threaten him with a block. I know you're upset, but you still need to assume good faith. Please, relax and we'll figure out how to resolve this situation at WP:ANI. - Jehochman ^Talk 18:32, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Dammit, Janet!

I just tagged the article, and left my arguments on the talk page. Look it over and see if I missed something, or add your two cents. --293.xx.xxx.xx 09:51, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

I have corrected my statement at the Deletion review. You are right that i got mixed up about who said what in the many exchanges DGG (talk) 17:32, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration

You have been named in a request for arbitration titled Sadi Carnot. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration and consider making a statement per the instructions there. Thank you. - Jehochman ^Talk 00:42, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 19:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC) David Mestel^(Talk) 19:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Re: Possible Sadi Carnot sock/meatpuppet

Replied on my talk page. Carcharoth 14:47, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the arbcom checkuser section. Do you think you could leave a note for User:linshukun about this? I'm not 100% sure about the etiquette in difficult cases like this, but it would seem like the right thing to do. Carcharoth 17:30, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Humanzee

Come up with some sources. Corvus cornix 17:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

For the pop culture section which should be deleted. Corvus cornix 17:23, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

For movies, novels, etc., a reliable source would have to have commented that a humanzee or similar appears in the novel, movie, etc. Corvus cornix 18:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

It might be best to spin it off into its own article, and then wait for somebody to nominate it for deletion.  :) Corvus cornix 18:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

There is a purpose for the "trivia" tag. It is used all over the place. I'd rather not have it removed. If you want to go ahead and remove it, I won't edit war, but I don't think it's right to remove it. Corvus cornix 18:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Sadi Carnot arbitration case

Do you think you and Physchim62 could cool it a little bit at the arbitration case? You should both concentrate on Sadi Carnot's behaviour and not so much on the behaviour of you two. Although the arbitrators will look at that if it is warranted, at the moment it is a bit unsightly to see you two throwing proposals at each other on the workshop page. Cross-posted to User talk:Physchim62, and clerk notified. Carcharoth 19:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Hopefully you can both broker a truce yourself. You are right that Physchim62's unblock is part of the arbitration case, but please don't bring his subsequent behaviour towards you into the case. It would be best to limit things to what happened at the time. If you are unhappy with Physchim62's actions towards you, please try and raise that separately with Physchim62. Carcharoth 22:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The best approach here is to focus entirely on Sadi and ignore any comments directed at you personally. The arbitrators are not going to be paying the slightest attention to these retaliatory measures and making any response to them will only lower your credibility. This isn't a particularly pleasant aspect of Wikipedia, you have my sympathies in being plunged into it so quickly after joining! Tim Vickers 16:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Sometimes fighting isn't the best way of winning, as on Wikipedia your audience is frequently more important than your opponent. If you stay calm, stay focused and remain scrupulously polite, even under much more serious attacks than in this case, people will look at your situation in a very supportive manner. Tim Vickers 17:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Ashley Tisdale image

Regarding Image:Ashley Tisdale 01.jpg: how do you know this to be a free image? Is the person who uploaded the image to flickr the photographer who took the image? —C.Fred (talk) 02:14, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Damnit, Kww.....erm, Janet!

Okay, said my peace like you asked. Even provided a arguement from another Wikiproject. If this gets nastier, i'm gonna throw it to Wikiproject Songs and let them in on the debate.--293.xx.xxx.xx 11:43, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Ask for the articles in question, no rebuttal. Ask even for any mentions of rocky Horror, nothing. Win? --293.xx.xxx.xx (talk) 04:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

John254 and the talk page reversions

I've removed the report from WP:AIV that you made, since no warnings had been given to User:John254 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) on his talk page. Additionally, there is an open incident at WP:AN/I, opened by John254 about talk page spamming by another user: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Massive, disruptive canvassing. That is probably the better place to report/discuss this user's behaviour, not on AIV. —C.Fred (talk) 03:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The Game Song

I think you misread this one. The claim the song is to be released as a single is a rumor. The song itself already exists and is in no way crystal-ballery. You might want to adjust or withdraw the nomination. - Mgm|^(talk) 22:39, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot

This arbitration case has now closed and the decision may be found at the link above. Sadi Carnot is banned for one year, and the remaining parties are encouraged to "move forward from this unfortunate incident with a spirit of mutual understanding and forgiveness". For the arbitration committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 12:13, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Bleep

Take it to the talk page please, no further reverts. It is clear from all the writing on this movie that there are documentary style inteviews (non-fiction) that go along with a fictional narrative. Dreadstar † 20:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

3RR

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on What the Bleep Do We Know. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Dreadstar † 22:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You have made three reverts to the article per WP:3RR, [2] [3] [4]. One more and you will be blocked. I find this edit to be a personal attack. It's unjustified and unwarranted. I recommend you retract it. Dreadstar † 23:04, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

You said "I have not been reverting the same material or to the same version at any time", let me refer you to WP:3RR which states:

'An editor must not perform more than three reverts, in whole or in part, on a single page within a 24-hour period. A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time."

You violated 3RR, if I weren't involved in the dispute, I'd have blocked you myself. As it is , I've reported you. Dreadstar † 23:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Kww (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

First off, I did not revert four times. I reverted three. Look at the 3RR report. Note that the third and fouth reverts listed in my 3RR report are identical. You can't count the same revert twice to make four. Second, Dreadstar's report is quite hypocritical. Dreadstar has reverted on the page at 05:47, 15:43, and 16:47. All three of those reverts were to prevent new material from being added to the article, and not only mine: his first revert was of User:Eleland.

Decline reason:

Please see Wikipedia:Edit war. You edit warred, period. — Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 01:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Additionally, I've corrected a cut and paste error in the report that I made when changing the order of the diffs, so it's clearly 4RR. Dreadstar † 01:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC) Unfortunately, Dreadstar still cannot count very well. The second entry is the initial edit that Dreadstar wants to prevent from being in the article.Kww (talk) 01:45, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

After receiving your email, I contacted the blocking admin and he agreed to shorten the block as a sign of good faith that the edit warring has stopped. You are now unblocked. Dreadstar † 03:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

No edit warring

There's no need to edit war. Please join the Wikipedia:Harmonious editing club. This will help you avoid trouble in the future. There are much better ways to deal with POV pushers than edit warring with them. Ask me for tips when you feel the need to revert more than once. - Jehochman ^Talk 03:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I was unblocked, but the autoblock is still there. Fixed IP ... I can't change it

DING! You are now free to move about the wiki. - Jehochman ^Talk 03:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Papiamento/Papiamentu/Papiament

I just wanted to introduce some consistency in the article. It's not that "Papiamentu" is not in an English form because both spelling forms are actually correct. The reality is that it doesn't look good in an article to be switching between one form and the other with no apparent reason as it can introduce confusion. We could have them ALL be changed to either "Papiamentu" or "Papiamento", but since the article about "Papiamento" is titled with an "o" and is referred like that through the entire article (even when it is specified at the beginning that it is also correct to spell it as "Papiamentu"), I decided it would be best to use "Papiamento" as the "non-Papiamentu" spelling, (i.e. "English spelling"). An explanation can be introduced that tells the reader about the validity of both spellings but the usage through the articles must be consistent. I apologize for stating that "Papiamento" was the "English form" of the word. That was incorrectly used to describe the edit. Please let me know what you think. RayLast (talk) 15:48, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe that "Papiament" is considered to be the Dutch form of the word. Natives from Bonaire might have adopted that from the Dutch language. What we must do then is determine the difference between what the actual Papiamento/Papiamentu language is and its three different dialect forms on each ABC island. Since the article is written in a single language (English, in this case) and it's referring to the language and not specifically to the different dialects, I think we should adopt only one form of the word for the articles. A clarifying note on each article can specify the differences between the three adaptations of the single language "Papiamento" or "Papiamentu". RayLast (talk) 16:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

RE: Arrgh STOP

Hey, I dont know what happened. I was doing my normal recent changed vandalism reverting. Everything looked normal when i changed back. I wasn't doing anything abnormal. But thats for catching/fixing whatever happened. Thanks, PGPirate 20:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

This might interest you. [5] Keith Henson (talk) 12:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again for your help. The article was deleted, the problems are in the process of being corrected. I still think it was personal as opposed to being constructive while being camoflagued with "Wikipedia" reasons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Knicksfan4ever (talk • contribs) 19:44, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

That damn Janet

Thanks. I wouldn't have said "carefully keeping to hard copy references to avoid scrutiny", though. Something like "using only hard copy references" would state the facts without telling readers what inference to make. Let the facts speak for themselves. Asserting what someone else's motivation could be perceived as bordering on incivility. Anyway, I was about to ask that person for a link to the previous AfD, but your information - which answered my question - kept my question from appearing due to edit conflict. If someone recreated the article, that could have been grounds for a speedy delete. Regardless of that, though, the last thing that happened prior to this was the eventual deletion review. If fans piled in to subvert the process, that sucks. Such a quick re-nomination was still wrong (we know what two wrongs don't make) - and I realize you know that. It's not like you're the one who re-nominated it. Now, people just need to let it go and wait a long time before getting back into it. If a long time passes and the article remains unfixed, a new AfD could eventually be appropriate. Ironically, this third attempt to delete it might actually innoculate it against future deletion. I know if I were an admin, I wouldn't be quick to delete it even if I were one who focuses on the strength of a case rather than the sheer number of !votes. Wryspy 22:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

"snarky tone reduction" gave me a chuckle. Wryspy 22:48, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

It probably would have gotten deleted if the second AfD nomination had explicitly said at the top of the page to speedy delete it as a recreation. Sure, you might think that was clear from "Second Time", but that can mean a lot of things, and since it didn't say speedy based on deletion, that wasn't the basis for that particular AfD. Reading over the "Second Time"[6] (which isn't what we call a 2nd nomination anyway), I was surprised not to see numerous speedy delete votes by other people trying to make that their own basis. So it wasn't just a matter of fans flocking to the AfD. Non-fans weren't saying enough of what they needed to say about it. Anyway, it exists. It survived DRV. It needs to be left alone for a long, long time. -- Wryspy 23:18, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Natalee Holloway

I disagree with your edit as I think it's very relevant. I was just about to create a link to Emily Sander, who is on Wikipedia, when you performed this edit. Kindly read the article and consider the article and not the source please.--MurderWatcher1 17:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

First, I always have to consider the source. Regardless of the author, publishing it in townhall.com automatically makes it suspect. Second, the material is not representing new facts about Natalee Holloway, but is simply commentary on a pattern, and a plea for societal change. It isn't relevant to the article on Natalee.Kww —Preceding comment was added at 17:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:MurderWatcher1"

True. I make this suggestion to you, re: the above. We can help the families of all of these murdered young women by including this in the article, and maybe some parents out there will use this Wikipedia reference, as well as others, as an example (or examples) of the dangers of vacationing and nightlife in general. All of these articles, re: Holloway, St. Guillen, etc. may be used to save some lives out there and that has always been my focus. Also, Wikipedia may also benefit as a possible source of what to avoid in the real world.--MurderWatcher1 17:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point, but this is an encyclopedia, not a medium for social change, or an avenue for any cause, regardless of its merits.Kww 17:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Okay. A few more questions: Have you been following her case closely and do you think this girl and her family will get any justice in this case?--MurderWatcher1 17:23, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Dammit, Janet

A combination of the limited time since the previous AFD (only one month) and the availability of print sources led me to keep, in addition to a solid consensus for keeping. If it shouldn't have a separate article (and I really don't think it deserves one, for the record), propose a merge. --Coredesat 06:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Appologies

That stupid vanadalism was the result of my friends screwing with my account. I am very sorry about that. -- Etheral1292 —Preceding comment was added at 01:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Intervention

Perhaps you misunderstood, I was trying to say that the Dutch only had contact with the sultans and other nobles in those days (perhaps residenten (Dutch) and regenten (Indonesian) ring any bells). Those nobles ordered the farmers to produce coffee etc. Of course, the Dutch intervened, but it was never their first intention, only when England gave Indonesia back it gained the official status of colony and thus the Dutch were somewhat obliged to intervene more, but again not much, with affairs such as education. In Batavia there were only a few thousand Dutch people and in some places along the shore were some Dutch factorijen. Many locals never saw a Dutch person. From that perspective, the Indies were never a real colony such as the Latin-American for example were for Spain and Portugal. Understand my point? If you do, please revert. Mallerd (talk) 19:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, I did not realise I had edited a section about the West Indies. I see your criticism is helpful since I forgot the West Indies, and assumed you were from Indonesia, and therefore my edits to Dutch Empire are false. Mallerd (talk) 19:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Re:Careful with the anonymous edit histories

They slipped one right past you.Kww (talk) 19:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I check the histories if I have reverted multiple edits as it is more likely I will have missed one... or two :P I find it more time consuming to check every history as opposed to putting up with missing some. This is because when others do it, it will come up in my vandalism edit finder (Lupins tool) and then I can fix their mess, and I hope others, like you will do the same for me. Hope you understand my logic :P Thanks again, Tiddly-Tom 19:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Please refactor

[7] Durova^Charge! 22:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

ILOVETHEOC

See my talk page regarding your post. I think you are mistaken. -JodyB _talk 04:55, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Temple garments

Are you aware of any less inflammatory references for the article? I spend enough of my time reverting image removals and censorship of that article that I would prefer not to have things in it that bring the LDS irritation level up unnecessarily.Kww (talk) 12:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Not that I am aware of, I could try a googling later. Anyway, I don't reccomend removing it since it is a source for a statement needing a source. // Liftarn (talk)

It's not Suzanne Smart

Learn your stuff before you opine. SesameRoad (talk) 04:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Apologies

Hi, Kww. I'm sorry that I said that you and MB had resorted to edit warring when in fact it was exclusively MB. It's so odd that we have such a difference of opinion regarding how to write an encyclopedia. (Which is what it comes down to, since I don't really care that much about the movie.) It's especially odd given that we share similar interests in science and in evolutionary biology in particular.TimidGuy (talk) 20:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Reverts

If you use that first one in a 3RR report, please clearly label and justify it. I have a hard time seeing that changing to a different sentence that includes the same phrase as a version from 4 months ago constitutes a "revert", and I suspect that a lot of other editors would share my difficulty. Some might even question the motives of someone that would use it in a report.Kww (talk) 23:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Revert, "However, in the context of the English Wikipedia three revert rule, a revert is defined far more broadly as any change to an article that partially or completely goes back to any older version of an article.", so yes, re-adding the same disputed wording, even in a different sentence, ("A revert means undoing the actions of another editor, whether involving the same or different material each time]") is indeed a revert. I've been burned by that myself - been there done that. Dreadstar † 00:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

And please don't insert yourself into conversations on my talk page, especially when you're delivering insults or threats. Dreadstar † 00:10, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

And, you'd best review WP:CIV. That comment is just totally unnecessary and unwarranted. Dreadstar † 18:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you think that I have violated WP:CIVIL. I assumed that you must have skimmed my comment to have misinterpreted it so.Kww (talk) 20:47, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. When somebody says "Please read again, slowly", it's not the best way to say, perhaps you misunderstood what I meant, can you review my statement again..? I know, fuses are short and frustration has been well set in, so things like this happen...but then, it's times like these we need to be on high alert about the potential impact of our own statements...and I've felt under attack by you, so that post just seemed to be another. Let's both try to be more careful! Dreadstar † 20:59, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not gossiping thier stuff from interviews with her. - x0xIceDreamx0x, 4 January 2008

Closed?

I thought that this: * CLOSING ADMIN See Wikipedia:SSP#User:WatchingYouLikeAHawk for vote stacking issues here

meant the discussion was closed . . . On the other thing, I think the other side was more uncivil than they should have been. I'm not an expert in the details of WP policy, but I don't think you went over the edge.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:42, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Merry Christmas!

^F_L(some restrictions apply) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Don't overdo it on the fudge!

Spread the Holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaminglawyer/MerryChristmas!}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Please refrain from calling my comments "asinine".

As you did here. It was very uncivil, and I personally don't think you have the right to call anyone else's comments asinine. - The Norse (talk) 15:39, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

No discussion?

Would you please provide a few examples of TTN redirecting articles without discussion? I can only find cases where he has provided warning on talk pages.Kww (talk) 21:12, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

A warning template is no discussion. A monologue is also no discussion. He may be using a merge template but a good number of times he has no edits to the target merge article. On occasions he has removed/blank articles despite a discussion. Please see the arbcom evidence page for the examples. -- Cat ^chi? 21:15, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Sex tourism in Costa Rica

• If you want to discuss sex tourism, the country´s main article is not the place to do it. Instead, go to the sex tourism article and contribute over there. I included real info about tourism and left a short mention to sex tourism, with all the references, just in case someone is interested. I also placed the subject on the talk page for discussion, and the only other participant agreed this is not the place to discuss this subject. I will not start an editing war with you but instead I am requesting a Wiki administrator do undo your changes, or you can do it, and please, keep the real tourism info that´s already there. Mariordo (talk) 02:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
  • PS: and by the way, a newspaper article is not a good enough source to include that sex tourism is 10% of total tourism earnings. By Wikipedia standards you need a more reliable source, like the World Bank, Inter-American Development Bank, etc. I seriously don´t know if you are criticizing sex tourism in Costa Rica or trying to make propoganda for single men to go there. Check your facts, despite what one of your sources says, prostitution is ilegal in Costa Rica. Mariordo (talk) 02:15, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I've taken a look at the article at Mariordo's request, and commented on its talk page. DGG (talk) 04:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Hot_Lilo.jpg

Sorry. I didn't see anything requesting a reply. I just thought you were making a comment. This image seems to have been taken at a "red carpet" event. Many similar images could have been created by different people. If you have matched the image, please provide a link. Finding other images with a similar look is not good enough for me in this case. Please feel free to take to DRV and get another opinion. -Regards Nv8200p talk 05:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Matthew Jordan Smith

Hey! Long time, no talk! Hope you had a wonderful Christmas. I finally got a chance to work on the article some more, check it out and let me know what you think. Thanks again for your willingness to help a newbie! Knicksfan4ever 16:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

What the bleep

Question. What text is SA trying to add to the page? I understand the concept regarding "time travel." Is he trying to refute text that is already in the article? I am asking because I am trying to figure out if there is another way to accomplish the same without violating NOR. Anthon01 (talk) 13:38, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Contributions from IP range

I saw your question to Durova about the 4.0.0.0/8 netblock. First of all, be careful what you wish for, wading through contribs from 16 million IP addresses might turn out to be somewhat daunting :)

Anyway, if you don't get anywhere with the Wikipedia developers, let me know. If you want to see anon-only contribs from 4.x.x.x and IF you run Windows :( I can build you a client-side tool, it looks pretty easy using API calls and I can set the parameters so it doesn't hog the servers when the site is busy. Franamax (talk) 07:04, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Ask and ye shall receive. I put together a hack job to test the concept. There are about 45,000 IP contribs/day in mainspace, takes about 3 min. to scan each day. I ran it back about five days and found these 9 edits: Esti Mamo Water well Halloween: The Curse of Michael Myers Kid Nation(multiple) Calgary Dollars Toronto dollar Ernie Haase & Signature Sound

Send me an email to establish a channel for sending executables. Also you may want to watchlist User:Franamax/anonEdits - I've created a stub there for this project. I'll be putting questions onto its Talk page about input parameters, output formats, etc.

Based on the quality of the edits I found, this looks like it could be a valuable tool. Cheers! Franamax (talk) 21:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

On the left side, under the WP logo is a whole column of stuff. Under the Search box should be "toolbox" and in there is "E-mail this user" - that's what I always use anyway. If you're at my user page it should take you to Special:Emailuser/Franamax - or just click the link I just typed :) Franamax (talk) 21:58, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Sent you an executable by mail, you should have it by 08Jan08 0700 UTC i.e. within an hour of this post if not before. If not, let me know, it may have gotten blocked. Franamax (talk) 06:05, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Endowment

Some people just don't give up, eh. I've blocked all three accounts, since the editor has made it clear that he will persist in disrupting the article as long as he's allowed to. Tijuana Brass (talk) 00:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Dread Zeppelin

Thanks for that. Edelmand (talk) 01:05, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Apologies for Editor Review

Please look at my comment.

Thanks

The Helpful One ^{(Talk) (Contributions) (Review Me!)} 16:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Word ratio

Let's say you're the noncritical information and I'm the critical information, and that our discussion is the lead to that article. Now, your message on my page was 22 words. My response, keeping to the 1:8 ratio, could be no longer than I totally understand. Fortunately for my verbosity, life doesn't work like that, but that response probably would have sufficed. Antelan ^talk 17:45, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Mary J. Blige

Blige's main genres are R&B, soul, and hip hop soul, but there are IPs users who keep changing the order of the genres, wikilinking things wrong (for example, they wikilink the hip hop soul article to the hip hop music article, which is completely nonsensical), anyway, doing things wrong. I'll have to warn them if they continue to do this. Was that helpful? :) Funk Junkie (talk) 17:55, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I thought I was the only one who thought so! Up-to-date R&B is pathetic; very few artists—Blige for instance—are really good. Nowadays all you have to do to be dubbed R&B is do a rap/sung collaboration with some lousy rapper and/or work with some trashy hip hop producer. And don't worry, I'll keep an eye on Blige-related articles! Funk Junkie (talk) 18:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

I am in a public computer at the time and it does not load pages properly. Sorry about that and thanks for catching it! Also, thanks for clarifying the figures for me. Brusegadi (talk) 00:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Comment at Michael Behe

I added a section to the opening, and it was immediately reverted. Thoughts? GusChiggins21 (talk) 08:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Ah, thanks for the explanation. I'm obviously totally unfamiliar with the subject :) I hope they discuss it, but if they have to be blocked so be it. Peace, delldot talk 20:37, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

3RR

I've just granted you rollback, but I've just noticed you were blocked: can you please explain your 3RR block? If not, I'll have to remove the right. Acalamari 00:36, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

That's fine then, though I will kindly remind you that rollback is for vandalism reverting only, although I don't think I need to tell you that. Thanks for the explanation. Acalamari 00:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

3RR Question

OK, I've learned something that I did not know. I do have some questions though, the rest of the links clearly show TTN working around the revert rule. This is a frustrating issue that involves many articles and many users. Because he knows how to beat the system, he is getting away with this. Eusebeus is there to back him up and save him. How can this issue be resolved? This is going to remain a thorn in editors side and nothing seems to be occurring. I've been warned by Spartaz for editing. I was editing, ran into edit conflict, rv'ed then continued editing. What about all the other examples. I'm sorry to vent at you, but I'm here to help as are other editors, and yet we are faulted for trying to point out a thorn? This is infuriating. What would you do or suggest? Thanks! --Maniwar (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

No your advice was very good and appreciated. I just have certain parties who have my talk page on their watchlist and I did not want it on their as fodder for their misaligned ideas. I've got it in my history and I may archive it in full, but just didn't want it on the page. Sorry if it came across any other way. It was much appreciated. --Maniwar (talk) 02:22, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Idly curious newbie has a question

I just got a mesage about my revisions on a pair of articles and would like some clarification on why they were not allowed. IMHO, both editings were quite frank and honest without distorting or changing the purpose of the articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Novacommander (talk • contribs) 19:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Replying here due to the fact that I'm still a newb

Frankly, I'd ask the person in question how they'd feel if we video-recorded their wedding night with their spouse, then put it on every cable, satellite, and interenet news site for the whole world to see, 24 hours a-day.. Oh and by the way, we'll give them a full list of everything they did wrong on that night, and continue to bring it up time and again, no matter they asked of us. Would not be a polite thing to do, would it now? With all due respect, I catch enough garbage from people who spend their whole lives making fun of who and what I am. I get sick of people handing them more ammunition. It may be information, but it is information used to slander and debase a group of people who only want some dignity and respect. Just because we are a peculiar people does not provide the world at large the privilege to mock us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Novacommander (talk • contribs) 20:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

thanks

for the clarification I do appreciate your assistance. Adios! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Novacommander (talk • contribs) 20:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you; it was a good thing to do. It may be very useful in these situations to allow an editor of similar beliefs to explain what is acceptable and what is not. I do not promise success, but at least new editors will feel they are talking with someone who knows their exact feelings and still realizes there is a proper way of doing things. Thanks again for thinking of doing so. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 00:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your support and advice!

I am pleased that you agree with me on the status of the articles. I have to admit I did feel a little guilty when I was doing it. But I had a good cause:

I work heavily in South Park Wiki, and a lot of the episodes from past seasons of the show do not have articles there. I had learned from User:TTN that certain episodes of shows are not always notable enough to have Wikipedia articles. I thought it would save writing time to look through some of WP's articles for South Park episodes, find all the equivalents of the missing articles which didn't meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines, and redirect them to the main List of South Park episodes page. Then I would transfer the information from here to South Park Wiki. The ones who were notable enough for Wikipedia, however, I would have to write for the wikia from scratch. It's a good plan, I thought, because it would allow the information all the users who contributed to the creation of the articles in Wikipedia worked so hard on, to continue onwards.

I hope you can see what I mean.

Thanks for the suggestion of how to play this merge-game more smoothly!!!

Wilhelmina Will (talk) 03:16, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you would help

Have you considered taking some of the redirected articles that you are fond of, putting them into your userspace, repairing them, and then putting them back? No one can object to you putting up a repaired version of an article that meets all relevant guidelines. Simply shouting "TTN IS BAD!" doesn't help anything ... it just helps edit wars happen. Point redirects like we were talking about in your last ANI report don't help either. Unless, of course, your goal is to eventually derail TTN so that Wikipedia can be full of bad articles that are mainly plot summaries.Kww (talk) 02:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Articles are not written in userspaces. Stubs are not banned. We do not expect articles to be in featured quality when placed on mainspace. As you point out improving article quality involves expanding them, not blanking. This isn't a matter of good and evil. Articles that are mainly plot summaries are 1/3rd complete. That leaves the reception and production sections. -- Cat ^chi? 02:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you think sandboxes and userspace pages are for? I didn't use the word "expanding", by the way. I said "repairing." Stripping the plot summary down to a paragraph, and then adding all the awards the episode has been nominated for, real life impact, things like that. And, if it never has been nominated for an award and has had no real-life impact, leaving it as a line or two in a "List of" article.Kww (talk) 02:56, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Sandboxes are there to experiment. For example how to use images. Userpace is there to help you manage articles you care about and to communicate. You are neither expected nor required to have any content in your userspace to write articles. Otherwise stub articles would be banned. They aren't.

Certainly an episode or movie that received no award is not automatically non-notable. There are plenty of movies that received no Oscar awards. Having an article on every movie made does not seem to be a problem on my end. Wikipedia is not paper. Just like how we do not exclusively have articles on physics theories that won the Nobel prize we do not expect nor require every movie article to have an award. Wining prizes has not a whole lot to do with notability but instead about the reception the particular movie received. Also, just because something has real-life impact or won an award does not make it notable.

You seem to be confusing the concept of notability. You seem to be seeking a universal notability which would be a mistake.

-- Cat ^chi? 14:58, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Curious

Hi, I notice you said that there are so much mysticism and pseudoscience on wikipedia. I feel I have a fairly neutral stance since I am interested in alternative hypothesises to unexplained science. However, I feel that pretty much everything is slanted towards a hard scientific worldview which I find foreign and problematic. Articles such as Bleep is more about the criticism than the movie and its claims, so that can't be an example of that. I actually find the policies work in the entirely opposite direction. Benjaminbruheim (talk) 02:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hehe, the irony is that I feel the same way about skeptics really. I have to teach them that there is more to the world than mainstream science ... :) But I still haven't seen many problematic fringe editors. Obviously there are a few newbies that aren't good at using WP:RS, but most of the debates I've been following has been between people who seek a neutral writing, and people who are trying to rewrite the entire article into a rational skeptic POV (which might be a completely idiosyncratic if you are familiar with the subject). I also notice there is a much bigger infrastructure in place to "catch" fringe theories. Of course the mainstream science view is often wanted and catching outright lies is indeed a job of WP:FRINGE. But everything with a measure; claiming alternative hypothesises pseudoscience is to go to far for example! I could go on but this is an interesting paper on how highly cited paper are often rejected at first, and contains a bit on systemic issues at work: http://www2.uah.es/jmc/ai53.pdf - recommended reading. Benjaminbruheim (talk) 02:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a few) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [8]. --Maniwar (talk) 18:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Objective Episode Standard

I saw your support for my statement. I would like to propose this as an objective standard:

Notable episodes are those that meet any of the following criteria:

1. has been nominated for individual awards by a notable organization;
2. have had elements of the episode nominated for such an award (i.e. "best supporting actor" for a guest-starring role);
3. reached an unusual peak of ratings (such as the finale of M*A*S*H);
4. achieved other notoriety due to an unusual impact on the real world(the "seizure-causing" episode of Pokemon; the Trapped in the Closet episode of South Park, etc.)

Can you think of any specific additional criteria?Kww (talk) 17:04, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think real-world notability may be the only acceptable notability. My favorite criteria for Family Guy episodes are lawsuits and Parents Television Council boycotts. That said, I think an "objective" standard (beyond what is already stated in WP:NOTE) would be a difficult and contentious discussion at this time. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:16, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• Good job starting it, btw! Lquilter (talk) 20:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

• You know, I was just thinking about "presumption of notability" and what that means. Maybe it's defined somewhere else? But it seems like if a notability-presumption-criteria is met, then that should mean it passes PROD, but doesn't close an AFD. Is there a definition somewhere of "presumption of notability"? --Lquilter (talk) 20:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Caribbean Sea

Indeed it is, I am in La Ceiba, couple of years younger than you but been here a year longer, and wouldn't change where I am for the world. Thanks, SqueakBox 03:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration notice

This is to inform you that you have been included as a party in a request for Arbitration here ——Martin^phi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 05:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

On RFC

Just wanted to expound on my statement. My biggest issue was the notification only to the supporters. That's an invitation to create an WP:Echo_chamber#As_a_metaphor. I feared without any others knowing about it could all of a sudden been marked as guideline or policy without true debate.--Cube lurker (talk) 01:13, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I screwed up my link but i hope you know what i mean. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cube lurker (talk • contribs) 01:15, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I too want to indicate that my endorsement of Cube lurker's statement about notifying users is not in any way an assumption of bad faith. Your explanation makes sense. ●BillPP ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:41, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll add a refactoring comment. I'll make a change in a sec, i'd appreciate a reply as to if it's a fair representation. Hold on.--Cube lurker (talk) 03:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Are we both ok with that?--Cube lurker (talk) 03:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. We disagree on issues, but I have no desire to have it turn personal. Regards.--Cube lurker (talk) 04:04, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Accidents Sketch

I would have argued for a merger into List of Monty Python's Flying Circus episodes as there is surely a reliable source out there that supports the verifiability of the existence and some small bit of information about the sketch ... but not sufficient material for a full article. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 17:53, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Reputation

I saw that you were looking for evidence of reputation damage. I don't know how reflective Sheldon is, but here's a few examples ... they are at least worth a giggle.

• http://www.sheldoncomics.com/archive/071211.html
• http://www.sheldoncomics.com/archive/070114.html
• http://www.sheldoncomics.com/archive/071209.html
• http://www.sheldoncomics.com/archive/071210.html
• http://www.sheldoncomics.com/archive/071212.html
• http://www.sheldoncomics.com/archive/071213.html
• http://www.sheldoncomics.com/archive/071214.html

Kww (talk) 01:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you, Sir. Two can play at that game, however, so here's a Partially Clips for your amusement. --Kizor 02:18, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Additionally, I note that the particular example used by Sheldon is that the Optimus Prime article is larger than the George Washington article, which it considers damning evidence without explaining why. A cursory investigation shows that this may be because the Washington article links to subarticles George Washington's early life, George Washington in the French and Indian War, George Washington between the wars, George Washington in the American Revolution, Presidency of George Washington, George Washington's legacy, Cultural depictions of George Washington, George Washington and slavery and George Washington and religion. It somewhat less conspicuously leads to Military career of George Washington and his nickname Town Destroyer. This leads me to conclude that the author of Sheldon is a total jackass and that, while in the name of honesty this need not invalidate his points, his concern for honesty and fairness in presentation of the issue counts for dick. I hope that you agree. Thanks. --Kizor 14:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Your criticisms have merit ... I just provided them as examples. As to whether he's a total jackass, he's probably a bit jaded. He was the target of a brief conflict over web-comic notability.Kww (talk) 14:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

True, as I mentioned in not so many words the issues are not settled by the state of this representative. As to whether he is, his position is more understandable if he was involved in what turned out to be called the Great Webcomics Purge, what seemed like an isolated incident demonstrating the need of working with others but what may have been the forerunner of the current hulabaloo, but it is still my personal convinction that someone who acts like one is one. Particularily online, where the barrier between thoughts and their expression is mercifully higher.
This is quite impressive as topic drifts go, though. We can return to Wikipedia's credibility, if you wish, once I finish that essay on combat robots. --Kizor 15:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

AN/I - ScienceApologist

I've responded to your question there. - Revolving Bugbear 15:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Is the system broken?

Disclaimer: I haven't checked the Bleep page recently, so I'm assuming you're still acting civily and treating other editors with respect. That said, of course the system isn't broken. Most editors, like yourself, treat other editors with respect even when you don't agree with them. You seek consensus for, or at least comments on, massive changes that would inflame other users. In other words, you realize that Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia, versus a top-down edited encyclopedia, and you strive to work well with others despite disagreeing with them. Now, that's about actions at Wikipedia. Let's look at content.

What people are saying when they say the system is broke is that the system doesn't protect their all-dominant view. That's a two-part claim. The first part assumes that their view is actually the dominant view, and the second part assumes that the view must be protected at all times by the system. The problem with the claim is that 1) They expect everyone else to assume that their view is the all-dominant view as well (many of them just expect people to take their word for it without any evidence), and 2) The system is an open system that is continually fixing itself. In other words, even if an article is incorrect on a view at any given moment, based on the view of a set of editors at the time, it's not a locked article. Whatever the actual dominant view is will be discovered, and the article view will be fixed accordingly. To say the system is broke because it's not the "correct view" at the exact moment the editor arrives is a pretty narcissistic view of the system. It's saying the system's effectiveness and ability to "work" is dependent upon it's ability to accept their view (even assuming that it's the correct view) at that moment. They place a lot of emphasis not only on their view, but on themselves, assuming that the system won't correct itself if they're gone. That's completely self-centered.

The people who claim the system is broken are self-styled "defenders of the wiki" who believe the wiki's effectiveness is completely centered on their edits. They're nothing more than WP:MASTADONS that are impatient and self-centered. Perhaps the reason articles are f-upped is actually because they pissed off so many editors that editors finally stopped taking their word for it and stopped listening to them. That's not a broken system, it's a broken editor. Given the eventual turn around of editors it is more likely that the article would be fixed in their absense than in their presence. That's how the system actually works. --Nealparr ^{(talk to me)} 02:04, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Vanessa Hudgens Second Studio Album

Hi I was just wondering why you have nominated Vanessa Hudgens Second Studio Album for deletion because I have added more sources since you nominated it and I have re-wrote the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Surfer-boy94 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh so basically you mean that the article should be re-created nearer to the release date, when more information is confirmed. Surfer-boy94 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah well I'll do that then when more details are confirmed. Surfer-boy94 (talk • contribs) 01:14, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Coldplay's fourth studio album VS Vanessa Hudgens Second Studio Album

Hi, I am just wondering why the article Vanessa Hudgens Second Studio Album is up for deletion and articles like Coldplay's fourth studio album,Oasis' seventh studio album,Madonna's forthcoming studio album and many articles similar to this are able to stay on Wikipedia for a long period of time (example, when Ashlee Simpsons album was untitled this article: Ashlee Simpson's Third Studio Album managed to stay on wikipedia for months until it was redirected to the confirmed title, Bittersweet World.--User:Surfer-boy94 03:54, 23 January 2008

Thanks for all of your help, I guess you're just trying to make wikipedia somewhere where you can get information, not a gossip column and I'm working on my editing :). --User:Surfer-boy94 04:08, 23 January 2008

WP:OTRS

Kww, you'll have to forgive me, I didn't know what OTRS was. Now that I do, I won't make the mistake of reverting such an item again. My bad, &#0149;Jim62sch&#0149; 14:36, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

24.16.98.233

Did he violate 3RR in deleting that material? In any event, that isn't what I call good faith and I really suspect he is a sockpuppet of Jonaaron. He has only edited this one article, and he has been a member for six months.--Wehwalt (talk) 00:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Pee-wee's Playhouse Christmas Special

A <br> tag needed to be inserted into the infobox between two links, and I removed a link to a non-existent category. Nothing of terrible importance, that's why the edit was marked as minor. I came across the article while perusing, and those two things stood out. I noticed it was protected but reasoned that it couldn't be protected because of a <br> tag and an unnecessary category link, and so I considered my edit non-controversial. If I made a mistake you can revert. --Merovingian (T, C) 12:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Spelling...

Thanks for cleaning up that mistake. There were 23 in total... *sigh* :) — alex.muller (talk • edits) 23:40, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

oops...

apologies... i didnt notice it.. thank you Arab League User (talk) 00:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Gossip links

Hello Kww...

I know wikipedia is nofollow that's why I see no reason for you to ban those links. But if you feel wiki will not gain with them... than I will stop posting. But my opinion is still that they should be included as external sources!

best regards

Damir Secki —Preceding unsigned comment added by Damirsecki (talk • contribs) 14:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

RfM filed

A Request for Mediation has been filed on the continuing dispute over the lead section of this article. You have been listed as an involved party, please respond on the mediation page at your earliest convenience. Dreadstar † 19:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/What the Bleep Do We Know!?. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 05:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Psychohistory

Is this pseudoscience? Judging from the article it seems to be the invention of one guy, Lloyd deMause (try googling him) and his students/disciples. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

thanks. I don't think there is any major urgency - except the article has been around for a long time. There is a related article Early infanticidal childrearing that I am very concerned about. I once flagged it, but that old talk has been archived. there is a new editor working on it and my hope is he is trying to bring it more in line with policy, clean it up. But I don't know. Slrubenstein | Talk 14:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about pseudoscience, but it gives no initial references to support psychohistory as a real discipline. As far as we know at the start of that article, somebody compiled everything else in it and just gave it a name. It could be OR. Wryspy (talk) 19:47, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Serebiidex

Template:Serebiidex has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — MelicansMatkin (talk) 18:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

DeVries "solving the case"

I hope you agree with me that we should keep this likely garbage off the NH page until and unless OM does something official about it.--Wehwalt (talk) 16:33, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Why do you call this 'likely garbage'? It's all over the news. For example: http://www.radionetherlands.nl/news/international/5624235/New-clues-in-Holloway-case

Peter R. De Vries is not just some nutjob who wants his 10 minutes of fame. He is actualy a well respected crime reporter in The Netherlands.

_{Sorry if this reply is not the standard way of reacting on a talk page.} —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.17.11.62 (talk • contribs)

While I fully agree we should keep to reliable sources, calling this a nutjob is pretty much the opposite. Peter has earned a place as a reliable source in the Netherlands. He has a lot to lose if anything he says doesn't pan out. Then again, he hasn't said a lot except for the hard assertion that Natalee is "no longer alive" and that he has "solved the case". Based on last night's "Pauw en Witteman" show, whatever Peter has said to Natalee's mother, it was certainly enough for her. Regardless, this is all based on leaked info, and I would prefer to wait at least until Peter's own program has aired next Sunday night. Mira Gambolputty (talk) 01:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

please do not delete my comments about an article

Please do not delete comments about what material an article should contain. This is not appropriate and my comment was not slanderous at all. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.250.59.250 (talk) 23:20, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you please provide a link to where the "office" directed that certain categories be left on the Natilee Holloway article page? Thank you. --24.250.59.250 (talk) 20:04, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Your comment is welcome

Definitely not. I don't know why many users insist on deem Ashley and her songs R&B; her music has absolutely nothing R&B or urban about it. Funk Junkie (talk) 13:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

RE: Ashley Tisdale Picture

You're right. I wasn't thinking about that when I switched the photo. If you know any sites with pictures of Ashley with a legal license, post it on my talk page. Sorry about the misunderstanding. 68DANNY2 (talk) 15:09, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm SO Frustrated!

First, I try to merge articles about identical minivans and know everyone hates me. Then I get this junk saying that the merge was sloppy and unproffesional in my talk page. So, I try to delete the page. But, I couldn't, so I blanked it out so no one can criticize me for putting together a sloppy article. I cane into Wikipedia to HELP make articles better, but now everyone wants to block me form helping! HELP!!! 68DANNY2 (talk) 22:14, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Plymouth Voyager / Chrysler Voyager

Hi, Kww. Your understanding appears to be correct; if you'll look at the talk pages of Plymouth Voyager and Chrysler Voyager, you'll see the idea of a merger has been discussed at fair length over the last few years, and no consensus to merge has been attained. Brand-new user 68DANNY2 unilaterally decided to kludge the two together into a new article without any attempt to attain consensus, and the article he created (Plymouth Voyager & Chrysler Voyager) currently has 100% "delete" votes on its AfD page (NB the AfD advisory header was removed, apparently by 68DANNY2; I have reinstated it). —Scheinwerfermann (talk) 22:50, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Temple Endowment

Please help me understand why you feel the sources you've cited are accurate. I in fact have a copy of the book to which you site, and it does not contain the information you're claiming it to have. Also, the website you've linked to, how are we to ascertain that this site is accurate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Linus Hawk (talk • contribs) 07:42, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Kww, this may be a legitimate issue. The question of reliable, verifiable information regarding LDS temple ordinances or sacraments is virtually impossible to ascertain. The LDS church will not confirm or deny what takes place in their temples in as far as specific wordings are concerned. The question then becomes where does the information come from, which inevitably evolves into hearsay. However, I do think that Wikipedia policies continue to guide in these instances. There are undoubtedly statements published by individuals outside of the LDS church. Wording becomes of utmost importance; who said what and under what circumstances. If written in such a way as to not put Wikipedia in the position of stating "facts", then the path is made acceptable; that Mr. X, a .... has stated.... would seem acceptable.

If I am not mistaken there has been some discussion about copyrighted materials vis-a-vis the temple. This is outside of my expertise and I can provide no guidance. I don't know where the parameters are in this circumstance. --Storm Rider ^(talk) 15:47, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Until a source can be found to verify the portions of the article in question, I am going to go ahead and remove them. --User:Linus Hawk 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Aretha

Hi. (Aretha's page seems to be getting a lot of attention this week!)
You reverted an edit and said: "inappropriate EL". I'm guessing EL means External Link(?) What's inappropriate about that EL? Thanks, Pdfpdf (talk) 13:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation - I just couldn't understand; now I do! Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:34, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Happy Valentine's Day!

User:Wilhelmina Will has wished you a happy Valentine's day, and good luck in love and friendship!

A short/sweet little message, which I hope has made your day better! Happy Valentine's Day!!! Wilhelmina Will (talk) 02:46, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Oceanearth69

Thanks for your note and for drawing my attention to the rest of this editor's edit history. I'll re-assess and extend the block accordingly. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

RE: Slow down with the vandalism warnings

The edits to Lindsay Lohan that Vesperview made weren't vandalism, and your edit summaries and your warnings were inappropriate.Kww 02:45, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Who died and made you wikiboss? This edit violates WP:LEAD. This edit deleted appropriately sourced information and added unsourced information. And lets look at few more of Vesperview's edits. This edit deleted legitimate content. And this edit violates WP:NPA. All in all, I'd say the composite of these edits constitutes vandalism, certainly deserving level 2 and 3 warnings. And while we're talking about vandalism, your edit here violates Talk page policy by refactoring another editor's comments on a Talk page. I believe it is you who needs to slow down, step back, and think before slinging around warnings to other editors. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 02:55, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Elvira YouTube "Copyright Violation" Question

Hi, I added a link to the "Zombie Killer" music video mentioned earlier in the aricle but you took it down citing "copyright violation" -- why did you do this and what do you mean? Whose copyright do you think is being violated? Please explain. Thanks! Shatner1 (talk) 07:22, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The video is posted on the band's YouTube account, isn't that reason enough to believe that it's the band's video? It's Leslie Hall singing her song, in her video, on her YouTube account. I directed, shot, edited, and posted the video with Leslie herself. Shatner1 (talk) 02:44, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand, and broadly I agree but

In the past I've argued quite strongly for third party sourcing and for independent sourcing, creating the essay linked to there as well as suggesting WP:PLOT and the no third party sources in WP:V. I think the differences tend to be in approaches. I want articles to be improved to such encyclopedic standards. I don't care so much about notability and the rest of it, I think they are red herrings. I would oppose the removal of information on Wikipedia because that is against editing policy. I would support the improving of articles and where an article improves Wikipedia, the flexibility of guidance to be taken into account. I don't believe in hard rules, and I don't believe commentaries are self published. I'm interested to hear how the actual episodes are not self published though. I would support any consequences that emerge through a collegiate consensus, and reject any which were enforced arbitrarily. I think it's not so much recognizing your point as you recognising mine. :) Hiding T 21:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

• And yet they have chosen to publish those views. Tricky one, granted, but I think a lot of that is legalese to protect against possible law suits. My thinking on it is this: A newspaper seeks the opinions of people to publish in its pages on its commentary pages. Are those self-published? If not, then how are the opinions of these people which the publishing company has sought to publish any different? Hiding T 10:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Newspapers publish opinion by commentators because they know readers will buy the newspaper instead to read that opinion, not because they have any interest or exert editorial control over them. It's exactly the same. The same as comic strips published in newspapers. It's about making the product marketable or attractive to consumers, so there is an editorial choice in there, based upon commerce, agreed, but there none the less. I would also expect that one couldn't directly libel in a commentary, I would expect a legal department to have authorised release, therefore there is editorial input over content. Of course if you have evidence of a dvd commentary being the target in a libel source, I'd be all ears, since that would clarify the position. I hope I have detailed for you why I believe commentaries are the same as any other content which is published by a third party to that which created it. We're not going to have to move into discussing whether a newspaper is self-published, for example, are we? Hiding T 11:32, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For sticking with the criticism part of the Bleep lead all these weeks to work it into an NPOV state ——Martinphi ☎ Ψ Φ—— 03:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Bleep again

I agree also that the lead should reflect the scientific viewpoint, and yes I too thought we were in the clear and had something that would please everyone. I don't know who reverted what since the whole thing happened quickly in the space of 1/2 an hour, while I was away from my computer. Thanks for your explanation and visit.(olive (talk) 01:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC))

I'm considering filing a user conduct RfC. I think we have a case of Wikipedia:Tendentious_editing. What do you think? Jefffire (talk) 20:22, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I was just opening up the edit window for your talk page when I got the "new messages" window. I'm there. This isn't a discussion, it's just a prolonged tantrum.Kww (talk) 20:24, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

User warned anyway. Give 'em a chance to change. After that, one further user warning is required from a different user. Jefffire (talk) 09:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

As you have inquired about this, and have been named as a user attempting to resolve the dispute, the RfC has been created Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/WNDL42. If you would care to counter-sign it I will list it officially (feel free to do so yourself). Jefffire (talk) 20:41, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

HI

Hi - thanks for your comments on my comments. I decided I would agree with you for the sake of unity in disruption &c but I don't really like it, just for reasons of style. Btw Dean Radin clearly makes assertions about the paranormal in the film, so there is a citation there, though I agree 'legitimate science' is harder to put your finger. I absolutely hate 'quantum mysticism' for the usual reason, i.e. to general and vague to be useful. It can mean 'philosophical' interpretations of genuine science - something that genuine scientists are prone to - which is suspect for philosophical rather than scientific reasons, or it can mean blatantly inaccurate or bad science. The quotations by Lynne McTaggart in my sandbox are of the second variety. The Rationalist (talk) 08:04, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Re:Arbitrator Vote

Sorry. Can it be deleted or moved? WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 14:06, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 14:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

For helping me with the link thingy. Woonpton (talk) 15:52, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Good one!

Lol... Ok, Kww, you had me there for a minute.... good ....(olive (talk) 20:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC))

Re: WP:AN/I

I appreciate your voice of support in my notice on the WP:AN/I about the speedy deletion of foreign language articles and the outcome really disturbs me. The fact that someone took it upon themselves to close the incident and accuse me of being "out for blood" instead of addressing the fact the articles are not available for translation to anyone but the specified user really disturbs me. I'm not sure if I should bother escalating this further. What do you think? Redfarmer (talk) 14:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

User talk:68.82.101.70

Actually I reverted the same edit as you using Twinkle and warned the user but the site was loading up pretty slowly for me for about thirty seconds so it looks like your edits got in there first. --NeilN ^{talk ♦ contribs} 18:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks Kww....But I'm afraid that kind of behaviour is offensive whatever or whoever is the target, but thanks very much for your comment.(olive (talk) 22:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC))

I know. Thanks. I really appreciate your comment.(olive (talk) 22:38, 9 March 2008 (UTC))

Your message on O's page

Just to say I'm not confusing editors. I really don't understand where she is coming from. I am trying to keep my cool, nonetheless. The Rationalist (talk) 18:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Curacao

No, I was just outdated. Sorry. When I lived there only Dutch and Papiamento were official languages. Spanish was widely spoken due to many factors such as the broadcasting of Venezuelan television, and French was the most popular option of language being learned in high schools. ~RayLast ^«Talk!» 20:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding WTB protection

Regarding WTB "baiting" , I draw attention to this edit of yours, where, in a section that was directly addressed to you, requesting you to stop changing the final paragraph; where olive, MartinPhi, and myself had all agreed that your changes were not improving things; where olive and MartinPhi had both requested me to revert your changes, you simply refused to listen or modify your behaviour, and instead accused me of repeating myself. Of course I repeated myself ... you repeatedly didn't listen. Instead, you made exactly the changes that you had been specifically requested multiple times not to make.Kww (talk) 17:09, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

(1) Addressing an editor directly in an edit summary in a concise and neutral tone as I did in the edit above, where my edit summary was "r to kww" is not baiting.

(2) Your summary of the events is blatantly false, the editors you cite:

(a) do not make a consensus (Wikipedia is not a democracy) and

(b) both editors have disputed (strongly) your false "claims of consensus"

In short, you are utterly refuted by the facts. WNDL42 (talk) 17:18, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

The Martinphi-ScienceApologist Interview

What is the role of science in producing authoritative knowledge? How should Wikipedia report on pseudoscience? Veterans of numerous edit wars and talk page battles spanning dozens of articles across Wikipedia, User:Martinphi and User:ScienceApologist will go head to head on the subject of Wikipedia, Science, and Pseudoscience in a groundbreaking interview to be published in an upcoming issue of Signpost. User:Zvika will moderate the discussion. Post suggested topics and questions at The Martinphi-ScienceApologist Interview page. 66.30.77.62 (talk) 17:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)