User talk:Qworty

Roman Polanski

Hello. The phrase "faces jailtime" is a bit misleading since it's been said that the charges against him would be dropped if he agreed to a public judicial hearing. Nonetheless, he'd still be arrested if he set foot on US soil for having fled the country while facing court procedures. He'd be booked, most likely let out on bail, and then he'd have to go through the song-and-dance to make if official that he's no longer facing criminal charges. Should this be clarified in the article? -98.221.133.96 (talk) 19:26, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Norman Mailer and the Chicago Seven

Does Norman Mailer belong in Category:Chicago Seven. Article in this category are being tagged with {{ChicagoWikiProject}}. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:04, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Although he was not one of the Chicago Seven, Mailer gave testimony at the Chicago Seven trial: [1], so in that sense he does belong in the Chicago Seven category. I removed the Chicago project tag from the Mailer talk page because I didn't realize this was the Chicago connection it was in reference to. The only other significant Chicago connections out of Mailer's life are his writings on the '68 Democratic convention and his trysts in the mid-70s with Barbara Norris (later Norris Church) who would become Mailer's sixth wife, but whom he began a relationship with when he was still married to his fourth wife, Beverly Bentley. (A writer such as Saul Bellow is more clearly identified with Chicago--is he part of the Chicago project yet?) Please do restore the Chicago project template to the Mailer talk page if you believe his connections are significant enough.Qworty 19:19, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The current strategy is to have these categories tagged within the project. If he falls in these categories he will fall within the project. It looks like he is currently unclassified at Talk:Saul_Bellow but within the project. WRT Mailer, I will retag him. If it is determined he does not properly fall in this list of categories, remove the tag. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 19:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyle Snyder (soldier)

Your extraneous comment regarding Bush in this deletion discussion were not only not appropriate but a violation of WP:BLP. It might also be considered trolling. If you continue in this manner, you may find your account blocked. Rklawton 12:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

• Uh, the fact that Bush avoided military service in Vietnam in the early '70s is not exactly recent news. But if you have evidence that he fought in Vietnam, by all means ban me. Qworty 17:15, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandal

For some time now I've been aware of a vandal who has made trolling edits to (as far as I am aware) four pages here. This is a mentally ill person who has been harrassing me online for two years now, in the wake of a public controversy unrelated to this individual. Over this period of time, she has cyberstalked me on half a dozen websites, and then followed me here to Wikipedia to begin vandalizing articles.

As an example, eight times within an hour, she vandalized an article I was working on, actually editing under her ISP number, which has been recorded and reported both to Wikipedia admins and the police in her jurisdiction. All of the edits were reverted by an admin. This did not stop the vandal, who then went on to make other edits violating Wikipedia policies.

This person has a long and documented history of mental illness, and has been in and out of a hospital psych ward. I have received hand-written letters from this individual in which she describes in detail her years of treatment for mental illness and her hospitalization for mental illness. In light of the continued cyberstalking, this evidence too is being provided to the authorities.

A component of this individual's psychosis is that she believes that she is the "victim"; the behavior is engaged in with the goal of achieving "victim status." However, a person who has been cyberstalking me for two years and then followed me to Wikipedia to cyberstalk me further is in no way a victim. That person is a perpetrator.

And this goes, as well, for the rogue admin who followed me here from another site.

You can't have it both ways, folks. If you're going to pick fights, you give up the right to call yourself a victim. Qworty 19:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

"Oh but we are not stalkers"

Get honest with yourselves. When you have no legitimate reason for being here and are reading these words, you are a cyberstalker. When you obsessively go through my edit histories, you are a cyberstalker. When you follow me all around the Internet, you are a cyberstalker. So you can cut out the hypocrisy right now. The only reason you are having an issue at all is because you have gone through a half-dozen complicated steps to begin with to read a lot of web pages that you would have no ordinary business reading--because you are a cyberstalker.

Oh, and btw, the next time you trash other people's accomplishments, make sure you have accomplishments in your own lives that are bigger. Oh, 35, 40, 50 years old and don't have any that are bigger? Recognize that this is the real source of your "suffering" and learn to accept reality. Reality is not a tarot fantasy--reality is what is true right now and has been true for years. Qworty 23:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Restored

Hi qworty, I restored Women and children. I previewed this link a while ago and meant to fix it up. I hope you will agree that it useful when I get it started. Regards, ☻ Fred|☝ discussion|✍ contributions 14:25, 13 May 2007 (UTC)/[tyop]14:26, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

winger

I stand corrected - sorry! Nothing on imdb about a banana, however (and is that detail really necessary?) Tvoz |talk 23:43, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the banana was the highpoint of her appearance in this soft-core outing, according to most critics who have deigned to discuss it. Qworty 23:47, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

It's ok We all make mistakes, even if there so...........silly=)

hey qwrourtyatyrtyr7t whatever it is,I was talking about wealthiest counties in the U.S. [[2]]NOT HIGHEST PER CAPITA INCOME.Um yea it kind of says it in the OC,MI article.I even copied and pasted it here but look at the article yourself"Oakland County is Michigan's wealthiest county. It is the second wealthiest county in the nation."Sorry but MY marian county wasn't on the list for quite a while.It's ok we all make mistakes u'll get over it well TaTa for Now TheCoolOne99 04:32, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Civility

Hi, regarding your comments at Talk:Stregheria: I found a few good points in your post, and agree that the article needs a lot of work. However the bulk of your posts were spent in a string of insults against "witches", couched in self-righteousness ("I am not afraid of witches", "I am interested in improving the article, not in starting a flame war"). These inflammatory comments and your attitude of us vs. them have no place in Wikipedia, where we are trying to promote collaboration and cooperation and make it a pleasant place for all editors. It's hard enough having your work reverted without being insulted into the bargain (irrational, aging, overweight, etc, etc.).

If you really are keen on improving the article then please do so. However if you wish to remain an editor, you will desist from attacking other groups here, no matter how "marginalised" you consider them to be. You can consider this a formal warning, and I ask that you have a quick look at Wikipedia's civility policy. (This post is largely a repeat of the response I give at Talk:Stregheria.) Thanks, Fuzzypeg☻ 23:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Souness

If you read Graeme Souness, and decided Graeme Souness is barely notable... well, I don't think the term has yet been coined for that level of deletionist, I wish I had your balls :) Have you checked out meta:Association of Deletionist Wikipedians? I'm a card-carrying member and would be proud to have you on board. Anyway, I put the article up for deletion, and agree that Aggie Moffat is gruel-thin and a long way from WP:BIO. But she's not a cleaning lady, she never worked for Graeme Souness, and nobody in the debate is claiming it should be kept because she did. Relax.. Deiz talk 11:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Jena 6

Your comments on the Jena 6 article show just one side. There have been fights incited by both races. I believe keeping it abstract, as in my version, allows people to read on and see all of the happenings in the rest of the article. Ironman5247 18:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there have been fights incited by members of both races, but it has been demonstrated that the blacks get the harsher legal treatment. That's the entire point, and the reason this is such a controversy. Qworty 18:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

As you have it stated, it looks like black people did nothing wrong, and it casts them in a holy light. That is simply not the case. They assaulted the white kid. 71.71.200.176 19:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Uh, excuse me, but I have never stated that black people have never done anything wrong, nor did I make any religious reference whatsoever about lighting. Qworty 19:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Jena Six

You're doing a great job, I'm floored by the lack of respect some of the other editors have shown towards you. I was so surprised to find this article in pretty good shape: it looks like it is in good shape mostly thanks to you. Great job!

I came by in response to a third opinion, but I will try to stay and help where I can. futurebird 12:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much! I greatly appreciate it. Let me know whenever I can be of help to you. Qworty 13:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Civility

Gee, he only works at the school and lives in the town, unlike you.

I'd delete this. It's a personal attack and it will hinder your very reasonable request.

I'm sorry to be such a dork about manners, bUT if I'm going to complain about others users being rude on this page I need to do to you too.

futurebird 13:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Please do not remove talk page comments.

Please do not remove talk page comments at Talk:Jena Six. Comments are generally not to be removed unless they are egregious personal attacks, threats (physical and legal), or commercial spam. There is no policy or guideline that allows the removal of talk page comments: if they are disputed, you should leave them in. ⇒ SWATJester ^{Denny Crane.} 16:34, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow

Where are you finding all of this great new info for the Jena article? I didn't know about the religious speech thing at all. I wish I could find some more information on the night that the students and some parents went to a school board meeting and were unable to get the noose issue on the agenda. I'd like to know more details about what happened that night, do you have any sources? futurebird 17:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Your thoughts

What are your thoughts on this? Can you help me reword this sentence so they stop deleting it? futurebird 18:30, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! futurebird 00:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Dumond wikipedia article lawsuit

I am not sure that it belongs on the Huckabee page. Or, at least, under criticism of Mike Huckabee. There is no proof that Mike Huckabee was the responsible party for the edits, although a Huckabee staffer may be resposible. Jmegill 02:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Your work on the Jena Six article

		The Original Barnstar
		For all the great work and effort you have put into the Jena Six article. As the indefatigable editor working tirelessly to improve the quality of Wikipedia - I hereby recognize your work and award thee with the first and foremost original BARNSTAR! Eqdoktor 09:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I mean it, its hard work (even if its a voluntary) and you encounter a lot of nasty stuff out there. I hardly heard about the Jena 6 a few weeks ago but if you (and the other editors) had to put up with half the bull waste products I have seen in the edits, I have to say, no one deserves a Barnstar better. --Eqdoktor 09:35, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

November 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia! I am glad to see you are interested in discussing a topic. However, as a general rule, talk pages such as Talk:Arthur Bremer are for discussion related to improving the article, not general discussion about the topic. Thank you. Anastrophe 19:11, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Mitt Romney

Please do not make edits like this one that change the content of the article without citing a reliable source. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying Romney hasn't changed his positions on these issues? Of course he has, and there are plenty of sources out there to prove it. Qworty (talk) 05:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You're saying that he "suddenly" changed them, and that his current positions are in line with LDS teachings. It is your responsibility to provide sources for both of these claims, see WP:V. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I should clarify my comment. It's important to separate Romney's personal or religious views on topics from his view on what the government should actually be doing. His personal views are surely in line with LDS teachings, but he may still think that some things are none of the government's business. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say his positions are in-line with LDS teachings--that's from the original edit. Did you write the original? If so, don't you believe what you yourself wrote? Furthermore, are you seriously suggesting that I've made up the fact that he's changed his positions on gay rights and abortion? Come on, there are hundreds and hundreds of sources for this. Qworty (talk) 05:56, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Somehow I doubt that Romney's beliefs about how people should live their lives have changed. As far as I know, they have always been in line with LDS teachings. What has changed is how much he thinks the government should get involved, and that does not belong under the heading "Religious beliefs". —Remember the dot ^(talk) 06:04, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow. You're not Romney, are you? Your circumlocutions sound exactly like his. The guy said what was necessary to get elected in liberal Massachusetts, then changed many of his tunes when it was time to run for president. That's what happened. If he believed one thing but acted in the opposite way, which is what you are clearly saying, then he's an even bigger liar and hypocrite than I've thought him to be. But regardless of what I think, the facts speak for themselves. Qworty (talk) 06:12, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me try to be clear. Like just about every other government official, Romney's personal, religious beliefs are not necessarily the same as his beliefs on how much the government should get involved in people's lives. For example, just because a president does not believe in fornication does not mean that that president will try to pass legislation to ban fornication. There is a division between religion and government, and it is not fair for you to say that because Romney's opinion on how much the government should get involved has changed, then his underlying beliefs about what people should and should not do have changed. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 06:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

You have no idea what his "beliefs" are, since you are not a mind-reader (unless of course you are Joseph Smith). The only thing we have to go on is Romney's public pronouncements. And in these pronouncements he has shifted his positions--you can call them "beliefs" or "opinions," it doesn't really matter--he has shifted his positions, beliefs, and opinions for the sake of political expediency. These are FACTS about Romney, and they are extremely well-sourced hundreds upon hundreds of times. Qworty (talk) 06:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Please try to understand. Just because Romney thinks that people should pray before meals does not mean that he is going to push for legislation to require everyone to pray before meals. Just because Romney thinks that gay marriage is unrighteous does not necessarily mean that he is going to push for legislation to ban it. Do you see how beliefs on government restriction don't have to correspond to personal beliefs of right and wrong? —Remember the dot ^(talk) 06:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

What you're saying is that he's a hypocrite. He believes one thing, but advocates its opposite. However, you are leaving out the fact that he is a flip-flopper as well, since his public positions have shifted. So there are actually two problems with Romney: 1) He sometimes advocates for the irrationality of Mormon dogma, 2) He shifts his positions according to the political wind. Any way you slice it, this guy is not even remotely qualified to be President of the United States. Half the time what he believes is crazy, and the other half he's busy changing it anyway. Everything about him is a fraud, starting with the fact that most people don't know that his birth name is actually "Willard." Qworty (talk) 06:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I can see that I'm not getting anywhere here. Maybe one day you'll understand the difference between personal choice and the government making choices for you. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 07:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

I just don't want Mitt Romney making choices for me. I really don't care if he's making the choices out of his religious or political beliefs. I do realize that all of his beliefs are fractured and contradictory and ever-changing. But whatever those beliefs happen to be at any given moment, I don't want Mitt Romney acting on them in any way that has anything to do with my existence as a human being and a United States citizen. Qworty (talk) 07:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, now we've gotten completely off-topic. This isn't about whether or not you're going to vote for Mitt Romney. I'll continue the discussion below. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 07:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, please be aware of the three-revert rule when reverting edits like you did on the article Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2008. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 06:47, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not 3RR unless the edits are identical. Qworty (talk) 06:51, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:3RR: "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." —Remember the dot ^(talk) 07:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

That's not what happened here. You asked me to provide sources for my edits, and I began to do so. While I was still in the middle of doing so, you reverted me. I had to revert once again in order to complete the sourcing that you had asked me to do in the first place. I wasn't reverting you for the sake of reverting you or to engage in edit warring, which I don't believe in. I was trying to comply fully with your request for sourcing--and there were multiple sources involved. You can't ask another editor to do you a sourcing favor and then interrupt him while he's in the middle of doing it for you and then claim 3RR! That's not good faith. In the future, if you want me to help you with an article, give me the time to complete the task, especially when it is a complicated one that takes a good amount of sourcing research. It is considered good etiquette around here, by the way, to allow an editor to complete a task before jumping all over him. Qworty (talk) 07:20, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Back to Mitt Romney

What I'm saying is that there's a distinction between religious and political beliefs. You are saying that Romney's religious and political beliefs are the same, that whenever his political beliefs have changed it's because his religious beliefs have changed. That is simply false. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 07:38, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

To clarify how I'm using these terms:

• Political belief: how much the government should get involved in people's lives
• Religious belief: how people should act whether or not the government is forcing them to

—Remember the dot ^(talk) 07:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

No, that is NOT what I'm saying. I am saying that Mitt Romney HAS NO consistent religious or political beliefs whatsoever that are discernible from his public utterances. I'm not saying his religious beliefs and political beliefs are the same. I'm saying that most of the time they have NOT been the same, making him a hypocrite, and the rest of the time it's been impossible to tell whether they are the same, making him a cipher. He has lied about his religious beliefs AND his political beliefs so many times that nobody can tell what any of them are anymore. He is an empty suit that will tell any lie about anything so long as it will advance him toward the White House. His lies are both factual untruths and lies of omission, such as his refusal ever to admit in public that Ted Kennedy kicked his ass 58% to 41% in 1994. Does Mitt not mention this because of his religious beliefs? or because of his political beliefs? What difference does it make! The fact is that Willard lies that he is a "winner" when the fact is that one of the most liberal senators in the country kicked his ass. I could go on and on and on about this, and please don't ask me to. I honestly believe that most of everything that Mitt Romney has ever said in public is either a lie or a contradiction. And of course he doesn't want the American people to know that he is the product of polygamous unions... Qworty (talk) 07:49, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Definition of Romney's Religious Beliefs: Saying anything about religion that will get people to vote for him.

Definition of Romney's Political Beliefs: Saying anything about public policy that will get people to vote for him.

Sometimes his stated religious and political beliefs are the same. Sometimes they are different. Sometimes he is hiding the truth. Sometimes he is lying. It all depends on the political circumstances at any given moment. The only thing he stands for, in terms of religion or politics or anything else, is doing and saying whatever it will take to become the most powerful man in the world. Qworty (talk) 08:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

We should be reporting only what the sources report, not our own beliefs. You are obviously pushing an agenda in the article. I would recommend finding something else to edit that you do not feel so strongly about. Vassyana (talk) 12:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. While you're at it, why don't you provide identical admonitions on the talk pages of all of Romney's paid and unpaid advocates? You're going to be pretty busy, since there are dozens of them here. Qworty (talk) 16:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Third opinion

I'm going to give a third opinion on the talk page at Mitt Romney presidential campaign, 2008. I would recommend that you guys move your discussion over there, since this talk should be taking place on the talk page where the edits are actually happening. In doing so, you can get more opinions on the edits. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 14:53, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that. Your third opinion is of course welcome. However, I don't think the discussion on this page belongs on any article talk pages, since this discussion is not aimed toward the improvement of any article in particular. Rather, this is a discussion that another editor started in order to defend Mitt Romney's habit of believing one thing and then going out and doing the opposite. I have no idea why the editor wants to have this discussion on my personal talk page--or anywhere else--but I don't mind obliging him. Qworty (talk) 16:13, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

BLP violations

I know it is on a talk page, but it is in a section where proposed wording that is to be included in the main article is being worked on, so BLP still applies. I've removed two of your edits on Talk:Mitt Romney as BLP violations.[3][4] Unless you can provide a reliable source that shows that Mitt Romney accepted his church's racist policy, then any addition of LDS's racist policy in connection with Mitt Romney is original research and a violation of BLP. Please do not add this information again unless you can find a reliable source that directly links Mitt Romney to this racist policy. Please consider this a first level warning, continued addition of content that violates BLP may result in you being blocked from editing for a period of time. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

If he accepted the policy, then he was a racist. If he went on a mission to France to spread Mormon dogma but did not actually believe in it, then he was a hypocrite. But don't worry, I won't be adding any of that to the page(s) in question. It doesn't really matter much in the long run, in any case, since there's no chance this side of frozen Cumorah that he'll ever become President of the United States. I imagine the article will be unfrozen by January 20, 2009, and Willard's loss will be duly noted without a single BLP violation coming into play, talk page or no talk page. Meanwhile, here's a further perspective on the issue [5] Qworty (talk) 23:30, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Making arguments on talk page

Use of article pages for the pure purpose of making a point are not acceptable, continued inclusion of the underwear issue may result in a block. Please stop and make your arguments on the talk page. Arzel (talk) 18:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

I have made my arguments on the talk page. [6]. You are the one who is reverting without making your arguments on the talk page.Qworty (talk) 18:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Oddball Barnstar
		For your valued donation and vigilance in arguing about Mitt Romney's temple garment, colloquially known as underwear, I grant you The Oddball Barnstar. Herein, I dub, "[the] refusal to discuss [a] notable fact is in itself notable" as Qworty's law. EvanCarroll (talk) 19:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

On a side note, a Barnstar has an added real world value of one beer, if you visit Houston, Texas you've got one on me. EvanCarroll (talk) 19:27, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow, thanks, I am really honored. Unfortunately, I cannot share a beer with you, since, like Mitt Romney, I neither drink nor smoke, which, according to those who champion Romney on these points, proves that I am absolutely a fantastic and infallible human being and, aw shucks, what the heck, let's just come out and draw the full logical comparison--because I neither drink or smoke, I should become President of the United States!!! Or at least the President of the Mormon church, assuming I can find some utterly correct and magical underwear. Thank you, thank you, thank you. Qworty (talk) 23:34, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL

This is unacceptable. Please check that your nasty comments are directed toward edits and not editors. Consider this a warning. Cool Hand Luke 06:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. You are objecting to an exchange in which you did not take part, and which the other party has not objected to, in which I did not use profanity or any other abusive language. Meanwhile, you have replied to other comments of mine with the words “bullshit” [7] and “What the hell are you talking about?” [8] and yet again “What the hell are you talking about?” [9] Are you prepared to take your own counsel? Because I find your personal and vulgar abuse of me extremely offensive. Qworty (talk) 07:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Go for it. You reverted three times [10][11][12][13]to include a BLP WEIGHT violation on Mormon underwear so that we'd remove a line you don't like about alcohol. You wrote another BLP violation about Romney promoting the racist doctrines of his church. You've implied that those opposed to you are working for Romney's campaign or are part of a Mormon conspiracy, and you seem to have believed that I was Mormon and should prove Romney's not going to hell, yet almost every comment suggest you're the POV warrior. And this doesn't even dip into your unhelpful smug mocking. Any means to get your edits more scrutiny are fine by me. Post my naughty words far and wide. Thanks. Cool Hand Luke 08:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

And incidentally, I will try not to swear in reply to your comments anymore. I'm not trying to offend you, y'know. Cool Hand Luke 08:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Working on the controversial Mitt Romney article seems to have gotten you pretty worked up. OK. I apologize for inventing the Mormon church. I apologize for inventing Mormon underwear. I apologize for inventing Mitt Romney. I apologize for inventing the history of his church, including the historical attitudes towards African Americans. I apologize for inventing all of the controversies relating to Romney, his church, and his polygamous ancestors. Obviously none of these controversies ever existed before I came to Wikipedia, and I am to blame for the fact that all of these controversies, and so many additional ones, have gotten out into the world and now trouble that poor man and his struggling campaign. I apologize for all of these things, and so does Mike Huckabee, Hillary Clinton, and the men's room attendant at the Republican National Committee, who I believe is Larry Craig. You are quite right to castigate me for creating all of these issues. Qworty (talk) 08:40, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't care about those issues—find someone else to take your sarcastic apology. I care about WP:CIVIL and WP:BLP. Just don't violate those in the future, and stop edit warring. Thanks Cool Hand Luke 09:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Sarcasm does not exist in written language, as sarcasm is tonally based. Is the following sarcastic? "Yeah, right." You can't tell because you haven't heard a vocal intonation. What you are referring to, regarding the written word, is irony or perhaps satire. But whatever the case, I apologize further--for trying to cool things down with humor! Qworty (talk) 09:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

AN/I thread

Since no one has taken it upon themselves to notify you. Arzel has started a thread on WP:AN/I regarding your editing on Mitt Romney. You may participate in this thread by selecting the following link [14]. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 18:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I noticed your comment on my talk page. I see what you're saying about it being about a dead person, and I think your edits are fair. But I'll give you the same warning: don't revert again or you'll face a block. J-ſtan^Contribs_{User page} 19:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I had no intention of reverting. I appreciate your input. Qworty (talk) 19:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Mitt Romney

Just as an FYI, I've started a thread at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/3RR regarding recent editing of the Mitt Romney article. Notifying Arzel as well. Mbisanz (talk) 19:51, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, that's interesting, since I didn't 3RR on the article. My initial edit added new information, rather than reverting previous information. [15] Qworty (talk) 20:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I've refactored it to be more accurate. I saw all those "undo"s in the edit history and didn't connect that your first one was a content addition. Mbisanz (talk) 22:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

"Refactored it"? What you mean is that you've withdrawn your false accusation without apologizing for it. I do thank you. Qworty (talk) 23:28, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I meant this comment to serve as my apology [16] . I did miscount and wrongly include you in the 3RR report. Mbisanz (talk) 00:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that is very pretty html, and I do acknowledge your good faith and give you thanks, but now let's see how it looks in English: "I . . . am . . . sorry." LOL! Qworty (talk) 00:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

How about this instead: stop viewing three reverts as your entitlement. That's the second time in as many days that you've gone up to the limit. (Previously [17] [18] [19] [20].) If you keep revert warring a block may be appropriate. Cool Hand Luke 08:40, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern, but most of us are going on vacation soon, thus reducing attention to the article in question, and I doubt that it will be of any interest, except as a bit of historical esoterica, beyond the first week of January. However, I have enjoyed my association with you and the other good people who have labored on this. As the staffers in Florida and New York will be saying soon, "It's been very nice working with you." Qworty (talk) 18:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

George Romney

Qworty - Your edits on Mitt Romney do introduce material which is irrelevant to Mitt himself, as opposed to his father. You also clearly are edit warring on the article.

While you are a generally positive contributor, you're exceeding reasonable behavior in this case. Further edit warring or attempts to include irrelevant material in the article may result in blocks on your account.

It's not whitewashing Mormonism or Mormon history to insist that articles on current presidential candidates only include relevant personal information and not drag their family history or religion's history through the mud.

Please pay more attention to WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. Thank you. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 20:31, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your good faith comments, but I am not the one who introduced the George Romney material into the religious background section in the Mitt Romney article. All I did was add one reference from the New York Times today. In any case, all George Romney references in that section have now been removed. Thanks again. Qworty (talk) 20:40, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Mitt Romney

Your conduct in the above discussion is coming perilously close to crossing the line of civility, if it hasn't alreaady been crossed. Your allegations that somehow the information about Mormon underwear be included is almost certainly a violation of the official policy of WP:Undue weight, which I very strongly suggest you read. Your allegation that we should include which planet Romney will rule in a succeeding life is possibly a personal attack on the subject, and cleerly a violation of WP:CRYSTALBALL. Your conduct in general is basically counterproductive, seeking to ignore real questions raised in favor of continuing to advance your own clearly biased, unsupportable conclusions. I very strongly recommend that you begin to adhere more closely to the various extant policies regarding discussion. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 14:13, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I have been perfectly civil. There is a difference between civility and RS. I am not responsible for the tone of RS, or to what extend others might have issues with RS. I did not raise the Mormon underwear issue--that issue has been raised by RS in the news media who pose the question as to whether or not a man who believes that his underwear has magical powers should become President of the United States. I am not raising that issue--I am reporting that others have. It is not undue weight because I never recommended anything more than a single sentence on the subject. I did not invent Mormon underwear, I did not invent Mitt Romney, and I did not invent any of the RS that have reported on these issues. The issue of what "planet" he might "rule" after his term as president was also not invented by me, but reported by RS, and it is not a case of WP:CRYSTALBALL because Mormons started talking about that particular belief long before you or I were born. None of this is my own "conclusion"; I am merely doing what a good Wikipedia editor does, which is to report the facts as verified by RS. Rather than falsely classifying RS as my own opinion, you can read more about these issues here: [21]. If you'd like a dozen more sources I'd be happy to provide them. Our job is to report the facts, and this can certainly be done without undue weight. Finally, I have not "ignored the real questions" having to do with the article. Consensus has already been achieved on the Religious Background section of the article, pertaining both to its general content and wording, and you are free to try to break that consensus at any time by being bold and moving and/or breaking up the material on your own. I doubt that this would lead to new consensus; rather, the original editors who achieved the consensus would certainly revert your edits, as they have done time and time again since the consensus was reached. Qworty (talk) 18:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

If you honestly believe what you have said above, then I have to conclude that you are far from familiar with all relevant policies, which include WP:BLP, WP:Undue weight, the asociated essay WP:Recentism, WP:CRYSTALBALL, particularly the last as you made one comment on the talk page specifically indicating that you believe the subject has already lost the race, which is clearly not at all established. I very strongly suggest that you review all relevant wikipedia policies before you seek to make statements about what you, in what I believe is a very ill-informed opinion, believe the article should contain, as much of what you have specified you believe should be included very possibly could run directly against one or more of those policies. Thank you. And I also urge you to once again review WP:CONSENSUS, which indicates that consensus can change, and that content should be made to reflect existing consensus, not former consensus. And, if as you threaten there will be reversions, pages can be protected to prevent such edit-warring as you seem to be threatening. John Carter (talk) 18:57, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not threatening edit warring or anything else. I didn't edit on the article for three weeks, a time during which others attempted to make the edits you are in favor of, and those edits were reverted by other editors who were part of the original consensus. They weren't reverted by me, and I won't have to revert similar edits if there's another attempt to unilaterally overthrow the consensus. You might believe that that consensus will eventually change, but that is nothing more or less than WP:CRYSTALBALL on your part. The fact is, we already have a consensus. Finally, stop trying to wikilawyer or make this personal. All of the policies in the world don't change a single RS about Romney. I am not reporting my own views but those of others. This is nothing more than a content dispute, and a mighty small one at that. Please try to keep that in perspective, especially as you are a new admin and admins have special restrictions and duties when they are involved in content disputes. Best of luck to you. Qworty (talk) 19:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Your own statement above clearly indicates that you are at best unfamiliar with a majority of relevant policies. I suggest once again that you make yourself at least passingly familiar with the policies I have linked to for your benefit here and elsewhere. WP:Undue weight, with which you are seemingly at best unfamiliar, is also an official policy, for instance. I suggest once again you review that policy, and all the other relevant policies, rather than simply, repetitiously, citing the one and only policy which seems to support your own apparent position. John Carter (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You can't say that something is undue weight simply because you are an admin who has volunteered to become involved in a rather minor content dispute. Wikipedians far more experienced than you or I engage in lengthy discussions, every single hour and day, as to whether or not specific content disputes constitute undue weight issues. You are far from the final authority on whether or not a specific content dispute contains a case of undue weight, crystal balling, BLP, consensus, or any other policy. The application of policy is debated all the time, and just because you are an admin who has chosen to become involved in a minor content dispute does not give you the right to throw any additional rhetorical weight around in the course of that discussion. I am well familiar with the policies you cite; I merely disagree with how you are choosing to apply them in a specific content dispute. Big yaaaaaaaaaaaaawwwwn. It happens on Wikipedia a thousand times every hour. I happen to have been the victim of BLP and undue-weight violations on Wikipedia myself, and good luck trying to find an admin who's willing to step in and help. No, far more common is the admin who wants to wikilawyer policies during content disputes which he has volunteered to engage in. However, if you are serious, can I take it that I can report BLP and undue-weight violations to you and you will take appropriate action? Or are you interested in the policies only when you can use them in content disputes against editors who are not admins and with whom you disagree regarding relatively small issues? Qworty (talk) 19:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Your comments once again demonstrate an at best weak grasp not only of policy, but actually of events. I am not an admin, and won't be one for an hour or so. I responded to this matter because, as I indicated to any number of people, I received a message regarding it on my user page. In general, as one of the more active members of the Biography project, I do respond to messages left there and on my talk page regarding biographies, particularly, as seems to be the case here, policy states fairly clearly what the preferred outcome is, as it does in this case. Your attempts at misdirection and insult here and elsewhere are hardly in your favor. Several reasonble comments indicating that your own position is at best weak have been presented by me and others. You have yet, that I can see, respond to any of them. This very much calls into question whether you are a neutral party, as you state but which some of your own comments call into question. Regarding your own unfounded accusations above, I see no reason to respond to them, as they are at least once again bordering on violation of WP:CIVIL. Please try to respond directly to the points made, rather than continuing to indulge what very clearly seem to be attempts at misdirection and impugning the integrity of others. And, if you had bothered to read the page in which I indicated an interest in becoming an admin, you will note that I haven't shown an interest in protecting pages. However, if the kind of edit war you seemed to threaten above does take place, it would be a fairly certain event that someone else would. I once again urge you to become familiar with things that are relevant to the discussions you seem to want to engage in, as it seems to me at least fairly clear that you are not familiar with a number of relevant matters. John Carter (talk) 19:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I've tried to respond to every point you've raised. As for "the kind of edit war you seemed to threaten above," I have told you that I have not threatened an edit war, have no interest in engaging in one, and will not revert the edits that you are talking about. If you move the Religious Background section to another area, or break it up into smaller pieces, you have my personal pledge that I will not revert the edits. I do believe that other editors, those who were involved in the original consensus, would do so, however, but of course I do not control their actions. To your larger point: If you feel that I have ignored something that you have raised, by all means restate it specifically here and I will address it. Qworty (talk) 19:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Notices

Thank you for alerting those who have supported your position. However, your use of the word "threatening" may well constitute a violation of the behavior guideline regarding canvassing. I suggest you use more neutral language. John Carter (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

But your use of the same word above, even after I informed you that no threat was involved, does not violate policy? Qworty (talk) 00:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Ferrylodge

Is making good with his threat. He is actively disrupting the article and moving the religious background section. Turtlescrubber (talk) 02:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

So, I am leaving wikipedia. [22] Turtlescrubber (talk) 03:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

HEy Talk:Mitt Romney

It's late, I'll have to look at your (and any other) points tomorrow night. I am not sure how much help I will be, but hopefully everybody will continue to work together. TableManners^C·U·T 06:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the valuable donation of your time to look over this complex matter. I, and I'm sure others, will greatly value your input. Qworty (talk) 06:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been boycotting reading articles and news on the coming election, I think I jumped into a maelstrom. I hope it helps moving everybody toward commenting on the content and not the contributors. Other than that, I don't know how much help I can be. TableManners^C·U·T 13:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

That's an unexpected compliment, but I honestly do try to keep balanced. I call policy like I see it. Parties in edit wars almost always label opposition as vandalism. It's one of the most common mistakes on the project, and I always try to point it out—even when it comes from "my side." Cool Hand Luke 22:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Hinckley

I know it sounds silly but "this guy is dead" seems a little rude. I am sure it wasn't intentional but could you say it a different way? Thanks and thank you for time in updating the articleMantion (talk) 05:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Death of notable animals

Where an animal (such as Ah Meng) already has a Wikipedia article, then its death is reported at Recent deaths. WWGB (talk) 05:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Brian Epstein

Sorry, but I have to point out that ""all right"" is not the same as ""alright"". :)--andreasegde (talk) 23:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

You're damned right they aren't the same thing--because there's no such word as "alright"! Qworty (talk) 02:52, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Libertarian Party (United Kingdom)

Thanks to your AfD of Chris mounsey, I found this one. A lot of sound and fury signifying nothing. Take a look and see if my AfD nom was justified. DarkAudit (talk) 05:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Your edit to List of Georgia Institute of Technology alumni

You recently edited List of Georgia Institute of Technology alumni to remove a "non-notable entry". Note that at the moment, the relevant article still exists, regardless of your opinion of its notability or lack thereof. If the article was deleted as non-notable, then you could remove the entry. Until then, such an act is unwise, and not generally viewed favorably. For the time being, I've reverted your edit. —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 06:36, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

As I correctly expected, the article was scrubbed away, so I've removed the related nonsense: [23]. Qworty (talk) 19:07, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Re Robert Case II

I can't have speedied it, I'm not an admin. -- Roleplayer (talk) 11:01, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Lara Pulver

You recently removed a block of text from the article about the actress Lara Pulver, stating it as being unreferenced and not notable. I have restored this text, due to the fact that despite your personal opinion, the majority of people in the UK would certainly consider performing in a string of West End and national tours of musicals to be more than notable for Wikipedia, and also because I have provided a source for all those theatrical credits, with the inclusion of a link to her CV, taken directly from her official website. Crazy-dancing (talk) 03:54, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Belen Jesuit

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Belen Jesuit. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Callelinea (talk) 04:05, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Del Junco

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Del Junco. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Callelinea (talk) 04:13, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Ileana Ros-Lehtinen

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Ileana Ros-Lehtinen. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Callelinea (talk) 04:16, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

World Scientific and Engineering Academy and Society

How did you understand the article may have WP:COI problem? Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 23:45, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

There's a COI report on it right now, and one of the professors mentioned in the article has been editing the article. Qworty (talk) 23:47, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Jerry Covington

Thanks for your message. I am not really sure what else we can do. user:Covingtons and user:BanThisNameillMake10More have both been blocked. I guess we could file a sockpuppet report for user:Random667. Not sure what we can do about the IP addresses. I guess we could also semi-protect the page. – ukexpat (talk) 17:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Mira Lobe

Hello, Qworty. Thanks for keeping an eye out on article quality. I'm dropping you a note to let you know that I have removed the speedy deletion template that you placed on Mira Lobe because the article does not seem to fit the speedy deletion criterion. While it is a very short article, it has sufficient context to make its subject understood, which is the requirement for surviving WP:CSD#A1. :). Please consider other means for addressing ongoing concerns. Feel free to let me know at my talk page if you'd like to discuss this further. Thanks. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 21:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD of Jody Kraus

Could you please take another look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jody Kraus? I think the references demonstrate that he is notable. --Eastmain (talk) 01:57, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Xlibris (2nd nomination)

The page on Xlibris has been totally rewritten. You might want to reconsider your !vote here, especially given that I've withdrawn. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 18:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Lee K. Abbott and the Conflict of Interest

I don't personally have a conflict of interest over this article. Indeed, I've only recently come across his writing in a copy of the Norton Anthology of Short Fiction. I noticed he didn't have an article here, so created a stub. Cheers Paul20070 (talk) 08:25, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

No worries. Thanks for getting back to me. Cheers Paul20070 (talk) 09:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello, I did the Abbott work and I don't know the guy either. All I did was add biographical information about place of birth, correct the place where Abbott teaches (at Ohio State, not Ohio University), and add the titles of the books, all of which I've read, as has everyone I know who reads short stories and literary journals. I didn't source them, but it was a stub that was just started, anyway, and it seems that these are common bits of information, findable on the book jackets. So I am somewhat confused about the COI tag and the rebuke on the userpage of the IP I was using. Would you be willing to revert these for now, or at least remove the tags, which seem to me to be overkill? 131.183.81.184 (talk) 17:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I've replied on your talk page. Qworty (talk) 17:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for responding. I got all the bio information from the dust jacket copy on the book All Things, All at Once, and the books information from the books list from the front matter near the copyright page.131.183.81.184 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 17:33, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

DrHeLpErZx ANI

I clarified what I did on the ANI page. The first warning, the one you linked, was not the proper warning to give at the time. I replaced it with an AfD tag removal warning. DarkAudit (talk) 05:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks. No problem! Qworty (talk) 05:34, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Greetings, I would like to ask you what qualifies you to remove his Grace's article or addition to Mangup? You demand proof, yet you have not contacted His Holiness by way of mail or posted web address to verify which you insist is your only purpose. Lets be fair to all and ask for proof but when it is presented lets do our part. You are most quick to edit. SGraf stefan (talk) 02:00, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Phil Farrand

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Phil Farrand. The Wikipedia: Spam and Wikipedia: External links prohibit links to sites that are self-promotional or primarily sell goods or services. They do not call for blanking of biographical material, such as a section that appropriately mentions the fiction work of the BLP subject. I've restored the material you deleted, but after looking over the above policies, I de-linked the book titles that led to Lulu. I also did so with the ones that led to Amazon, which you left alone for some reason. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 22:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Sally Morningstar

First of all, no, I am not Sally Morningstar. Second, it was not vandalizing to delete the speedy delete tag that was up there; in fact, that's exactly what you are supposed to do if you object to the deletion. It said right in that tag, "You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to its deletion for any reason."

What happens then, if the person nominating it feels strongly enough, he/she puts a regular nomination for deletion up instead which does NOT have a 5-day limit, and a discussion takes place on a designated page. That's what's happening now.

You, on the other hand, really should not have deleted Sally Morningstar's name from the list of occult writers, since she is one and has 15 books to her name, and still has a wikipedia article. Wait until the discussion is over.

By the way, please see my reply to your statement "None of her books is from a notable press, and self-published people don't belong on Wikipedia." Actually, her books ARE from notable presses, and as far as I can see, NONE of them are self-published. You'll find descriptions of and links to information about these notable presses on that page[24]. In all fairness, if that is your argument, you should reverse your vote. Rosencomet (talk) 19:42, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Watch out for AMLFILMS

This guy just won't let it go. He barged in on an already closed AfD claiming the "production certificates" the station gave out were more prestigious than an actual Emmy. He gave a name to Philippe on his talk page that is remarkably similar to the name of Mr. Lacey's father in an earlier edit of the article. You're not supposed to bite the newbies, but when policy, procedures, and guidelines have to be explained over and over again, a good chomp is justified. DarkAudit (talk) 21:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks. Wow. I just read his comments at the closed AfD. Talk about WP:NPA! And he thinks WP:COI is a person? This guy is definitely heading for a block if he keeps it up. Qworty (talk) 00:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

JWR

Hi Qworty, there is an ongoing discussion about your friend James Wesley Rawles and notability, referencing, sourcing etc over at my talk. Cheers, Deiz talk 00:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Since Wiki Editor Legotech is presently drafting a new bio page on Rawles (see the discussion at Wiki Admistrator Deiz's talk page) , please refrain removing the references to JWR on other pages, at least for now. And even if he fails to meet the threshold of notability to justify having his own bio page, it does not negate the impact of his books on the survivalist movement. He is is still a widely-read survivalist author. Thx, Trasel (talk) 03:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

The article was deleted through due process, hence it's OK to remove backlinks. Until such time as he has a policy-friendly article, he's currently "nn" as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Of course this does not mean that he should not be mentioned in the survivalism article, just that he should not be redlinked, or leaned upon too heavily in references. By the way Trasel, if you are adding a new comment to an existing discussion, would you mind indenting, rather than adding several empty lines and a row of hyphens? Thanks, Deiz talk 05:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC

It is ironic that the article about Rawles got deleted just at the same time that he is getting so much media attention. See, for example, this piece today in Wired News: http://blog.wired.com/sterling/2008/04/its-a-sudden-he.html When removing dead backlinks, please try to avoid the collateral damage caused by removing entire paragraphs. A couple of your recent edits (which I undid) also removed references to Mel Tappan, Joel Skousen, and Jeff Cooper, who are just as well-known in the survivalist community as Rawles, but that still have existing wiki bio pages. Thanks for investing the time to help improve these pages. Trasel (talk) 16:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

This afternoon Rawles posted to his blog that he's being interviewed on Fox News tonight, regarding food shortages and food storage, along with Brendt Arends from The Wall Street Journal. Perhaps somebody from Wikipedia should warn Fox News that they are interviewing someone that is non-notable! Trasel (talk) 20:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) You admit yourself that they're interviewing him "regarding food shortages and food storage." That's STILL not a news story about him. You've been looking and looking and looking and you still can't come up with anything, LOL! Qworty (talk) 20:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

What is laughable are Wiki's notability standards, that defy logic and common sense. Clearly, if it can be demonstrated that someone is a subject matter expert, widely quoted, widely known, an opinion molder, influential in their field, and a published author, then they are indeed notable. Wikipedia's clinging to pre-Internet conventions of judging notability, along with the insistence that only PRINT references matter is something akin to limiting college students writing term papers to using only manual typewriters and using only file drawers full of newspaper clippings (a la the 1960s). These are absurdities. Trasel (talk) 23:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Look, any schmo can start his own blog, pay a vanity press for "publication," talk about himself on a bunch of Internet forums, and then get himself interviewed a few times in the press. None of it means a goddam thing. There are literally hundreds of millions of people who can do this stuff, and quite possibly millions who have. There really is nothing special about it. Qworty (talk) 23:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

You make it sound like he paid to get published. I've corresponded with Rawles, so I got the scoop: The original publisher of his book was called Huntington House. They were not a "vanity" publisher. They paid advances on royalties. Rawles switched to X-Libris (which IS a P.O.D. publisher that does some vanity publishing) only because Huntington House was mis-managed and went out of business. X-Libris was just the quickest way to get the book back into print, to meet the demand. During the time that it was out of print, used copies were selling on eBay for $40+. His book was consistently the best selling title for Huntington House, and now it is in the top ten sellers list for X-Libris. It has been in their top ten for sales for the past two years. Rawles mentioned that nearly 90,000 people downloaded the draft edition, and since then the various commercial editions (I think that he called it a "trade" paperback, whatever that means) have sold another 30,000 copies. He didn't buy his success. He earned it. Am I a fan? You bet I am. I am sick and tired of seeing cartoon characters no-name rock bands being considered notable enough for a wiki page. But at teh same time someone like Jim Rawles get railroaded off wikipedia, through un-even application of the rules. This reeks of bias. Trasel (talk) 01:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Am I biased against Xlibris? You're damned right I am, because they are a scum outfit. But if you feel that strongly about Rawles, which you obviously do, then why don't you and others write some articles about him and get them published in legitimate venues that exercise true editorial oversight? It seems to me it wouldn't be that hard to do. If you got a handful of good ones, it would be no problem using them as WP:RS for a Wikipedia article. Otherwise, if this guy is so big, why do you care about Wikipedia anyway? If he's supposedly the only guy who ever made money through Xlibris, then it doesn't sound like he needs WP to drive his sales. You must think WP has some value if you want him to be on here. Qworty (talk) 03:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• It will greatly aid this debate if you guys chill out a bit. Rest assured this process is being watched by neutral eyes, and the only issue at hand is verifying JWR's notability. Personal feelings about his work and philosophies, and opinions about his publisher are not going to score points. At best, this side debate is irrelevant and, imho, counter productive. Let's see how the sandbox article Legotech in putting together takes shape. In the meantime, if you guys could work on other things and agree to compromise on limited, unlinked mentions for JWR in the survivalism articles, which I think are appropriate, that would be really helpful. Thanks guys, Deiz talk 07:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• No problem, Deiz. Thanks for the note. Qworty (talk) 07:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

• Agreed, Deiz. Sorry if it sounded like we were squabbling. Legotech's article will most likely be free of any bias, since he is ostensibly neutral toward the subject. I'm admittedly a fan of nearly all of my biography subjects. (You will note that nearly all of them are sre survivalists with writing credits--like Jeff Cooper, Mel Tappan, Cresson Kearny, and Joel Skousen.) I find even the unlikable ones such as Kurt Saxon and Ragnar Benson are at least *interesting* people--even if I find their racist views despicable.) I appreciate it when more experienced neutral editors can step back and take the long view of any subject. Trasel (talk) 17:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Kevin Weeks

Thanks for the message. The article is different to the deleted version, and at leasts asserts notability (claims to have won awards), so I don't know that it is speediable. I'll leave the tag there, though, and see what another admin reckons. _GB^T/C 10:52, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Primary sources

Hi Qworty. While the confusion is understandable, you should probably have a look at WP:Primary source. If the refernece was to support the claim "Jane Saylor has described AuthorHouse as a vanity press", then it would be a primary source. But that's not what you're doing with the reference. Even if it was a primary source, secondary sources are prefered on Wikipedia. So in this case either we take the article as a secondary source, in which case it is unreliable, or we treat the article as a primary source, in which case it is trumped by other, more reliable, secondary sources. - Bilby (talk) 22:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The reference supports the claim that AuthorHouse ITSELF is calling itself a vanity press by printing a book that contains information about AuthorHouse. This is, indeed, a primary source. Besides, why don't you just go look at AuthorHouse's own website to see what they charge for publication. It's obvious that they're a vanity press. I have no idea why you continue to deny it. Qworty (talk) 23:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm disputing the claim because it doesn't gel with the vast majority of reliable sources I've found, and, I should add, with sources you've found (such as Patricia Fry) which distinguish between vanity press and POD or self-publishing companies. The industry is changing, and it seems that a new model has emerged, which should be reflected in Wikipedia. At the very least, if reliable sources state that they are something other than a vanity press, then the terminology that they use should be reflected. I should add that the standard definition of vanity press is that you purchase a certain number of copies of the book, and are then required to distribute them. AuthorHouse charges you for their services, but does not require you to purchase any copies of the book - packages exist where you can do this, but it isn't a requirement. In relation to primary sources, AuthourHouse clearly states that they are hold authors responsible for the content of their books. Thus the claims of Jane Saylor are simply claims made by Jane Saylor - not claims made by AuthorHouse. And thus it is not a primary source as it is being employed. - Bilby (talk) 23:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Look, the definition of a vanity press is that writers pay for publication. That's it. PERIOD. That's why AuthorHouse is a vanity press. POD is just a technology--it has nothing to do with whether a press is a vanity operation or not. Publishing "models" are not changing--the only thing that's changed is that vanity presses such as AuthorHouse are employing new technologies. Big deal. It's still a vanity press BECAUSE THE WRITERS PAY FOR PUBLICATION. Again, I have to ask you why you continue to deny that fact. It's an incontrovertible fact, available on the company's own website. Qworty (talk) 23:20, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I guess it is because the authors aren't required to pay for publication - they're required to pay for editing, cover design, distribution, and ISBN, but not for the printing of the books. Vanity presses charge for printing of all copies up front, and don't typically provide other services. Traditional presses provide both sets of services, and charge for neither. That suggests three models. Anyway, as with Lulu, I'm not particularly arguing that the terminology "vanity press" is completely wrong, just that reliable sources contrast AuthorHouse and other similar companies with vanity press, and instead describe them as self-publishing companies or POD publishers. I don't understand why you're choosing to insist on the term vanity press in spite of evidence to the contrary provided by multiple editors, but I figure we've just hit an issue that you feel very strongly about. - Bilby (talk) 23:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

"Editing, cover design, distribution, and ISBN" are all part of PUBLICATION--why don't you get that? There is no publication without cover design. There is no publication without distribution--the two terms are virtually synonymous! There is no book publication without ISBN. All of the "services" that AuthorHouse charges for--which, btw, a writer could obtain much more cheaply by actually self-publishing--constitute part of publication. Whether you are aware of it or not, you are taking a very narrow AuthorHouse lie and trying to base an entire article on it. And yes, you're right, lying is an issue that I "feel very strongly about." Wikipedia must be accurate. Qworty (talk) 23:55, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we'll make much progress on our own here. At any rate, you're correct that this has moved away from my original intent of posting on your talk page, so any further discussion is better back on the article's page. - Bilby (talk) 00:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simple Gifts (folk and world music band)

I'm here to ask you if you wouldn't mind withdrawing your nomination of the AfD in this header. If you do, I can close it. You can reply here, but I'd rather you do it on my talk page, since it appears yours is rather large (mine archives). I'll be expecting your response. :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 06:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate your withdraw and respect your decision. Happy editing! :) SynergeticMaggot (talk) 06:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

AfD for John Fauquier

I have revamped the Fauquier article. If you aren't busy, would you mind revisiting the debate in light of the article changes? Thank you. Protonk (talk) 08:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Dmitri Capyrin

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Dmitri_Capyrin

Your opinion would be appreciated.--CyberGhostface (talk) 14:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Sources vs. material being sourced

I'm not entirely clear on why you are both removing what may be an inappropriate source and also the material the source is being used to cite. Because the source may be inappropriate doesn't invalidate the information as well. If the material would still need a source, then tag it for source needed, don't just cut it out. That's really quite counter-productive. Wildhartlivie (talk) 09:39, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you. I quite agree with your point of view on this. Qworty (talk) 09:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Please notify authors of speedy deletion nominations

Hello. The general custom when nominating an article for speedy deletion is to notify the creator of the article. The speedy deletion template actually includes boilerplate text you can use to notify the article's creator, or packages such as Twinkle do that automatically for you. Not doing so is somewhat discourteous and can cause feelings of bad will as in the case of your tagging of From Buddha to Bono. That being said, your contributions are appreciated. Thank you. Toddst1 (talk) 14:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I will do so in the future. Did I in fact tag From Buddha to Bono? I don't remember that one. And was there in fact a reaction to it? Thanks again. Qworty (talk) 16:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Jahar Dasgupta

Then he shouldn't have been blocked for username reasons (not in the least since AfD decided to keep the article), but for COI/spam reasons. Daniel Case (talk) 17:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Corporate usernames are blocked as promotional if they've actually edited the article in question. Outside of that, they're often intended to be used as shared or role accounts, which is a big no-no. Yes, I'd take it to the COI noticeboard ... it's pretty clear-cut. Daniel Case (talk) 17:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

My Mother is a Tractor: Deletion

Hi Qworty, If you choose to delete, fine. I know I cannot stand in the way of a tidal wave of wiki opinion. I'm fully aware that you can likely knock down each following point but at least wanted to have my say.

• I'm originally from Australia but have not lived there for 8 years, hence those edits are the work of whoever - but not me. Upon checking your link I see they were added on June 6, 2006 - one of the busiest weeks of my year (exam week in Shanghai).
• It may be self-published but, if you follow the Amazon sales, it's usually only outsold by "Learning to Bow" in the pantheon of 'JET' books.
• Notability does not seem to matter much to Indiana University and Dokkyo University who utilise it as a standard text in courses WP:BK - Point 4
• It's archived by both the National Diet Libary (Japan) and Library and Archives (Canada) WP:BK#Threshold_standards
• This book has been independently reviewed by Japan Visitor, The Crazy Japan Times, Rocky Mountain JETAA and Rough Guide Japan WP:BK - Point 1
• As for personal non-nobility that's not in question here, and neither would I ever assert it - although some have alluded to it. FYI I have had other work published in major media such as The Japan Times, Shanghai Daily, Fukuoka-Now, Asia! and Voyage.
• Lastly if anyone have ever written a book one would realise the path of 'vanity press' is much easier one to tread than the continual slog of agents and publishing houses. It's obvious you are not a fan of POD/'Vanity Press' Talk:Trafford_Publishing and that's how you probably came upon my book.

With you having already deleted all of the mentioned references without waiting for judgement here one must presume deletion a fait accompli. I have therefore saved a copy now as a last hurrah, expecting the worst. Given this, there's no need to reply to any of the above - I'll just leave it up to you. Good evening and good luck. Nklar (talk) 12:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Dare Wright

I have reverted your edit to Dare Wright, where you removed the reference to a new book in the tradition of Dare Wright. "The Lonely Doll Makes New Friends" has been published with the permission of The Estate of Dare Wright, and is as legitmate as any others in the series.Poodle Girl (talk) 23:17, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a reply to the smear you posted on User:Poodle Girl talk page regarding the Dare Wright entry you continue to vandalize. Certainly WP:CIVIL is a two-way street, and certainly the note you wrote on Poodle Girl's talk page violates it, as well as violating (or at least attempting to tamp down) the spirit of WP:Be Bold. Certainly the bulk of the argument made on that page is attack ad hominem and has little to do with the substance of the issue. Here is the substance: Of course vanity press books are by and large not notable. However, in this case, we're dealing with a bona fide notable subject whose last book was published posthumously by her estate on a vanity press. That is not only hugely interesting, it is also notable to anyone interested in said subject. It is notable on biographical grounds, and it is notable in the ways that all posthumous releases by an estate are notable in the way they bear upon the literary reputation of their author. Furthermore, the implication made by the phrase "vanity book's main supporter is an anonymous dial-up" is that there is a WP:COI violation, when, indeed, there is not, nor is there only a single user making the same sustained argument despite Qworty's repeated edit warring. Furthermore, Wikipedia allows users to post from their dial-ups for whatever reasons they choose, as I have this evening. You'll note, if you check my dial-up number (as I'm sure you will to further your ad hominem attacks), that I am posting from Hawaii, which is about as far from the action of this particular dispute as one can get. I've posted an abridged version of this response at Poodle Girl's talk page, so as to counter the ad hominem attack there. Please, practice what you preach regarding WP:CIVIL, and limit your argument to the subject at hand, and examine said subject at hand (notability) through the lens of common sense rather than by way of a vanity press litmus test, the reasons for which litmus test, anyway, don't apply in this case. 72.235.20.251 (talk) 11:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• Oh, hell, for all that (and I hate to admit it), I checked into it further and you were right about the notability. That last book isn't written by Dare Wright, it's written by some people writing an imitation sequel. I'll revert and leave it alone. But I still register irritation at the ad hominem stuff.
• Don't know about ad hominem, but people trying to make a buck off a poor dead woman deserve not a lot of respect.

72.235.20.251 (talk) 12:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Malin to Mizen

You voted for a delete here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Malin to Mizen. However, evidence establishing the noteworthiness of the topic has since been given and you have not been heard from since. I'm requesting that you and the other early voters return to the discussion and reaffirm or refute your previous position. --MQDuck 00:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Amy Lane

No problem. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:25, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Deleting Links

Kashmir2 (talk) 06:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC) Why are you going through Wikipedia deleting links to Suzanne Olsson book? For example on page of Roza Bal, you delete her name. Hassnain and Olsson just made a joint book together called 'Roza Bal The Tomb of Jesus' It will be on amazon after June 1st and will be added to many pages at Wikipedia. Please stop removing these valid references. Thank you.Kashmir2 (talk) 06:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Her article was just nuked on AfD [25], that's why! Qworty (talk) 08:21, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Spring Awakening

Can you add any citations to articles discussing the score and stating that it contains alt-rock? It sounded like pretty classic rock and folk rock to me. Also, if you think a replacement actor is notable, and you can write a good article about them, write the article, and then add their name. See WP:NOTE. At the musicals project, the WP:CONSENSUS of editors believes that musicals articles are better when they do not contain lists of non-notable names. Most actors on Wikipedia who have articles have multiple professional credits before they warrant an article. Best regards, -- Ssilvers (talk) 12:02, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Schoharie Valley

Lookie here: I think I know a tad more about the Valley than someone else. (unless you live here, then I apologize.) There must be a compromise here. Suggest one and I may follow.

And by the way, the AFD clearly demonstrated that Wikipedia stated that she didn't deserve a page to herself. However, mentioning one of the more important people in an internal article I don't think is a crime. To call it vandalism is not appropriate. This is why some people are mentioned but not given separate articles: examples: 1. mothers, fathers, siblings, and spouses of famous people mentioned in an internal article but not separately 2. smaller incidents within a larger framework, making sure the web of events is complete

You know there's a near-infinite amount of evidence to back this up. Probably an article you've read in the last hour meets this guideline. So please, at least hear me out. Sgt. bender (talk) 06:03, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

WP:NNC clearly states that Mrs. Dutton can be added back into the article. I'd like to hear feedback before I do so.Sgt. bender (talk) 23:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

The guideline you reference does not in fact mention Mrs. Dutton by name. What specific WP:RS do you propose to employ? And why on Earth is this so important to you? Qworty (talk) 23:38, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Of course the guideline doesn't mention her by name. It's general and meant as a catch-all. Her book and mentions in local media and school publications are more than enough reliable sourcing to prove that she exists and is important to the community.

Second, of course it's important to me. She's a nice little 90-year old lady who survived a genocide after her parents were murdered. I think that a nod is appropriate due to her large standing in the county. I'm not looking to pick a fight. I'd just like the guideline to be followed.Sgt. bender (talk) 23:47, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Her book blatantly fails WP:SPS. School publications won't meet WP:RS. Being a nice old lady is not enough. Even being a genocide survivor is not enough to satisfy notability. Qworty (talk) 23:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Mentions in the Cobleskill Times-Journal, the Schenectady Daily Gazette, and the Oneonta Daily Star should be more than enough for WP:RS. Again, for the sake of WP:NNC, it is necessary to prove that she is notable strictly to the article at hand, not Wikipedia as a whole. Sgt. bender (talk) 23:55, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination

When you nominate an article for deletion like the one for Robert F. Smallwood, you should let the article's creator know about your decision. Just a heads up. Cheers, Artene50 (talk) 05:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Lymbyc Systym

The Lymbyc Systym wiki page was edited to remove the elements that seemed promotional. It was made more concise, and only includes information that is documented by credible 3rd party music news sources (All Music Guide, Pitchfork, CMJ, etc). Also, a list of sources was added.

I feel at this point, since Lymbyc Systym have just as much credibilty as many bands already listed in the Wiki database, the page deserves recognition as a valid Wikipedia article.

Fost01 (talk) 17:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

conflict of interest

Hi Qworthy, I saw you comment to User Rexbacchus on the Robert Smallwood affair. May I inquire how do you judge if there is a conflict of interest? Would it be conflict of interest if the person who created the article then votes to save it in a AfD discussion like Rexbacchus did. I would think not if they can add some relevant information that is not spammy/pushy. Where do you draw the line? (Um...I think I see your point now; User Rexbacchus does seem to be editwarring a bit on the Afd vote. There was a Washington Post reference to Smallwood but it treats him in a secondary manner)

BTW, I came across this AfD on PrivacyView:[26] Very few people have bothered to vote on it. I made a weak keep vote but am really troubled by the fact its author appears to have some kind of connection to this software company. This seems to be the nightmare scenario: what does one do when the company (PrivacyView) appears (at first glance) to be a legitimate entity with numerous references to its products...and yet the person who created the article may have ties to it. I don't know how you would vote in this case. The actions of its creator really smells but the organization is legitimate. Any advice on this moral dilemma. Thank You, Artene50 (talk) 01:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Its unfortunate you did not bother to reply to my question on PrivacyView where the discussion is still ongoing. Was I wrong in asking you an honest question on this problem? On the Robert Smallwood affair, it does look that all of Rexbacchus' edits is on this person as this suggests [27] BUT on the other hand, he may be a new editor who is a fan of Smallwood's work. (assuming this is not a sockpuppet account) Whatever your view of Rexbacchus, you had a duty to inform him that you were proposing to delete his article. Not doing so constitutes bad faith on your part, don't you know this? Artene50 (talk) 07:48, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

My question is what was personal opinion of the current PrivacyView deletion vote here: [28] I thought you may know more about the issue and I wondered if there were serious ethical problems involved on this artcle and its creator. BTW, on the Robert Smallwood issue, I changed my vote from delete to Weak keep. I gave clear concise reasons why--you may not like them. I am going to bed now as its late into the night. Regards, Artene50 (talk) 08:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm signing off now from Wikipedia but after I saw Bilby respond rather promptly to my comments on Robert F. Smallwood, I've decided to change my vote a final last time to No Opinion from weak keep. You really should tell people whose articles you propose to delete about your nomination. Some people may not bother to vote to keep/delete their article but Rexbacchus clearly has strong issues here. Thank You, Artene50 (talk) 08:29, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see

Please see Wikipedia:Biographies of living_persons/Noticeboard#question regarding BLP application to discussions as I believe it involves you as an unnamed party. Please forgive my presumption. --Justallofthem (talk) 06:02, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

you may want to chime in at

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#"Unrealiable prodders". --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 16:04, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Pariah Burke

I just thought I'd let you know I personally believe that you may have been just a little bit harsh on PB in the AfD. Cheers, Ohconfucius (talk) 05:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Literary magazine

I note that there is an edit war going on about whether or not to include Brick Magazine. A quick perusal of their website http://www.brickmag.com/ and other reliable sources, shows that one of their editors is Michael Ondaatje, author of The English Patient, that their contributors include National Book Award winner Russell Banks, Jim Harrison (Legends of the Fall), Joyce Carol Oates (perennial Nobel candidate), Margaret Atwood (Canada's leading novelist), Annie Proulx (Brokeback Mountain), etc, and that they are distributed to major bookstores throughout the United States and Canada. These are among our most major writers, and they're contributing to a journal with a greater shelf footprint than most of the ones listed on the literary magazine page. I'm not sure how that fails any test of notability. I note that you're often a reasonable voice in regard to such matters. Could you step in here?64.254.129.118 (talk) 23:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Happy Independence Day!

As you are a nice Wikipedian, I just wanted to wish you a happy Independence Day! And if you are not an American, then have a happy day and a wonderful weekend anyway!  :) Your friend and colleague, --Happy Independence Day! Le Grand Roi des Citrouilles^Tally-ho! 01:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

W. L. Shurtleff

I expanded W. L. Shurtleff. You may want to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/W. L. Shurtleff. -- Eastmain (talk) 08:07, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Nidal Hassan

Please discuss your issues with the article, rather than making wholesale deletions without discussion on the talk page. They appear to be against consensus. Perhaps, if you explain yourself, you may convince other editors as to your point of view. --JohnnyB256 (talk) 19:47, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Assume good faith

Please remember to assume good faith when dealing with other editors. Thank you.

Wikipedia laws demand us to assume good faith. Please cease and desist from your baltant allegations [29] against the editors and the Nidal Malik Hasan's article.--Gilisa (talk) 20:53, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Defamation on Nidal Malik Hasan talk page

Please do not add defamatory content to Wikipedia. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

For writing this: "(from abover) Congratulations to all of you right-wing mind-readers manipulating and specially-arranging RS to build up your little theory that Hasan was a cool-minded Islamic terrorist, rather than a frazzled man who lost it and went berserk." on Nidal Malik Hasan talk page.--Gilisa (talk) 21:00, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

So this means I can call upon you the next time I'm defamed on Wikipedia? Thank you. Qworty (talk) 00:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, with pleasure-and it's entirely not your POV that lead me to put this warnings, but you accusations and that I thought you gone too far when you gave us titles.--Gilisa (talk) 08:04, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Very interesting that some would consider being called conservative highly inflammatory. Thanks again. Qworty (talk) 13:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Come one, you used more explicit titles. It's not a big issue, just asking you to avoid it next time. Thanks,--Gilisa (talk) 18:30, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Did Hasan "Do the Right Thing?

For the record, just what IS your POV so we don't end up guessing incorrectly. I would conjecture based on your efforts to remove any information that would lead one to conclude that Hasan was guilty of either murder or terrorism that you don't believe, or al Queda are guilty of either crime? Bachcell (talk) 16:38, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with my POV, my friend. The objective fact is that nobody yet knows what motivated Hasan. Therefore, any attempt to guess that is nothing more than POV-pushing. There are right-wing editors who want to blame a certain mosque, or al-Qaeda, or certain clerics for the rampage. But we have no evidence of any of this. All you have is irresponsible guessing and speculation. Just because a guy attended a mosque doesn't prove a damn thing--thousands of people have attended a mosque or listened to a certain cleric, but only ONE of them started blowing soldiers away. So the odds don't look good at all for your particular interpretation. Also, if you're going to theorize and pretend you can read Hasan's mind, then you must cover ALL of the possible motives, not just the right-wing fantasy that he was taking orders from a cave in Afghanistan. And these other possibilities include the fact that Bush's unjust war drove this psychiatrist nuts, especially as he had to listen for years to horror stories of returning soldiers, and so he didn't want to deploy. That is much more likely than his taking orders from bin Laden. Finally, this "politically correctness" argument in terms of the Army is entirely bogus. Hasan was called a "camel jockey" and other names by his Army buddies, was constantly harassed, and even had his car vandalized. How in the world is that political correctness??? The Army is ALREADY hostile to its Muslim members, and it could use a lot more "political correctness." Qworty (talk) 19:45, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

We don't have to read Hasan's mind. We know what flavor of Islam he believes in (jihadism) We know who his spiritual mentor is (Awlawki) It's all over his infamous Powerpoint. We can confirm that Hasan's disciple, Duane Reasoner ALSO believes killing US soldiers is justifiable or at least not lamentable. We know that Awlawki has called on good muslims to kill US Soldiers. Doesn't this establish a likely motive? If you say you don't see that, I can only conclude that you probably that you've chosen not to believe in it, and simply act to defend Hasan because you are symphathetic to Awlawki's belief that Hasan did the right thing. Please correct me so that I don't have an incorrect impression of your motivations. If this was the spiritual guidance given to Hasan, and echoed by Reasoner who may have gotten it from Hasan: "Muslims today have the right -rather the duty- to fight against American tyranny. Nidal has killed soldiers who were about to be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan in order to kill Muslims" how does this not establish a likely motive, and how can anyone say we know nothing of a possible motive? If we have numerous sources linking AW to Al Qeda by name, how does this not establish a link to an operative of Al Qeda? You still haven't answered the question I am wondering, do you agree that Hasan "did the right thing", since you clearly agree with Awlawki and Hasan that the US is doing bad, unjustifiable things to Muslims, and you seem to go along with Hasan's family that his was just a guy with no ties to terrorism, who never said anything against the US, who was picked on for being a muslim. Bachcell (talk) 19:15, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

AN/I discussion involving your edits

Hello, Qworty. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:36, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

• What would have been rather more helpful is to point out to you that you could have refactored the nomination in straight factual terms. The fact that this gentleman is a self-published author and his books are published by a vanity press is fair comment, stating it in the robust terms you did is not acceptable. We should be polite but firm. I suspect you can understand that and won't make the same mistake again. Guy (Help!) 20:44, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Noteable Article?

Hi. My name is Sean Wolfington and you recently decided to delete the article written about me and it was then deleted. Over a year ago i recieved a message that someone wanted to delete the article but other people decided to keep the article after making edits and adding references. Since i am not very familiar with Wikipedia I wanted to find out why the article was not noteworthy. In addition to not being noteworthy some people said it was self-promoting. This is not true. I discovered this wikipedia page when i googled my name for something else. A freind showed me how i could update it and i updated it so there was more accurate information and then i was told i should not do that. Since that time i never updated it again.

Since i don't know alot about Wikipedia i asked a freind and they suggested i provide information to the people on the business page of Wikipedia to get their oppinion of wheter the article is noteworthy and i wanted to give you additional information that was not on the article you deleted to see if that may change whether the article is noteworthy.

Here is a summary of my background so you can evaluate whether it is noteworthy. All of this information is available through major news outlets and some of it was referenced in the article that was deleted, which i thought was the criteria for determining if something was noteworthy... but again i don't know alot about how this site works. Below is my background information, please tell me if any of this is noteworthy. Some of the information was not in the original article and the additional information may effect whether the article is noteworthy.

Here is my background: I am an Entreprenuer and a film maker. I founded and sold 2 technology companies by the age of 34. The first company, HAC Group which operated as Cyber Car and Automark, sold for $200 million (article with info can be viewed at: http://www.nytimes.com/2000/04/18/business/company-news-reynolds-reynolds-to-buy-hac-group-for-200-million.html) and the second for $125 million dollars of enterprise value (BZ Results article- http://www.dealerrefresh.com/adp-buys-bz-results/ - there are many articles about these companies but these are links i just found). My company was recognized as the "Innovative company of the year" from Auto Success Magazine along with SAP (http://www.autosuccessonline.com/leadership.aspx) and I was a finalist for the Ernst & Young "Entreprenuer of the Year" when i was 34 years old and a few months ago was recognized by Haute Living Magazine as one of the top 100 most influential leaders in the Haute 100 (view at:http://www.hauteliving.com/?s=sean+wolfington). After selling the second company, I started a film production company where i financed, produced and distributed the first film myself (Bella)and it was the #1 top grossing film in its category. (here is an article i wrote for the Huffington Post about it- http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sean-wolfington/what-i-learned-about-maki_b_102704.html and LA Times wrote an article about it - articles.latimes.com/2007/dec/04/entertainment/et-bella4) It also was the #1 rated movie on Yahoo, NY Times, Fandango and Rotten Tomatoes while in theaters and it is currently one of the top 50 Rated Films of All Time on Yahoo and it was the #1 Rated movie of 2007 by the users of the largest film review site in the world, RottenTomatoes.com. After that i produced 2 other films including a new motion picture called Mighty Macks (you can view at IMDB http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1034324/ and you can view my film history at http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2055676/). In addition to the film production company i currently own 6 companies in the technology, real estate and entertainment industries.

I can provide more information but this is a summary of my background. Please let me know if you believe this is noteworthy enough. Thank you.Seanwolfington (talk) 05:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Qworty. You have new messages at WikiDao's talk page.
Message added 07:27, 30 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

September 2010

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Janette Turner Hospital. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. RolandR (talk) 13:31, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, Roland, that's what I tried to get you to do--discuss changes on the talk page before any were made, but you refused to do that. Why are you counseling me to do something that you yourself refused to do? Qworty (talk) 13:34, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Quick question

As you may know, I take a keen interest in the enforcement of BLP policies at Wikipedia. In that vein, I can tell you that you are way off track in your edits to Janette Turner Hospital. However, something you wrote attracted my attention:

MEANWHILE, I can point you toward articles where ONE disgruntled person posted ONE shitty thing on a blog about 1% as prominent as Gawker, and that little piece of verbal caca is then defended as a reason to smear somebody for life on Wikipedia--to HELL with BLP in those cases, right?

I wonder if you could point me to examples of that, so that I can work to clean those up and educate anyone involved that we don't do that.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)