User talk:LinaMishima

Welcome to Wikipedia

Hello, LinaMishima, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please remember to sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! BryanG^(talk) 05:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, BryanG! I'm currently feeling a little guilty for db-bio spamming, as I think it's generally a bad thing to do, but also quite shocked at the need for it! I've done some useful edits in places, such as Honda Today, but as tiredness sets in one can get a little silly. Ah well :P LinaMishima 05:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

King of Queens

lol, I saw your comment on the King of Queens talk page. I responded to it on the page. P.S. once again, I am still trying to be a nice user.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.31.100.170 (talk • contribs) 13:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Your AfD of Aquygen

I fixed the problem you were having with nominating Aquygen for deletion. The current debate has been moved to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aquygen (2nd nomination). If this is basically the same article originally deleted, it may be eligable for speedy deletion as a repost, and you can put the {{db-repost}} tag on it if this is the case. BryanG^(talk) 05:04, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recalling correctly that replies go here, rather than on your talk page... Could you be so kind as to give a rundown on how to deal with this myself in future? AfD the original, Manually create a 2nd nomination page, then edit the Af text (since it is replaced in source) with the new link? LinaMishima 05:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I actually just learned of a seperate template for 2nd nominations, {{Afdx}}. According to the instructions here, you'd put the number of the nomination in the parameter of the template (i.e. {{subst:afdx|second}}) when you add it to the article you want to delete, then complete the rest of the process normally. BryanG^(talk) 05:35, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oooh, that's interesting an useful! Wikipedia:Template_messages/Deletion fails to mention that, but I've been awake too many hours to dare edit such a page :S LinaMishima 05:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

King of Queens

Oh you made it? You dissed your own good phrase 'don't be shy' then in the King of Queens talk page. :P Hey, don't HESITATE then though is going to have to replace be bold 65.31.100.170 16:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

whoops sorry for not signing. And ooooh, now I see what happened. I read Tyrenius' user page and saw that you had just recently made that. Aha, that's how don't be shy got on there. I was like wow. What a coincidence. she found an article on exactly what we were talking about. I thought it was a great idea to make that article. looks great. It'll definitely help wikipedia if you ask me. 65.31.100.170 16:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Person you had a problem with from today

Well you're probably right as I was in a bad mood when I made some of those contributions. I shouldn't have been such an asshole. I apologize. You're a great administrator. Pointing out the things I did well, showed me that you aren't out to get me or anything but that you just want me to behave my self, be civil, and respect everyone. I will follow your directions Lina. Thankyou. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.31.100.170 (talk • contribs) 18:44, 10 August 2006.

I'm not an adminsistrator, but I checked with one before doing the warning (I'll let them know you're being great). I'm glad you found the links to edits useful rather than irritating - I shall have to remember to use them again in future. It's worth noting that one of the big reasons for being civil is that people will listen to you more! ;) As I said, you have made some good edits - why not register and get your name known for such good things? LinaMishima 17:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh thank you for putting a good word in for me. I'll get a name too. I didn't realize you could. Anyway, thanx again for all the help and the level-headedness about everything. bye!

Lib3rtine argument

Hi! Thanks for vandalizing my edits! Lib3rtine 18:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was not vandalising, I was meerly restoring the community concenus. Please discuss any image changes on the Cat talk page first. LinaMishima 18:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since when is a single person the governer of community concensus? I didn't see any polls taken to change it to the (bad) old one. Nobody was complaining except you. Lib3rtine 20:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In general, the wikipedia policy is to discuss changes, or at least to have petty arguments when people disagree on a change done without discussion. When people disagree over a change, the issue is put up for the community to decide upon. In the case of animal images, these are regularly changed for reasons other than academic clarity (the main reason for real changes in an encyclopedia). LinaMishima 20:45, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should just lock the cat article, since the current photograph is perfection, and cannot be improved upon. Lib3rtine 20:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But as they say, only Allah is perfect. Perhaps with a good discussion some progress will be made, or a better image found. LinaMishima 20:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Main cat image on Cat

Yes, that's all that was needed, and optionally you an put in an extra argument for left or right-placing, and a last one for a picture caption. Instead of thumbnail, you can also specify the size in pixels. Just look around and you'll see. Glad to have been of service.--Ramdrake 19:06, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again! LinaMishima 19:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit to User_talk:Jeff f

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also push the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! - CobaltBlueTony 20:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I normally do. Forgot that the Welcome template starts a new catagory, meaning a single signing benieth {welcome} results in one edit being unsigned. LinaMishima 20:02, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pulling the formatting on the Cat vw in line, btw, and for the ToC here ;) LinaMishima 20:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work with Jeff F. I din't kill the Martha Stewart and Kel Mitchell changes, since I idn't know enough about the subject to simply declare them false. Thanks again for your help User:LinaMishima 19:59, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing! Edit patterns like that are always nonsense edits, so it's usually safe to challenge them. If they come up with a source, they you simply change the way you deal with them and help them along even further. Thanks again for your dilligence! - CobaltBlueTony 20:03, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blu Cantrell

I have restore the section on voice that you ha removed. Whilst it needed references, I feel that it would have been better to {fact} or {cite} rather than remove an entire section. This is especially true since some of the information in that section has remained in place since April. Checking on the talk page, it turns out that IMDB at least can be used to somewhat substanciate the claims. Added the IMB reference, going back now to {cite} the section. LinaMishima 12:45, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good call on removing the whistle register catagory. Better to have this verifie before adding the catagory. I should have removed it, really. LinaMishima 12:48, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to begrudgingly accept the IMDB ref to her 7th octave as I actually like her singing, despite the fact IMDB trivia is user-submitted but it does not mention Whistle register so that must stay out for now. whistle is lower, but there is not automatically an ability there.--I'll bring the food 12:52, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi LinaMishima, I dropped by to say hello (and commisserate with your keyboard woes...my "s" is sticky as well!) and mention that I entered the Blu Cantrell debate on User talk:I'll bring the food. I really admire the calmness everyone's shown in the debate, and wanted to add my opinion as someone who's worked on clarifying whistle tone claims, now and then. In particular, I find WP:Verifiability quite useful when considering to {fact} or delete material. Cheers, --Marysunshine 19:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I help with Cats??

Can I help with the cats page?

I love cats but I do not want to offend any one with my edits.

This looks like my first cat.

Brings back old memories...

Well talk to ya later,--Missingno. 16:16, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Anyone can edit any article, however to ensure that any significant edits remain, it is polite to discuss them on the article's Talk page. Due to the tendancies of people to add pictures of their own animals to the articles on pets, image changes are generally seen as very controversial. In that respect, you deserve praise - you added a useful and informative picture that has remained since! Well done! LinaMishima 16:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith

Rather than calling edits "original research" (sometimes sections that have been in place for a long time), please assume good faith, assume that a reference does indeed exist and {fact} or {unverified} the section instead. This also has the advantage of making the need for references more obvious than it is when a section is simply removed - and it's also far more embarrasing to the author! :P LinaMishima 16:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited over 100 articles today. Some of them grated a tad ;). I also know chunks are rubbish. On bio's of living people we have a responsiblity to remove incorrect and original information rather than ask for sources--I'll bring the food 16:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

we have a responsiblity to remove incorrect and original information rather than ask for sources

Could I have a reference for that, please? In my opinion, asking for sources tends to cause more productive changes than simply stripping away sections that are potentially correct but unsourced. In many cases it is hard to find a good quality source on some matters simply because a matter may be considered so obvious to those who are trained in the area as to not warrant a mention. LinaMishima 16:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy must be adhered to. Specifically, unsourced or poorly sourced negative material should not be posted to this article or its talk page(s). Such material must be removed without hesitation; the Three-revert rule does not apply to such removals.--I'll bring the food 16:40, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

see also (on that linked page) "Any assertion in a biography of a living person that might be defamatory if untrue must be sourced. Without reliable third-party sources, a biography will violate No original research and Verifiability, and could lead to libel claims.

Information available solely on partisan websites or in obscure newspapers should be handled with caution, and, if derogatory, should not be used at all. Information found in self-published books, newspapers, or websites/blogs should never be used, unless written by the subject (see below)."--I'll bring the food 16:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do that in future--I'll bring the food 17:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks - it should hopefully help us all avoid such silly discussions in the future. Added {blp} tags to the two people have been arguing over, and rv'd to your version changes to Tamar Braxton. LinaMishima 17:06, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you consider joining the biographies project? See "welcome!" on my talk page for links there.--I'll bring the food 17:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, tempting, thanks :) I'll have a look into it, and see how practical it would be to find new references for biographies - I'd feel bad unless I'm actually being constructive as part of a project. LinaMishima 17:30, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

forgot to post here:::::Well, all the 100 or so singer biographies i just edited needed boxes saying what level they were and their importance on wiki, see Michael Jackson's talk page for one I just finished fiddling with at the top--I'll bring the food 17:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I saw the box, yes. Worth noting that although other people on that talk page have scattered {fact}s around, they are generally best left out of talk pages: Asking instead for evidence so that the information may be used is generally nicer, and WP:LIVING only applies to the articles themselves, I believe. LinaMishima 18:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A word of caution: derogatory material for BLP should not even be kept on talk pages, as it's still libellous. A way round this might be something like "There is no evidence whatsoever that Fred Bloggs ever sold his children into slavery, so it should on no account be put into the article, unless there are verifiable reliable sources that state otherwise." Tyrenius 00:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tamar Braxton

U R retarded!!How can youtube not be a verifiable source. I put a clip of her hitting a D and E one octave above Soprano C(D7 and E7) and you say it's not a good source? What is then! I bet if I even got a video of her hitting whistle notes you'd say it wasn't verifiable. Of course it it. if you see or hear her hitting a whistle note, then she's a whistle registre singer. The same applies to all whsitle register singers!!!! U R just stupid!!!!! U and Mr. "I'll bring the food" who totally destroyed the Whsitle register singers category. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Prof. MagneStormix (talk • contribs) 18:06, 4 August 2006.

First of all, please read Wikipedia: No personal attacks. You have apparently been warned for this before. LinaMishima 18:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Secondly, remember that not all users of wikipedia are as able or as knowledgable as you. To a deaf person, a voice clip is of little use, but they may still be interested in the videos and lyrics of an artist. Likewise, not everybody can tell their A note from an E note. A voice sample is only of use if you have the ability and training to tell the diference. LinaMishima 18:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thirdly, youtube allows anyone to upload, with no proof needed that the contents of the clip are what the uploader claims them to be. This makes it an inapropriate source to use. LinaMishima 18:15, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But ur not deaf! I also have the full tamar Braxton song and it is her who hits those notes! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prof. MagneStormix (talk • contribs) 23:07, 4 August 2006

Actually, I never said I was not. For the record, I am not, but that still does not change the accessability issue. I'm sure you do have the full song, however I am no expert in music, nor do I know if you are. If you are, you will be glad to know that I support any moves to allow qualified and distinguished professionals in the field be able to simply confirm that something is the case. However I suspect that you are not (otherwise you could write the claim in a magazine, paper or book and that would be that), and so I, as someone with no musical knowledge, have no means to know you are telling the truth. LinaMishima 01:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's like science. It's all well and good to claim that there is water on Mars, but people will want to see your evidence and your reasoning. If your evidence was "my teacup says so!", you probably wouldn't go far. But if you talk about the work of the Mars Global Surveyor and your experience in the geological effects of flash floods, people will find it quite hard to argue. LinaMishima 01:31, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So what right did you have to delete her off the list and denounce her coloratura abilities if you were actually deaf? everyone was happy and fine until you and some others were destroying, manipulating, and changing the category. What was your reason? Prof. Magnestormix

As I said, I'm not deaf, and I'm certainly not a musical expert. That's why I personally did not do such changes. You should note that on one article, I initially reverted the removals. On hearing the reasoning for them, however, I had to agree. See WP:LIVING - statements about people currently alive have to be properly verified in a respected source. LinaMishima 02:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mousabeidas

I have preformed some changes on the article Burhan Beidas. Please check for further alterations and advise on what i can do to keep it on Wikipedia.

Original research on talk pages

This is, as you say, run-of-the-mill. It is also in my observation one of the biggest causes of disputes and waste of time in article writing. People use up reams of writing arguing about opinions. To make a suggestion for a lead which might be useful is one thing. To bang on about whether such and such is better than such and such without providing any verifiable references (and this often happens) is effectively disruptive behaviour, albeit for sincere but misguided intentions. I feel this issue needs to be addressed and sometimes editors brought into focus about wiki policies. Fact tags can give a sharp focus here and I know of no reason why they should not be used, if an editor thinks they will be effective. Tyrenius 22:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, an interesting point. In general, I get the impression that {fact} tags on talk pages are discouraged, but I certainly have to agree that, if an argument isn't reaching any conclusion but is still ongoing, then {fact} tags will act as an apropriate "Oi!". Personally I think more people need to be encouraged to play the "verify it!" game - it can be quite enlightening to try and find references! LinaMishima 22:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've just changed the Talk page guidelines to encourage all those things. Let's see if it's accepted. You might like to post on the talk page guidelines' talk page yourself about it. Tyrenius 03:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you've probably seen that I've taken a look and commented already ;) LinaMishima 04:03, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be an overly-pedantic interpretation of not editing others' comments... Tyrenius 04:05, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is not just clarity, but that of annoyance. Many people do not like to see their comments changed by anyone else, and can get quite angry about it. As you have surely seen, this can lead to long lasting petty fueds that serve no-one. LinaMishima 04:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The situation where the tag is going to be most useful is where there is already a feud anyway. My experience is that it has been very helpful for cooling things down, and editors have not reacted negatively, because they haven't actually seen it as changing their comments. It also has a neutral, anonymous feel to it, so it is less inflammatory than a personal request for verification. I've replied on the guideline talk page. Tyrenius 04:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, good points. I shoul note that Iwasn't trying to add red tape, but rather anticipate potential problems and suggest solutions in the hope of drawing a discussion on the matter. I do feel that a number of editors will take offence to the idea, and as such I would like to see it heavily discussed to validate it further. LinaMishima 04:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I see far too much talk page hell in my travels, and I think the people who are most likely to take offence are the ones who are causing it in the first place. I think any sound editor would see the benefit of being prompted in this way. Talk page hell is usually a situation where someone is trapped in the micro climate of an edit war and feels powerless, mainly because opinionated argument is violating any policy consideration. I want to give people an easy tool to bring things back on track. As I say, I've put it into practice and it's worked wonders. All that useless POV, OR, non-verifiable stuff is instantly shown up for what it is with one little tag. Tyrenius 08:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page guidelines

I thought you might like to check out some work I've done on the guidelines. Tyrenius 08:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the encouragement. I don't see placing a fact tag as falling within the definition of what is meant by editing other people's comments, as it's obviously an extraneous element. You haven't altered their comment — you've responded to it. Sometimes people make responses to long comments by responding in between paragraphs for clarity. Like all things on wiki it has to be interpreted with common sense. Tyrenius 14:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The whistle register categories

Are sad. Please delete them now as they are now useless to anyone who enjoed them. TAHNK YOU SO MUCH!!! 216.141.226.190 02:51, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed

User AED edited a minor edit on my biography page Mariano Anto Bruno Mascarenhas I pointed out that he has been mistaken. he has taken that personally and nominated the page for deletion under so many criteria. Please have a look and adviceDoctor Bruno 05:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not trying to hate, but....

OK, I stayed off this board all weekend because I was afraid I really would say the wrong thing. Now however I have a few points that you may or may not wish to consider...

Firstly, it is not biologically possible for a singer to be able to sing two notes and not be able to sing a pitch in between. This is biologically impossible. Imagine if you will a guitar string. If you can pluck two distinct pitches by fretting the chrods, you can also pluck any pitch in between those two points. I'll bring the food's assertion (based on himself) that this is possible is false. You are free to ask any voice teacher at ANY college or private instruction and you'll hear the same answer. I implore you to try it. Pick different schools in different states. And call my voice coach, Roger Beale. (404) 766 5066.

Next he says he can produce one pitch an octave above using a trick with his tongue. Nobody would recognize that one pitch. The argument that falsetto is excluded from range holds water only for opera. In opera the standard range of a singer is around two octaves. Falsetto is rarely used (save the countertenor and some odd imitation of a female by a tenor) in operatic music. In "secular" music, the inclusion or exclusion of falsetto is determined by how frequently the notes are produced by the artist. For example, Justin Timberlake is known for his silky, dulce falsetto, so those notes would count to his range.

Secondly, on the controversy surrounding the difference between seventh octave singing and whistle register singing, the differences were meant not to be exclusive. Per whistle register, the whistle register is the range of notes at and above E6 (the E above soprano C). This is registration, it is separate from whistle voice, where the vocal cords are adducted close enough that the voice "whistles" in a smiliar to when you purse your lips together and blow. Thus it is possible to sing in whistle voice below E6 (Mariah in Fantasy, When you Believe) and sing higher than E6 in head voice (Rachelle Ferrell, Jill Scott). No source is going to say a person can sing in both whistle register and seventh octave. The two (contrary to what I'll bring the food believes) is not mutually exclusive. To be added in the seventh octave singer category, one should be able to sing at least a C7, and as such "usually" can and does sing in the sixth octave (lower whistle register) frequently. There is NO source that says outright Minnie Riperton was a seventh octave singer. NONE!!! I promise there is none. She is listed as having a "five-octave vocal range" which to anyone with musical training knows, is a female that can execute the C an octave above Soprano High C as good as a normal soprano can execute the High C. Being able to sing a C7 also requires you to be able to sing above the E6, so therefore, one can sing in whistle register (does that make sense).

Thirdly, I'll bring the food's aseertions on vocal range gap are based on his own voice. I have yet to encounter a professional (or semi-pro) singer with such difficulties. I'll bring the food asserted the following:

In the same way that a singer in 7th octave is not a whistle register singer, Slayer are not a Rock band, despite making Thrash Metal. Thrash metal is a superset of Rock, but it is not actually Rock, they have little in common with The Rolling stones. If one does not sing in whistle register and is not acclaimed for it, one is not a whistle register singer--I'll bring the food 16:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

This statement is akin to saying crimson is not a shade of Red. Ashanti is nothing compared to Aretha Franklin or even Teena Marie, but as an urban music artist, she still falls under the R&B umbrella. A person that can sing a C7 can also sing above E6, the two categories are not mutually exclusive. I REASSERT THIS. The purpose of the whistle register category was to showcase singers who have demonstrated ability to sing the notes (i.e. singing it in at least one song). For example, Mariah Carey is probably one of the most famous expatriates of the whistle register, but Ashanit has the ability, showcased twice (technically three times), once in a recorded song and twice singing the national anthem. The category exists for people to learn about her, not the more famous Mariah (though I love her). A singer may not be as acclaimed for singing in the whistle register, but those are the ones we want to know about. Just because you haven't heard the singer sing in the register doesn't a statement false. That is what truly grates about I'll bring the food's assertion above. The categories once again are based on range, not on whistle voice, which as I stated earlier can start above or below E6 for a particular singer. Every voice is unique.

Fourthly, some (although not all) of the range assertion came from now defunct site called Notes And Octaves. The site, run by a man with a master's degree in music is now defunct. Does that negate the information that once was referenced.

Fifthly, the categories have evolved by consensus of our peers. The inclusion criteria has matured for almost a year and a half. This is a democracy, not an autocratic encyclopedia. If I'll bring the food desires to change the rules of the category, then it should be done according to consensus, not by brow-whipping the rest of us into submission.

Sixthly, we need a clear consensus on what constitutes an acceptable reference. Because if John (owner of the now defunct Note and Octaves), Myke, and I create a site with this information, will we now be derided for not being authorative? I say this because Blu Cantrell's IMDB reference is acceptable for her inclusion in the seventh octave category, but I cannot keep Minnie's piccolo coloratura reference because IMDB is NOT authorative enough, despite also being in the liner notes to her "petals" legacy labum, again, not authorative enough. Minnie Riperton has several asserts to a five octave range, but Debelah Morgan's article can't seem to keep her five-octave vocal range (people assert it to be only 3.5) and she isn't now on the whistle and 7th octave cats anymore. Her five octave reference is right in MSN Music with Minnie Riperton. So why is Minnie in the cat? What is different about Minnie Riperton than Debelah Morgan (is Riperton merely more famous for her gift). That is why the category was created.Frances Bean Cobain was removed (by I'll Bring the food) from the five-octave vocal range article despite an reference from a 2002 Entertainment Weekly article where her mother said she had such a voice. I guess that magazine isn't authoriative enough either.

Seventhly, since when do I require a citation for my own opinion (not posted on an actual page). What is this? t doesn't take a published source to hear a whistle note[citation needed]. Buy a copy of her album and lsten to track 4[citation needed] (approximately 2:42 seconds into the song[citation needed]). Enjoy Antares33712 14:02, 4 August 2006 (UTC) What was that about? That basically told me its time to leave. Then I'll bring the food reports me to an administrator for what? I have bit my tongue but I have a few choice words for him right about now.

Eightly, WP:LIVING is designed to protect the living person from harmful statements that may be damagin to his/her career or reputation. Ability to sing a particular pitch, even if false, does not make the person cited look bad. So the sudden "crackdown" on malicious statements by I'll bring the food is perplexing really.

Off my soapbox I go Antares33712 20:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Category talk:Whistle register singers

Score one point for academic databases! I'm actually (sadly) excited to see what new resources I can access this fall at grad school. Cheers, --Marysunshine 02:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know the feeling! :) Good to have bumped into you, I suspect ;) LinaMishima 02:15, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion/Oxyhydrogen flame

Sorry about reverting your comment, and thank you for understanding that it was accidental. Apparently I didn't see the edit conflict notice. As for User:75.108.54.176, I am almost surprised that he didn't put up Hydrogen for deletion. pstudier 02:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok, it's an easy accident to do :) And yes, quite... the lack of registering or prior edits is very suspicious. I really should go to bed soon, this week is busy at work. What would you say to us two trying to reform the Brown's gas article to make clear the lack of evidence and make it more clearly the coverage of a (most likely certainly a) hoax? Once it's been re-written, there would be less call for AfD, and would provide a useful redirect for the current trend in these quack-esque technologies. LinaMishima 02:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Christina Aguilera

You Tube is a good source for proof of whistle register singing. Singers have been added back onto the whistle register list because of proof from youtube. Stop spoiling people's fun. Proof is proof no matter where is it from. And don't bring up the subject about deaf people because it has absolutely nothing to do with this. deaf people wouldn't remove people from the whistle register list becaues they are unable to verify, but people who aren't are able to verify, like you. So stop manipulating and vandalising wikipedia. We were all happy until you came along. Leave us aloneProf.Magnestormix.

Singers have been added back onto the whistle register list because of proof from youtube

No they have not. All such changes have been removed, for all the reasons previously stated about the problems with using a sound sample on Youtube as a source. Might I remind you to assume good faith. Proof is not proof no matter what - only verifiable proof from recognised sources. If I were to declare that I found moonrock in my fridge and it is made of cheese, I would have proof that the moon was made of cheese. However I am not an expert on the moon, there is no evidence supporting the strange appearance of moonrock in the fridge, and I would certainly not be able to get a science journal to cover the story. I am meerly following Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. I also ask you to join in the project on the whistle catagory talk page to try and find substancial proof for artist's abilities. The very fact I am willing to spend time doing this should show my good intentions. LinaMishima 16:24, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prof. MagneStormix

I have blocked Prof. MagneStormix for 24 hours for the post above. Please let me know if there is any further harassment of this nature. Tyrenius 16:52, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your help on this matter! I'm very pleased to see other editors involved in this, especially Myke, helping constructively to solve the probelm! :) LinaMishima 16:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Myke209 was blocked, but after his constructive dialogue with you, I've unblocked him so you can carry on with the work. Tyrenius 17:08, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw, and the block was justified at the time. But he is now being very helpful. Thank you for assuming good faith on the matter, it should give hope to us all :) LinaMishima 17:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A question about whistle register and sourcing

Would a short (a few seconds) audio clip of a singer accessing whistle register as defined in the article be verifiable enough? If not, I'll keep digging for sources. Crystallina 14:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is the clip you? A homemade clip would be acceptable. you would have to be willing to allow other editors to verify it though, and your clip may be subjected to harsh editing by others depending on its quality. If it is homemade do take a good look at the licenses you choose. I'd go for the creative common's license as I believe it gives you more author rights. You may wish to look it up. But yes homemade is fine. If commercial, you will have to find an authoritive source saying that portion is whistle first. I would accept the classic Carey, or Riperton portions of song's in which everyone knows they hit whistle though. Especially Riperton, she made whistle commercially popular. --I'll bring the food 16:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

authoritive source saying that portion is whistle first

Surely this means that a clip alone is not enough, that an additional respected source (which can hence be referenced) would be needed first stating that the whistle register is accessed. LinaMishima 16:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources (reviews of her new album) for Carey stating songs in which she uses her whistle register, see her article at Mariah Carey.--I'll bring the food 16:53, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, considering I have no Wikipedia article, it wouldn't be about me. I was just wondering if clips would be acceptable sources for the contested singer articles. Of course, that requires a definition of whistle register as any note above X, which if I recall correctly is contested as well. Crystallina 16:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(i am trying to keep you in on discussion - hope i am doing an adequate job--I'll bring the food 16:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

(Thanks, although I watch every page I edit, especially talk pages. I'll be over in a tick to add more) LinaMishima 17:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, i'm confused now, are we talking samples of the whistle register for the whistle register page as I thought we were, or are we talking specific artists?--I'll bring the food 16:55, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Time to continue digging for sources, then. (I was talking about specific articles - just trying to see where I should direct my digging.) Crystallina 16:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As an exception, you may post a sample of any artist's song (30 sec max tho), but if it includes whistle register you cannot label it so without a source, as such would break our OR rule. --I'll bring the food 17:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:65.31.100.170

That's my job... I can't deal with it right now. Leave a warning in your own words if you want. It's just as good. You can also leave some diffs. Otherwise, you can go up a couple of levels of warning in one jump if it's severe. Let me know. Tyrenius 13:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. It will have to wait an hour or two, as I'm not in the right frame of mind right now to be doing this, though. Thank you again! LinaMishima 14:46, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that's a very comprehensive and useful warning for the editor that you left. Tyrenius 17:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They replied on my talk page (it's up near the top, though), thanking me, and appologising. I feared I might have done overkill, but they said they appreciated the careful explainations and including some examples of good edits. I shall have to remember that for the future! LinaMishima 18:03, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A great result. It's a good tactic to expand on the basic message if there's time and it seems worthwhile. I left a note on the user talk page. Tyrenius 18:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! LinaMishima 18:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unsigned comment

Hello. I noticed that you signed my unsigned comment for me here. Thank you! How did you do that? I assume there's a bit of code involved, but haven't found out what it is in any of the help pages. Rohirok 19:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No trouble, I find myself forgetting to sign a fair ammount, too (you'll see me editing with reasons such as "sign, silly..." when I spot that and correct it :P). I have to admit, Wikipedia:Template messages (or rather, the redirect List of templates) is one of my most-visited articles! I never edit without it open, as templates are quite handy. You'll find on the talk page templates a link to Template:Unsigned. With almost all templates, the talk page details how to use it. In this case, you use {subst:unisigned|username|date}, just with an additional pair of { and } around the template. Subst converts the template into the code, speeding things up. There's also an unsigned2 template, which has the username and date the same way around as on the history, making it even easier to use! Happy Wiki editing! LinaMishima 19:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Smile

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

Æon ^{Insane Ward} 20:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Runes

most of it is sourced in the sub-articles Elder Futhark, Anglo-Saxon Futhorc and Younger Futhark, do check those. dab (ᛏ) 22:39, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Original Barnstar
		This is to recognise your responsible, helpful and proactive input into Wikipedia even at an early stage in your editing career. Tyrenius 00:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can copy it onto your user page if you want! Tyrenius 00:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your user page

I look forward to the end result. Those user boxes have a life of their own! Tyrenius 04:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's 5.30 am here as well. :) Tyrenius 04:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Images

You might be interested to follow and/or contribute to this conversation. Tyrenius 19:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be shy

Good initiative, but you must change it from Guideline to an essay, or you'll get hauled over the coals. Where's your partner's page. I'd like to see it! Tyrenius 13:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See essay. Anyone can write an essay, but a guideline needs to go through a process of community approval and gain consensus (NB spelling). Tyrenius 13:58, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've sorted out a couple of minor points (including the spelling of "consensus" :-) ) and minor rewords to the "Votes are misnamed" section, which despite its heading twice refers to votes and voting (as such, not to "votes" in quotes to show they aren't really votes, if you see what I mean) - hope that's OK.

I wonder if the essay should also point out that it's a good idea to take a short while to see what the conventions are before jumping in with both feet, though. Also might it point out (yet again!) that "votes" and so on should be signed? Tonywalton | Talk 13:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you said on the Village Pump, be bold pretty much covers editing, I'd say. WP:SHY is more about contributing to process, and a very good idea too! Tonywalton | Talk 14:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disturbed Genre

In reverting other people's changes, some editors have removed my attempt to bring a compromise on genre until concensus can be reached. Namely, the removal of Nu Metal, which should be in the genre list thanks to it being stated in the article. I've posted yet another thread on the talk page about this issue, and I would appreciate it if you would join in the process of establishing a definative set of genres verifiable by references.

Whilst I certainly agree with your reasoning about them not being heavy metal, remember that without references this is original research, and hence cannot be used to enforce editing decisions. Likewise, my use of your argument combined with the fact some people think they are heavy to allow the alternative metal genre is also original research. Thank you for your help in trying to maintain a good article - now let's get references so we can finally stop this from happening on an official level. LinaMishima 07:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that Disturbed is Heavy Metal.I never gave an opinion.The one way we could finish is to start a survey.I've seen it work before.I've learned not to get to deep into arguements that include genre for eventually it will lead to vandalism/another edit war.But still my recomendation is to start a survey/vote. -SOADLuver

It's ok.I agree not to mess with Disturbed genre until it's al sorted out.If things get really bad though you may want to bring in an administrator.-SOADLuver

Yeah just hang in there.Some will just keep reverting to get on your nerves and don't wan to be proven wrong.But eventually it will be sorted out

WV feature request

I responded to your request. User:Eagle_101/WikiVoter/Features#Correctness_checking_and_civility. —— Eagle (ask me for help) 05:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for deletion

On Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Google's hoaxes you commented,

Above changed to speedy keep, as original nominator seems to be suggesting Merge instead of delete, and this follows a different procedure to AfD. LinaMishima 01:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Unless you are aware of something I am not, merging can certainly be the business of AfD -- particularly as in my nomination, where I was advocating only merging the very basics of Google's hoaxes back into Google and dropping the rest of it. Templates like {{merge}} are great if an article has hardly been worked on and nobody's going to have significant opposition to the merge, but where there might be disagreement, why not bring it to AfD? If I may quote Wikipedia:Articles for deletion:

Articles for Deletion (AfD) is where Wikipedians discuss whether an article should be deleted. Articles listed here are debated for up to five days ... The page is then either kept, merged and/or redirected, transwikied (moved to another Wikimedia project, such as Wikibooks, Wikisource, Wikiquote, Wiktionary, or another language's Wikipedia ...

— GT 06:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Coining

I can't say I fully disagree with you. I had been under the impression this could be a place where people where enthusiastic and collaborative about documentation. Maybe I'm just new. You guys should be on this like 'white on rice'. I wonder where that phrase came from...

Zana Dark 15:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sub pages

Please note you should use a forward slash, not a backward slash for sub pages, so I moved one to: User:LinaMishima/Brown's gas. Tyrenius 16:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whistle register

Why isn't Christina allowed to be in the whistle register list.kelly Clarkson is and there is no proof and most of the people in the list have proof from youtube. You can check it.

the proof problem is always the same, but sometimes we have the proof but have no article to add, see Myke209 user-talk page, to the "adding names" topic.

List of people with epilepsy

Many thanks for taking the time to review this list, and for your support. Cheers, Colin°^Talk 13:24, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Newcomer's Barnstar

You're very welcome! Just in case you were thinking of doing so, I'm going to go ahead and link to the actual archived posts from each of your summary bullets, if you don't mind. Λυδ α cιτγ 01:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your reversions of original research/vandalism

The recent rv'ing and in-fighting you have dealt with on removing original research and dealing with subsequent vandalism by users as they revert to their version has been dealt with impeccably, and i have noticed it.--I'll bring the food 13:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		LM is an utterly exceptional user and dilligent contributor. I'll bring the food 13:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Lopez

Someone is vandalising her discography page. They boost up her album and singles sales. For instance they said her first album sold 5.3 mill in the US(it sold 3.3 mill) and 11 mill worldwide(7 mill actually). I Have reverted the changes but they keep coming back and doing the same thing. There is no proof, but I provided proof for her real album sales and they took them off. They also claim that she has sol 71 million records worldwide, though most reliable sources say 25-35 million. Can you please do something about it like blocking them. I would really appreciate it. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Phoenix V (talk • contribs) 16:40, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is the official RIAA site that has all of J.Lo's certifications in the US: [1]

Here is the official Sony BMG site that explains her album sales =[2]

Edit summaries when tagging for AfD

Hello, I thought I'd just drop you a reminder that it's good practice to add an edit summary stating "AfD" or the similar when tagging an article for AfD. This makes tracking the history of the article much clearer, and is generally considered civil to other editors. Thank you, and good call on Pokemon Natures - just remember the edit summary next time :P LinaMishima 08:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I know... I thought of this just after I had saved the page... I had meant to include it. If I ever tag an article again I'll be sure to include that.--Coltonblue 17:45, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Taking onboard feedback

I've taken some aboard on the sub-pages of my talk. please see them if you wish to add any further ideas or commentary. I have rewritten [3] also, based on criticism from varying sources. I would eventually seek to have the or-1 warning replaced with a variant of this, and an or-2 and or-3 created, with new policies integrated to enforce it as policy.--I'll bring the food 03:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the revert

Thanks for the revert on my userpage. Big-time vandal right there. I had to revert him again when I got back home; I wonder what I did to tick him off... -→Buchanan-Hermit ™/?! 01:20, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

thanks

Sorry I was in a hurry when I edited that article - I had meant to do it exactly on the lines you suggested. I will come back some time and sort it out. Please keep up the good work. Dbuckner 14:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the Latin motto. Are you sure cuiusdam shouldn't be cuiscumque? I'm not an expert of course. Dbuckner 14:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad

What the heck do you mean "Please don't start a jihad against wikipedia"?!

Read the discussion page!

We discussed the introductory statement ad nauseam.

You may have failed to notice that Wikipedia is a non-Islamic encyclopedia.

Editorius 14:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point across Nicely

I am a user of only kind words-and through out my life have never found any thing good when words are arranged to speak harshly. Translation seems to be the base of my misunderstandings especially here where internationally all readers compound to what they are reading from their particular source. The more I think about this the more I fear to contribute. If someone says something from the other side of the world and I translate it differently failing to see the underlining intentions behind the subject, and as would be the same with my contributions, and to scholars of particular expertise. A middle ground is what our brains are for (center where two poles meet) my complements to this discussion.Kisida 20:08, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone is using a sockpuppet at Muhammad

Does this edit history look at all suspicious to you?

Since you have committed yourself to maintaining neutrality in this dispute, can I ask whether you have any interest in finding out who it might be? BYT 16:31, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trail and Error

I am still rather new here and have made many errors, and hopefully I have learned how to investigate thoroughly before I edit in the discussion pages only. I have read a lot of discussions on sockpuppets and noticed lots of newcomers have to go through this identity crisis until they have established some neutral ground. I am conscientious and at first I thought my intentions were misunderstood. I assumed someone would talk to me on my talk page in some conversational sense to distinguish weather or not; if I were to be considered a threat. I do assume too much sometimes, now knowing how many millions of edits there are to deal with. I think a more direct approach toward the newcomers that seem to be just green at this, need some kind of anchor to distinguish their intentions are to remain neutral. I know if I were approached by someone asking me not to edit in a particular discussion area and introduced good reason why my entry dose not belong or how I may seem to be on a tangent to some readers. I would refrain from making entries and thank the person for the clarified advice and for using kind words to make their point. I think feedback sometimes should be more direct to prevent any gilt forming in newcomers which in turn starts another rise of frustration to identify with.Kisida 17:52, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lina!

Don't bloody tell me what to do with my personal page!!! --End of our communication-- Editorius 20:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure

Nice to meet you as well. I only reverted one, as I can see the propriety in the link, but someone has to go back and unbold all those links. Argh! Such is life...Kukini 20:38, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the extra work , I really would have done it. :) Okay, so I should go to each page and add a request on the User Talk page to have the link included by the admin of that page. Thanks for your help Kukini and LinaMishima. Radyx 21:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re Muhammad

Hi Lina. I've protected the article because if the edit warring. I've protected the page because of the false statements (i.e. concensus has been reched someday; which is not the case) by some users who keep reverting. I'll not be engaged in the discussion anyway as i have plenty of other stuff to do. -- Szvest 12:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will like to improve the suggested intro. by Tigoss but please give me some time. I hope to improve it a bit in next few hours (after some sleep). best regards --- Faisal 16:31, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Irwin

If you would like to pay tribute to Steve Irwin, who tragically died on September 4th 2006, just feel free to sign your name on Mil Falcon's userpage under tributes. 49Untouchable 18:08, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Esoteric programming languages

I'm going to keep deleting them all for now. Considering the large amount of articles and the sheer amount of time that it takes to do this all, I'm willing to put some in your userspace but at a limited rate. Also, please bear in mind the GFDL, in which everyone needs to be credited. I also invite you to assist in redirecting all deleted articles to the main one. This is a Wiki after all. :) Yank sox 22:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Forseeing what was going to happen, I exported the lot (complete with history). If you like I may be able to email them to you sometime; the main problem is that something went wrong with the spaces due to the download process so some of the examples have ended up as gibberish. Note also that as Esolang is public domain, you can use their articles, many of which were similar to Wikipedia's, without worrying about history (although a note about the source would be nice). --ais523 14:50, 9 September 2006 (U T C)

At the moment I'm editing from a public computer, so I don't have the archive with me at the moment, but I'll email you as soon as I get the chance. --ais523 15:20, 9 September 2006 (U T C)

Name change poll

As per your request:

Talk:Allegations_of_state_terrorism_by_United_States_of_America#Requested_move

Please add your input to this issue. Travb (talk) 01:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your input. I wish I would have asked you to comment before the straw poll closed. We had two alternate suggestions, you could have added a third. My mistake for not alerting you before the straw poll closed. Sorry. See: Allegations of state terrorism by United States of America/strawpolls, there are also sections on a name change on the mediation page.

I was hoping for a simple up or down decision on Political violence by the United States, because now we are grappling with another potential new title change suggesion. This debate has been waging for 5 weeks now.

I am not going to answer your long question, first, because I really don't know how to answer your question, and second, I am really burned out on trying to get a name change. At this point, to have come some far and have to grapple with another potential new title change suggesion is really discouraging for me. Maybe your suggestion will be the one which unites everyone together, if it does, I will need to treat you to steak dinner for your feat of genius. :)

Thanks for yout input. Happy wikiediting. Travb (talk) 02:25, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Informed and mob consensus

Lina, could you possibly move the above section to your talk page or a subsection, as it's not in an appropriate place on the project page at the moment. The idea was to keep all personal speculation away from this page and restrict it to links to personal statements via the 'discontented' list. Much appreciated and sorry to ask this. Dbuckner 15:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mediator question

Can you provide a link to that consensus please? Wiki eZach| talk 21:05, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Respect privacy

Is there any particular reason you chose me to review your proposed policy? Am I supposed to have violated its principles at some stage? I've contributed to quite a number of biographical articles, but only ever with information that's already in the public domain. JRawle (Talk) 00:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, when you said "author of the above", I thought you meant the comment (and that you forgot to log in or something). Well, it was late at night!

I know I left a note for someone who removed persondata from Ian McDiarmid, but as the other editor said, all the persondata information was already in the article anyway. I just pointed out that the persondata is intended to duplicate information as it's for a different purpose. User:B cubed has now added the persondata back anyway. JRawle (Talk) 11:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AIV reports

Please make sure a user has had a recent final warning (within the last couple of hours) before reporting to AIV. And if the final warning hasn't been given, please give it. Thanks! NawlinWiki 17:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the unauthorised content link - could you suggest it be put on the Wikiproject Songs page, as their interpretation is different. Theirs is that infringement is ok as long as the holder isn't prosecuting which I feel is incorrect. LuciferMorgan 22:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to my userpage

I could not fail to notice that you have edited my userpage, without any explanation. Such an explanation would be most appreciated. --Thorsen 05:52, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

moving article

Re: User_talk:Wikizach#Suggested_renaming_of_an_article_you_are_moderating

I suggest putting the article up for a move now. Stone seems MIA. I am going to ask the moderator to move it ASAP. I will close the other move suggest no consensus, you are welcome to do this now.Travb (talk) 15:04, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Allegations pages

Hi Lina. Sorry if I bit you earlier, I was mistaken and tired after reading too many of what I perceive to be Zerofaults' notorious partisan obfuscations and circular arguments. I've looked at your sandbox list of allegations pages and totally agree with your responses. The one page which I was involved in was allegations of tourist apartheid in Cuba, Cuba being my topic of interest on wikipedia. That page was written largely by experienced editors (transferred from another page) and one arbitrator. I've looked at a few others and removed much material on the terrible "allegations labelled by country" which I was drawn to due to it having unsourced material about Cuba. I was removing material case-by-case so as to allow editors a chance to source the material. I appreciate any other input to sort these pages out. The criteria for the state terrorism pages must be an even playing field for all.--Zleitzen 02:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response on my talk page.Travb (talk) 02:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another page to analyse for your sandbox: List of anti-American terrorist incidents.--Zleitzen 10:08, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sidebar redesign final vote!

It's that special, special time! No, grandma's not coming over. No, not time to clean out the fridge. It's sidebar redesign voting time! Yes, the community has narrowed it down to 3 different options, and a vote for the same old original sidebar is a choice one could vote for as well. Voting for multiple options is allowed, and discussion on the whole shebang is right there on the vote page itself.

You're probably getting this message because the sidebar fairy (JoeSmack for now) noticed you commented on the project at some time over on at Wikipedia talk:Village pump (proposals)/Sidebar redesign. Lovely. JoeSmack ^Talk 06:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your refactors to EmDrive AfD

It is not without good reason that refactoring of AfDs is generally only encouraged if there is a significant problem. In this case there was not, and in doing so you mangled the indentation, changing what was being replied to. Far more importantly, you chose to edit people's comments, which is distinctly discouraged and disliked. Even if you think someone could have been politer, you ask them to change their AfD comment, even if it will have little overall effect. LinaMishima 01:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NO, I didn't "edit any comments". I moved a vote incorrectly added to the top to the bottom as per proper procedure and I added keep' or comment in front of some keep votes or comments, and I added signatures to various unsigned votes which would have been useless without a signature. Far from protest, you should be glad for my good work in cleaning up this AfD. Also, you should see the comment I just added. ---CH 02:13, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Thanks

Hey there, i'm happy to be able to contribute a little too after what you have all done for the article. The user obviously didn't care too much about warnings, he edited genres randomly on about 10 articles that partially also have discussions about their genre. Reverted them where i knew the band and the music, but i didnt know all of them, so that might be something someone who does know them might want to go over again. - - 'twsx'talk'cont' 19:10, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright violation

as per your request Opiner 01:02, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Esolangs

Hi,

Sorry about the delay in responding, but I've blocked those Esolangs out of my mind for as long as I could! :) So you know, starting today, I am relisting five per day on AfD, in the order in which they were listed on the overturned previous AfD. This should accomodate your efforts.

As for templates, they are not my forte. If you haven't already figured something out, AzaToth or Tawker would be great folks to talk to. Best wishes, Xoloz 15:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ultimate Wikdown of Pedia Destiny

Congrats!

Congrats LinaMishima. You have been a participant in The Ultimate Wikdown of Pedia Destiny, as Abraham Lincoln.

Darkness Lord | T | C 22:35, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Disturbed editwars..

The war in Disturbed continues. I try to do my best editing what obviously is mindless vandalism, however, a little situation evolved. As you may have noticed, i am kind of new in this place, and therefor don't quite know for sure sure how to deal with it. A few days ago, someone added a line mentioning the common disagreement over the genre. I found this redundant and malicious, not only because it kind of disgraces the people it is about, but also because then hundreds of bands articles would need that information. Now it went a step further, as someone added the POV and disputed tags. I could just remove the edits once more, but i feel like i am the only person reverting almost every change made, and i am not quite sure when and when not critics like that line or things like those tags ought to be. Long story short, i wanted to ask you, a more expirienced wikipedian, if you could take a look into it, if you find the time.

Thanks a lot. - - 'twsx'talk'cont' 22:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw your sign on your userpage. I reverted the edits now, when you are back from your pause, maybe you can check it, if you feel like. Enjoy your break! - - 'twsx'talk'cont' 22:09, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for spamming your userpage like that during your absence. Just wanted to tell you to ignore all that i wrote here. :) The "attack" seems to be over, it only gets vandalized every once in a while, so everything is back to normal again. Thanks anyway! - - 'twsx'talk'cont' 22:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Verifiability rather than Notability.

Hi. You state "Verifiability should be used for article existence, not notability.". I was wondering, how do you get verifiabilty without notability? Taemyr (talk) 14:16, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Centralized TV Episode Discussion

Over the past months, TV episodes have been reverted by (to name a couple) TTN, Eusebeus and others. No centralized discussion has taken place, so I'm asking everyone who has been involved in this issue to voice their opinions here in this centralized spot, be they pro or anti. Discussion is here [4]. --Maniwar (talk) 00:28, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

=Comment on J.Whales page

hello there, you had left a comment on deletion policy, regarding some offensive commments, can you tell me how to go about requesting this? This is involving my younger sister who is very upset about comments being made about her on the internet, you will have to excuse her, we lost our mother this past year, and she is very traumatized and perhaps quick to anger. Please refer me to someone who can delete this stuff off the net, having a page dedicated to her like this is further harming and escalating the issue. Sorry if I am not going about this the correct way, I honestly don't know what I am doing or where to go. This is the web site dedicated to her, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Precious_Roy/sockproblems

About your userpage

Now I discover that moves are underway to remove nearly all articles on individual episodes of TV shows

I'm not doubting you but was wondering were this information is so I can read up on it myself sorry for any inconvenience this may cause you --Sin Harvest (talk) 11:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for, that I know how you feel I got involved in an article and acted in a way I normally don't I'm just going to leave that article alone now. I also just ran into "Request for arbitration" over a merging war of individual episodes into shorter list of episodes I can't believe I missed this before. Anyway thanks for pointing it out for me I really appreciate it --Sin Harvest (talk) 04:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No response from Conflicto

...er, I guess I mean "No response from Jimbo". Safely archived away without too many people noticing. I know I'm never donating money to this site again. - John Russ Finley (talk) 21:03, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Homeopathy

Please note that serious scientist are researching homeopathy. Please look at my last to references on the RfA page. Ref 2 is published in Chest and has lead to a larger trail Ref 3. Anthon01 (talk) 14:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Homeopathy

I don't think it's necessary to debate the subject on the RfArb. —Whig (talk) 15:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied on your talk page - I agree. LinaMishima (talk) 15:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No need to debate further, and no apology needed, neither of us raised the subject, both of us commented briefly. Further discussion can be had in appropriate talk pages if you wish. —Whig (talk) 21:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lina, do you know of any higher instance here that can decide such a matter? Is there some type of ArbCom Science Committee that can deal with such issues? The question does need to be settled. -- Fyslee / talk 02:44, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Homeopathy

Thanks for your message. I just opened an RFC at Talk:Homeopathy#RFC: Should homeopathy be described as quackery in the intro? where I am sure you will want to comment. MilesAgain (talk) 05:13, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Lina: I sense you intentions are good, but do you realize that there is a major attempt to sanitize WP of Psci concepts? The removal of all mention of homeopathy in plant pages is being carried out, against the counsel of WP editors who are experts in the plant field. A reference database from the Museum of Natural History (obviously written by botanist) which states the uses of plants for making homeopathic remedies has been labeled as insufficient. It feels like a book burning. The box on the homoepathy page is just the beginning. The creators of the box will look to place it on every page the consider to be pseudoscience. Please consider this in your edits. Anthon01 (talk) 15:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not talking about the Oxford Book, but as Isaid above, A reference database from the Museum of Natural History (obviously written by botanists). All attempts to keep those one sentence mentions is being rebuffed. Anthon01 (talk) 15:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't forget to vote on the Psci info box.[5]Anthon01 (talk) 15:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry. I see you already have. Anthon01 (talk) 15:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, the same editors who want the Psci box up are the same editors who want to exclude homeopathy from most if not all, plant pages.[6][7] [8] [9] You'll find many of them active on all these pages. Anthon01 (talk) 16:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Lina...it is nice to come to your page (for a change). Because you are a serious student of water and physics, I'm curious if you've gotten a chance to review the site of water scientist Martin Chaplin. Check out his short section on homeopathy [10] and his follow-up section on the memory of water [11]. To me, too many people have no respect for the mysteries of water. The New Scientist's article on "The Quantum Elixir" may also be intriguing to you: [12] I look forward to more dialogue with you. Dana Ullman ^Talk 06:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't walk away

We've got the POV-pushers on the run. They're becoming more and more shrill with each passing loss. Look at what they've done at Category:Pseudoscience. I think that this may qualify as a tendetious deletion. ScienceApologist (talk) 20:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The article Introduction to evolution

was never really wanted or needed. I had to argue hard to get people to reluctantly do it. During the FA process many many people said it wasn't needed or should be dumped. And one or two extremely disruptive editors drove off all other editors from the article, or from Wikipedia.

So unless someone can convince me otherwise, I have decided they are right. Let's put the article up for AfD. I think they are right. Until WP starts to value productivity and established editors more than nurturing disruptive editors, it is not worth fighting them to try to produce. I removed the part you thought was an "attack" although it was not that. It was an acquiescence and surrender.--Filll (talk) 04:49, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)

Have you been following this? Hopeless. Far too many cooks. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 05:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Have been very good and shown maturity and understanding, and an ability to engage with others. Thanks. --RDOlivaw (talk) 14:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I congratulate you

on your posts at expert withdrawal. DGG (talk) 03:11, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

QED

I really encourage you to view the lecture by Richard Feynman which I posted at User talk:Anthon01#QED. This may be considered a V and RS source, without any question, on the subject of QED. His examples are generally electromagnetic fields (photons/electrons) interacting with water. —Whig (talk) 08:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar!

		The Barnstar of Peace
		For the best effort I've yet seen at resolving the impasse at Homeopathy, I award you this well-deserved Barnstar of Peace. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 20:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm obviously terribly upset to see you go, but I'm holding out some hope that once you get some time away from this, you might be willing to come charging in again. Don't tell me if that's a completely vain hope; I'd rather live with a vain hope than with hopelessness (which makes it odd that I'm an atheist, really).

I agree with most of your analysis there; to be honest, I was watching the reaction of the pro-homeopaths to try to see who might be open to compromise, in the hopes that we could start up a little working group of the moderates on each side. Sadly, I didn't see any emerge among the pro-homeopaths. As you said, though, we have some people on the pro-science side who aren't helping too: User:Randy Blackamoor doesn't seem to want a resolution, and User:Orangemarlin isn't being precisely reasonable when he suggests that WP:WEIGHT requires that the homeopathy article should be primarily a rebuttal of homeopathy.

Anyway, I'll continue trying to help, but I don't have any confidence that I'll be able to take the lead on this. I make a few points and then, the next time I log in, there are fifty new comments on the page...it's just too overwhelming to continue. I'll try to make good use of the power to speak on your behalf, though, and I'm honoured to have had it bestowed on me.

Happy editing. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 05:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note

"Science, in the broadest sense, refers to any system of knowledge which attempts to model objective reality. In a more restricted sense, science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research."

So I would like to keep the talk page from getting too cluttered. The research shortfalls are being addressed, as methodology is evolving as to how to adequately test globally and specific conditions and techniques. As you know this takes time. So a system of acquiring knowledge on homeopathy is developing. Consider that homeopathy is being practiced by MD, PA, RN, DC, ND, DO. Their adoption of homeopathy will influence the evolution of homeopathy research.

Another point is dilutions. Some homeopaths use only lower dilution below 12c or 24x. Since material exist in these lower dilutions the plausibility is far from nil.

I don't take Times comment too seriously. I know they are a reliable source, but if Time made that comment we should be able to find their source for that statement; that is a science or medical journal. I don't think Time magazine should be the primary vehicle for medical opinion. Regarding the BBC, you and I may think it unethical, but we need a RS that says that to avoid violating WP:NOR. Anthon01 (talk) 01:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you realize the medicine has issues withS traditional procedures that have not undergone the scientific process. If I understand you correctly in "whilst we have to label the questionable claim to being a science" you agree with the "questionable science" label is the appropriate one as per WP: policy? If so, then I suggest you clarify your first point, regarding pseudoscience. I understand the concept of weak synthesis, however building materials are easier to fit under a label; Unethical is a formidable condemnation to place upon a profession. Turning the section label "Ethics" into a sentence would be OR. I think the topic has to be handled carefully as to not indict all homeopaths. In fact, it is important to assess the prevalence of such 'unethical' beliefs among homeopaths in order to determine how the issue of ethics should be approached and how much attention it should be given. And I'm afraid ethics in the lead isn't going to fly. I would consider supporting it if it was explicitly stated in NPOV sources. Anthon01 (talk) 02:52, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving

Hi. Thanks for your note, and your efforts. I'll do my best (but I doubt it will be as good as your attempts). I have left a longer note on my talk page. Yours, --RDOlivaw (talk) 10:06, 30 January 2008 (UTC) (fellow Russell Group graduate, Nottm '02,'06)[reply]

Thank you

		The Services to Science Award
		Thanks for all the fish, LinaMishima, and for working to dispel the yapping terriers of ignorance. Remember to have fun! dave souza, talk 10:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Homeopathy article probation

Please see Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation. Thank you. Jehochman ^Talk 17:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(I am assuming that your talk page header means a reply here is prefered) Thank you! I had considered null editing the page to indicate that I have been informed, however after publicly withdrawing from the topic, I did not want to stir things up and be accused of returning to editing on the matter. I am, however, still following the events on the article and talk page. LinaMishima (talk) 19:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New ShortCut

On my editing break, I've created a shortcut that you might find useful. WP:PSCI. Cheers. Anthon01 (talk) 23:02, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PSci info box

Hi, sorry for responding to Dana's baiting in the deletion request you've started. I'm not convinced by it either way. I think it should probably go as it's needlessly devisive, and is not very pretty. But I'm also aware that Ullman and his ilk will see it as a victory. Anyway, I hope you well --RDOlivaw (talk) 16:58, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to say your contributions in this whole homeopathy/pseudoscience debate are refreshingly neutral and logical. David D. (Talk) 17:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Sexualised Content

You may want to sign your comment there. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:04, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank for the reminder! LinaMishima (talk) 03:15, 21 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AN/I Notice

Hello, LinaMishima. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding the dispute between the Dungeons & Dragons WikiProject and Gavin.collins. Thank you. -- BOZ (talk) 18:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin.collins RFC/U

Hello. A request for comment on user conduct has recently been filed regarding Gavin.collins. Since you commented on the dispute regarding his disruptive edits, I thought that you would want to know. You can see the RFC/U here. Thank you. BOZ (talk) 00:12, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Avoiding bad dreams

I just came across a message you wrote over 13 months ago, and I can really sympathize with what you wrote; I've felt the same way often here. I agree that we're winning by walking away, and I've done that several times, too. But that isn't always possible or desirable. In those cases, we can still win something, although at more of an effort.

When a dog barks at me unexpectedly, I will always be startled. But that doesn't give me bad dreams. So why do we get bad dreams when humans bark at us? I believe the difference is that it's harder to accept. And that, I believe, comes from the difference of our expectations. Thus, once I'm over the immediate shock of being startled, I lower my expectations. Figuratively, I imagine the person is a dog. (I don't mean that cynically; I love animals.) That allows me to accept their behavior as a part of nature and sets my mind free for other thoughts. Such as dispassionately (but compassionately) studying the other's behavior. Another possible thought is: People act this way because life rewards them for it. What is it that rewards people for such behavior? When I'm mediating, then I can influence the conditions such that good behavior is rewarded more often. So, I sometimes decide to practice this here, even when I could walk away, because it is a great exercise for real life situations from which I can't walk away. Just an idea; maybe you can try it out some time, too. — Sebastian 05:36, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Man-Faye (4th nomination)

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Man-Faye (4th nomination). --Gwern (contribs) 11:16 4 August 2010 (GMT) 11:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})[reply]

Wikipedia:SHY listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Wikipedia:SHY. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:SHY redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Si Trew (talk) 01:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, LinaMishima. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]