User talk:David from Downunder

I like to keep both sides of my discussions together, so if you leave me a message here, I will reply here. If I left a question on your talk page, please reply there; I'm watching your page so I will get back to you as soon as possible. Thanks!

Albert Lee[edit]

Hi, I have no doubt that Eric made the statement you added to Albert's article ("The greatest guitarist in the world") I agree with him 100%, but do you have a source for this statement please? It won't fly for long unless it's sourced. Iv'e done a search but I can't find anything. Where does this statement come from please? Best wishes, Lion King 16:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lion King... This quote recently appeared in a Sydney newspaper article written by Bruce_Elder (who also happened to have been my high school English teacher 36 years ago.) I sent an email to the paper asking for a source, but have not received a reply. It is also widely quoted on the internet. Thanks for the feedback - I see that you've deleted it. David Broadfoot 10:44, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David, a source from any reliable internet site will be fine. Please feel free to reinsert, it's a really great quote! Cheers, Lion King 13:37, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of the internet sites quote their source - they are probably just parroting each other anyway. Here is the article by Bruce_Elder [1]. We could always say 'It's widely quoted that Clapton is on record as saying Lee is "the greatest guitarist in the world".' !! David Broadfoot 15:22, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's perfect! I've put it in, nice one David! Cheers, Lion King 15:47, 7 September 2007 (UTC) P.S. I've added Emmy's quote too - great article! Lion King[reply]

Crikey! I was just joking! Oh well, now we can say that 'It is on record that it's widely quoted that Clapton is on record as saying Lee is "the greatest guitarist in the world".' David Broadfoot 00:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Iv'e seen statements linked to far more tenuous sources. If it's challenged, we'll have to try and come up with Eric's original statement. Cheers! Lion King 14:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, David from Downunder, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please 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 ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!

Martial arts[edit]

Saw your edits on the BJJ page and wondered it you would be interested in joining WikiProject Martial arts. Good edits by the was thanks! --Nate1481(^t/_c) 11:49, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I just joined it. Thanks Nate. David Broadfoot 12:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting[edit]

Yes, the undo function is nice for fixing a single vandalism edit, but in case a vandal has done several edits in a row, or several different users vandalized it gets unusable. In that case simply pick the last good version in the editing history, then press "Edit this page" (note you will see the warning "This is an old revision of this page..." at top) and save it with a fitting editing comment. Admin users have another function named "rollback" which can undo several consecutive edits of a single user/IP in a row. For the full description see Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism. andy 11:16, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Twinkle is amazingly useful for this. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 11:38, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BJJ links[edit]

What do you make of the other link added by User:Grappling Arts here? might be legit but might need removing. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 10:25, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that it a forum reverting....--Nate1481(^t/_c) 10:26, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I also did a search and deleted all references to www.bjj.eu.com on wikipedia. The list of 'future' events, for example, contained very little on BJJ, and it was a user-updated list containing entries that were *all* in the past, not the future. I just saw it as a poor site/reference and possibly self-marketing. --David Broadfoot 17:39, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

extra links (for lists)[edit]

Fair enough make seance to me, sam reason I try to link all the arts on the MA page lists, unfortunately next passing AWB run will probably remove it... --Nate1481(^t/_c) 16:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BJJ History[edit]

You mentioned on the BJJ talk page you were looking into it's evolution. One of the other contributors User:Loudenvier who lives in Brazil and studies both may be able to help you. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 09:56, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sambo[edit]

I was removing the purely national ones as internationals were listed will fix it later --Nate1481(^t/_c) 16:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

spam[edit]

Best thing is to request Admin help, if you use WP:Twinkle its the 'arv' tab on the userpage if not its Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard and the apropreate sub page (linked @ the top). Think I've twinkled away most of his links (it allows 1 click reverts) --Nate1481(^t/_c) 10:11, 30 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Merchant on Jonathan Ross[edit]

You deleted a reference from List of Atheists claiming that the Dec 24th 2005 edition of Jonathan Ross on Radio 2 doesn't exist. What makes you think it doesn't exist? Jonathan Ross's show was presented by Ricky Gervais that week, as Ross was on holiday. Marwood (talk) 10:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't mention Radio 2, so I was just looking up the Jonathan Ross show episodes listed at IMDB.com and of course it wasn't listed. Anyway, the quote from that show doesn't show that Merchant is an atheist, just that he is "not religious", so I still think it shouldn't be reinstated. --David Broadfoot (talk) 13:37, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of atheists revert[edit]

My reverting your addition of a source was accidental, I was just reverting the addition of an unsourced example (hence the edit summary). Unfortunately, I guess in between the time I opened my watchlist and got to the revert you had added a source for another example which I missed, so my revert took that out too. I have no objection to the source you provided. --TM 07:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Thank you. Need to be careful - the wiki does warn about such conflicts when you try to save. --David Broadfoot (talk) 07:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks[edit]

That was more the Dyslexia showing though, I for got to proof read that page arter i did it ages ago. Thanks again --Nate1481(^t/_c) 13:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers for clearing that up while I was offline. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 10:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Judo scoreboards[edit]

I see you've put the sentence about electronic scoreboards back into the judo page. The reason I removed it was because it was unclear and incomplete. The way it's phrased implies that the scoreboard is always a string of three digits. While they often are, obviously there are variations, and more to the point there is almost always decoration indicating what score is what. Would you describe the scoreboards shown at [2] (an example picked largely at random), with obviously separated boxes for each score, as "110"? 129.16.97.227 (talk) 12:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wonder what "largely at random" means? Spacing between digits is not of any significance. This is particularly so, given that spectators are advised to read the score as if it was a three-digit number for simple comparison of who's ahead. In any case, a Google image search[3] indicates that more often than not, there are no spaces between the digits. As for the decoration issue, that sentence was not trying to describe judo scoreboards, it was merely describing how wazari/yuko/koka are displayed - not a good reason to remove something due to incompleteness. You can add a subsection on judo scoreboards if you like, but you'd have to avoid being too specific. Whereabouts in Oz are you? --David Broadfoot (talk) 05:29, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have already expanded the scoreboard info a few days ago. Thanks. I have moved it to a new section, and re-introduced the electronic example together with the print example. --David Broadfoot (talk) 05:44, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tamara Davies[edit]

Following your comment on the Anne Archer discussion page, I noticed that some of the unsourced (and possibly fake) BJJ info had crept back into the Tamara Davies biography. Was it your impression that someone was trying to insert fictitious info into WP to create the appearance of widespread celebrity support for BJJ? If so, it may be worth checking with people at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Community_Portal whether more needs to be done about this. Cheers, Jayen 466 23:24, 28 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the late reply. No, I didn't think that they were doing it to give the appearance of widespread celebrity support for BJJ - I think they just want to disrupt WP and the BJJ thing was just a running gag: something that might be a bit preposterous. As the info is unsourced, it can simply be deleted. They now have matching info in IMBD about her practicing BJJ, but it appears that IMDB is just publishing unsupported claims from someone with a hotmail address - probably the same person who put the info in WP. --David Broadfoot (talk) 06:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okeydoke, thanks for getting back. -- Jayen 466 00:56, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to VandalProof![edit]

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, David Broadfoot! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. β^_command 03:05, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ashida Kim[edit]

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Ashida Kim, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 06:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judo[edit]

Hopefully they will get bored, as there are 3+ people fixing it, next step would be semi-protection, in the hope that frustrates them long enough to give up, but if you remember the User:DrParkes thing that can take 6 months+ if they are very stubborn --Nate1481(^t/_c) 14:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am new to Wikipedia, but that name rings a bell. I looked at his talk page and only saw issues for one day (12 March 2007). This BJJ-versus-Judo thing is quite bizarre. It's like a religious war. The Gracies' many claims are quite bizarre. Like Helio's "never defeated" claim. And I just buried his claim that he fought the longest fight ever (see Helio Gracie.) I am continually coming up against BJJers who think that the techniques they are using were invented by the Gracies, so I inform them that it's an old Judo technique... and tell them the name in Japanese for good measure.

P.S. Yes... our pressing 'undo' is a lot less work than their edits! --David Broadfoot (talk) 14:59, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh looked back at the page, doesn't mention the 10ish sockpuppets he created and Barry Ley etc. one of them went round trying to revert every edit I'd made, just after I'd done an AWB clean up run... --Nate1481(^t/_c) 15:11, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I did a bit of searching. What a nutter. This YouTube video[4] is titled "WORLD CLASS BRAZILIAN JIU JITSU TOURNEMENT FEATURING BARRY LEY" - wow, a "world class" blue belt and his "best-selling" book! And he has shocking taste in music too! --David Broadfoot (talk) 15:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of List of celebrity judoka[edit]

I have nominated List of celebrity judoka, an article you created, for deletion. I do not feel that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of celebrity judoka. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Pichpich (talk) 21:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Postage stamp[edit]

I reverted the external link you added to Postage stamp because it fails the guidelines for links per WP:LINKS; see Links normally to be avoided #12. Sorry but links to personal websites are to be avoided. ww2censor (talk) 06:43, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chan Tai San[edit]

Think this one may run on, they won't admit they might be in the wrong. Please tell me if I was over doing it, calling it vandalism was the wrong way to go and (while it could be argued as true) just made it worse. Other then that I think I've been patient, no throwing the 3RR and leaving the article largely alone and trying to talk to them. I seem to be left with the unplesent prospect this may turn into another Barry Ley... --Nate1481(^t/_c) 16:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced that bit as I'd rather archive the whole lot together when it's over, i will copy it all to the article talk though. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 15:10, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David A Ross[edit]

Here's an idea! You can verify (even cite) that I am in fact David Ross by contacting me. I am indeed to founder and owner of NY San Da (www.NYSanDa.com) and you can call me one afternoon at 212 239 8619 or email me at info@nysanda.com. As a matter of fact, I am not responsible for that entry (NOR the Chan Tai San one). And, yes, I do find it silly that you want me to cite a reference to the fact I trained with Chan Tai San (you'd imagine the 16 years I spent with him, my many appearances with him at public events around the nation, my appearance with him in the magazine articles, and the many pictures of me with him would suffice?) or that I started boxing at age 8. Seeing as I am the person who is being discussed, do I have the right to request the entire entry be removed so that I can avoid being subjected to the whims of editors such as yourself? Nysanda (talk) 14:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David... (1) you really need to get a grip on how Wikipedia works. Of what use is *my* assertion that you are you? Please understand that Wikipedia needs credible verifiable sources. I am not such a source. (2) I never asked you cite such a reference. (3) You can ask, but you have no right to demand that an article about you be deleted. However, I'd welcome it because as far as I am concerned, you are not notable. (4) You are being rude again - I do not have "whims"... I am merely following Wikipedia guidelines and helping you improve those articles. I do so consistently not whimsically. Cheers. --David Broadfoot (talk) 14:50, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia needs credible verifiable sources" - but, and of course feel free to correct me, I am not a "credible" source on my own life? You can verify that "NYSanDa" is "David Ross" by a phone call or an email. So once we verify I am who I am, am I not a source? As for being "notable", of course we can argue LOL but I'd suggest that much of what is written in English about the Tibetan Martial Arts (especially Lama Pai, Hop Ga and Lion's Roar) either originates or is influenced by the 50 or so articles I published in martial arts magazines in the 1990's. I spent more than a decade collecting Chinese sources (only 3 books in Chinese and less than 30 articles in magazines) and interviewing teachers associated with the lineages. Maybe that doesn't meet the "notable" standard? One still wonders how you produce "credible verifiable sources" for 16 years of my life when I look at how some apply the standards? Nysanda (talk) 17:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are *not* a credible source on your life (a) not even if you could prove to Wikipedia that you are David A Ross, and (b) even less so by proving it to me. I have no doubt you are who you say you are, but what I think is irrelevant. Why is is it so difficult for you to understand that? Just stop and THINK about it for a moment: Wikipedia would be a complete farce if it allowed anyone to create a page about themselves and were allowed to write whatever they liked because they must be a credible source about themselves! Would you please stop wasting our time and just go and read the guidelines so that you can finally gain an understanding of what "credible source" means as well as gain an understanding of the rest of the guidelines?! As to your claim to notability, I suggest you make it a lot more clear in your article. Regarding your reference as to how some apply the standards, so what? I am not a policeman - you are perfectly free to edit any page in Wikipedia and apply the standards as you understand them and do a better job - but please again an understanding of them first. Thanks --David Broadfoot (talk) 17:39, 22 February 2008 (UTC).[reply]

1982 computers[edit]

Hi! In fact my father gave himself a TRS-80 in 1982!!! I was only 6 years-old then... He was a Computer Engineer and he was trying to use some home-computers... He had to sell the computer shortly after that, but I was fascinated just to sit besides him while he was programming the machine... In 1989 he bought us a MSX computer, and give it to me, his older child... That changed my world completely... MSX was a great standard and a superb machine to learn programming... Today I own my live to MSX. Hail MSX!!! Regards... Loudenvier (talk) 14:47, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those very very early days. The first computer I used was an IBM mainframe with optical sense card input. Job turnaround time was two days. That was in 1973. The first microcomputer I used was an Exidy Sorcerer that I chose for the university I was working at in 1979-1980. You owe your life to the MSX? Heck, I couldn't even get mine to make me a cup of tea! --David Broadfoot (talk) 05:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BJJ/Vapor[edit]

I did wonder, but as I felt he was being largely irrational, and it might actually remove it objections, I went a head. My comment was mainly trying to find out what his problem is so it could be addressed. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 13:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made no amendments and demanded explanation only, I wouldn't even provide the demanded citations even though I know where to find them. Trolls love to tie you in knots with debate - like claiming that your edits justified their original argument, etc, etc. --David from Downunder (talk) 14:04, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

True, I like to play nicely till they make it obvious there just trying to annoy you, I was even polite to Barry Ley... --Nate1481(^t/_c) 14:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a friend in New Zealand who once told me that he always takes an instant and automatic dislike to everyone he meets, and then occasionally warms to them. It is still playing nice to ask the person to state exactly what their objection is without running around doing a lot of edits. It's not an issue of politeness, it's an issue of efficiency. Look at the words written... most of them are by you and me. Learn from Barry Ley. --David from Downunder (talk) 14:34, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Like the re-wording & that last paragraph is much better as it's an explanation not a bald statement.

P.s. I notice Vapor hasn't got back to us but he is online as he was just all sniffy over a mistake with AWB, I think it may be time to return to the classic British past time of being scrupulously polite to people you dislike :D --Nate1481(^t/_c) 14:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you're not getting your users muddled? That's Visor, not Vapour, no? --David from Downunder (talk) 05:43, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He is not worthy of my dislike. As the French guard said in the Holy Grail... "I don't wanna talk to you no more, you empty headed animal food trough wiper! I fart in your general direction! Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!" :D

P.S. Lucky I looked back past your Aikido edit... someone crapped a test gallery all over the page. --David from Downunder (talk) 14:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're getting your arts muddled, it was on jujutsu; I noticed it just now, why oh why do some people feel they have to click a random button after clicking edit. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 14:39, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some people are random. Speaking of randomness, how about this effort across six edits! --David from Downunder (talk) 15:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On a similar note you may want to leave Tenteisai's edit for a while, he's heading for a ban unless he calms down but you don't want to hit the electric fence by accident when an admin looks into it. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 16:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... I'm counting. --David from Downunder (talk) 00:15, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Don't bite[edit]

I think you should remove your GFE comment on the refdesk. We don't bite over there. A Google search would leave the average person pretty confused about what to call a bunch of pigs, anyway. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake - tell me where to get a meal then. --David from Downunder (talk) 15:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If it will make you feel better, you can come over to my talk page and chew a few inches off my tail whenever you want. --Milkbreath (talk) 15:23, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks... I'll bring my appetite and my BOA (Book Of Acronyms). But I might be in disguise. --David from Downunder (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Judoka video links..[edit]

Hi David,

I was referred to you by Daniel Case, as you are active in the Martial Arts wiki's.. A couple of weeks ago I posted a question in the Martial Arts section, asking if it was ok if I added external links at Judoka profiles on Wiki to videos of them in action.

For example, for Ryoko Tani the link would be: http://www.judovision.org/?mode=search&keyword=Ryoko%20Tani

The 'Issue' is, that all links will by to te same site (Judovision), and I dont want it to be considered Spam. As the video material is an extremely valuable addition to the articles, and cannot be included any other way.

Hope you can give me your feedback on this, and preferably, back the idea :)

Thanks for your time!

Evdz (talk) 08:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi.

Please consider the purpose of external links stated at WP:LINKSTOAVOID which states "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article." The article is meant to provide information about the topic, and external links are meant to provide additional information not included in the article. I don't believe that the videos provide any additional "information" in the encyclopaedic sense.

You need to also consider the Wikipedia policies at WP:LINKS

"Links should be kept to a minimum." (this is relevant because (a) does it really add to the article (as per my comment above), and (b) if judovision was to be included then by the same argument, so could judoinfo, youtube and google videos as well.)
"You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked. If the link is to a relevant and informative site that should otherwise be included, please consider mentioning it on the talk page and let neutral and independent Wikipedia editors decide whether to add it. This is in line with the conflict of interest guidelines." (this one pretty much rules you out, unless you received good consensus to go ahead.)

Your question from AIV[edit]

Comments/questions tend to get removed from AIV, so I'll answer this here: {{vandal}} redirects to {{userlinks}}, so in terms of display there's not any difference. A bot checking raw page text won't notice that similarity, though, unless it's looking for it. If I had to guess, the "vandal" redirect was made so people wouldn't have so much to remember when reporting vandals -- can't say for sure, though, it's been here longer than I have. ;) I generally prefer to use userlinks in other contexts, though. – Luna Santin (talk) 02:26, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

US 'Imperialism'[edit]

I haven't done any reverts today but will have a look around, if it hasn't been black listed yet it's only a matter of time & then I can have fun doing a AWB run to get rid of it :D --Nate1481(^t/_c) 09:42, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I ran across it again... it wasn't on April 3, but was the most recent edit before that [5]. P.S. just reply to me on your talk page in future. --David from Downunder (talk) 15:00, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Filthy atheist[edit]

? --Milkbreath (talk) 10:20, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Feel better now, you self-righteous, god-boxing, bible-thumping, hypocritical stone-age confidence trickster? (Hey! It does work!) --Milkbreath (talk) 10:36, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Look who's talking, lizard-licker. --Milkbreath (talk) 12:08, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yo, your girlfriend seems to like her new hairdo. --Milkbreath (talk) 19:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Browser[edit]

Thanks for looking into my issue. I downloaded Firefox some days ago and liked some aspects of it (a much better text search, for example), but there was one major drawback. I find it very helpful to edit using multiple browser windows. However, in Firefox, pressing ctrl-N opens a new browser window which loads the homepage, rather than the page I was looking at (which is what my current browser opens). This I find most unhelpful. Do you know offhand how I can make Firebox open another window of the site I'm looking at (and with the same history as the original window)? Thanks for the suggestion. Nick Graves (talk) 16:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

According to the doco, Alt+Enter is supposed to do that in Firefox. I couldn't get it to work until I tried clicking on the URL edit control first (or you can press CTRL+L then ALT+Enter). But it doesn't have any history. Why don't you report it to the development team as a desirable feature. The other features I like are the on-the-fly spell-checker and the option after a crash of re-opening all the URLs that were open before the crash. --David from Downunder (talk) 16:31, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you have a look under Tools>Options and select the 'main' tab then you can pick what open when you open a new window. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 09:22, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but that only gives you the option of a static page, or nothing. Nick wants to open another copy of the page he is on. --David from Downunder (talk) 13:48, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fiddle. My version has 'windows & tabs form last time', Try having a look thought the add-ons, chances are someone has created it.--Nate1481(^t/_c) 14:06, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have that option too, but that option is for what to do when starting up Firefox, not what to do when opening a new tab (or a new window.) Added to the fact that it doesn't work! --David from Downunder (talk) 14:30, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tamara Davies again[edit]

I wanted to make you aware of this noticeboard discussion, where I try to lay out my view of the situation on the Tamara Davies page, and basically ask for assistance in rebuilding the article from scratch. I think that your hatchet-stubbing is, while not the wrong thing to have done, it is also not a long-term solution. The page cannot stay as a sub-stub, and it cannot really be reverted back to the unsourced page that it was previously. So the only remaining option that I see is to try to get some fresh faces in to try to rebuild it from scratch, properly sourced this time. - TexasAndroid (talk) 18:11, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Byerhundt das oder der, die Flipperwaldt gersput[edit]

Wenn ist dass Nunnstrruck grritt undt Shlotermyer? Jaah, Beierhund dass oder die Flipperwaldt gersput! ... ??? ... !!! -- BWAAAAAAHAAAAAAAHAAAAAAAHAAAAA...URRRGHHHH!!! (German dies of deadly joke secret weapon of the British service) 70.137.190.187 (talk) 17:19, 8 April 2008 (UTC) Aahchtunk, Aahchtunk, Attention, pazzengerrss off ze Luffthanzza, rready forr takeoff!! All pazzengerrss close ze seat belts, and I vant to hearr only vone CLICK!!! 70.137.190.187 (talk) 18:09, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is there something wrong with you? --David from Downunder (talk) 05:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, but after you mentioned 1914 and 1939 I thought I contribute these nice 2 Monty Python and German jokes. 70.137.190.187 (talk) 08:32, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, there's definitely something wrong with you... you've failed to recognise one of Basil's best German put-downs: "Oh, German. I'm sorry, I thought there was something wrong with you." --David from Downunder (talk) 15:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

O godogodogod. Now I see. Why is the damn Temazepam article all only about the forensics in some hicktown Glasgow? 70.137.190.187 (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article needs a section about Temazepam added to it. --David from Downunder (talk) 01:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done; However, I started with Edinburgh: Culture: Drugs, and invited the regulars for discussion on the Temazepam page. 70.137.153.69 (talk) 04:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Holmes[edit]

We have no idea how Sherlock Holmes wants his named pronounced. I don't know enough about UK English to say with certainty that its conventional pronunciation has not changed in the past hundred years. House is an American show, written by and for Americans, and performed in American English. That is the dialect with which we are concerned.

The difference is this: /homz/ (UK) vs. /hɔɫmz/ (US). I hope that was rendered correctly: the American version should include a velarized "dark" L after the central vowel. In American English, this word is not homophonous with 'homes'. I take you at your word that they are homophonous in UK English, but this is irrelevant to the article on House. — Dan | talk 18:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is the wrong place to discuss the article: that is what the article's talk page is for. Re your statement "We have no idea how Sherlock Holmes wants his named pronounced" - well, as he is a fictional character, you have to assume it is as per normal English pronunciation. The English pronunciation is relevant because the name 'House' was chosen as a tribute to the English detective 'Sherlock Holmes'. I just asked an American about it who only left the USA a few weeks ago: he pronounces both words the same. Listen to the American pronunciation of the two words in Wiktionary.[6][7] There is no appreciable difference in pronunciation (apart from having two different-sounding voices.) --David from Downunder (talk) 15:38, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear[edit]

Saw some of it yesterday, It all most looks like trolling being that offended, though I would have suggested a wiki link to the sketch just for education... --Nate1481(^t/_c) 08:37, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's definitely no troll - I'm sure he wants to have a third go at it: kill all the Jews, homosexuals, Australians, and especially British comedians. He probably goes to sleep every night listening to Wagner with a picture of Herr Wolf under his pillow. Up the Brits! --David from Downunder (talk) 10:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ach du lieber! There's gratitude for you. Overthrew their totalitarian regime for them and set up a democratic government in its place, and not even a thank you. Next time we should just sit back and watch the Russians stomp them into the dirt. I was going to go see The Red Baron, too, but if they're going to be like that about the whole business...sheesh. --Milkbreath (talk) 13:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Editing while I'm adding![edit]

Please don't format while I'm adding -- we're clashing! :-p

I was just trying to make it to 500 today. Let me know when you're done, I've got another big one for No. 500.

Oolon (talk) 14:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just this one big copyedit and I'm done. I'm 20% of the way through. Sorry. --David from Downunder (talk) 14:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nay probs, laddie, as I'd say if I were Scottish. Won't be making 500 today anyway: trawling the Times was easy, but LexisNexis for all newspapers is bringing up too much junk. Cheers!

Oolon (talk) 15:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tenteisai/99.132.177.200[edit]

Don't know if you saw but he blanked Senso Ryū Aikijūjutsu last night and got a 72 hour block for it. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 08:34, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I saw that, and I immediately asked for his anon IP to be blocked too here but no response. Very strange fellow. At least he's consistent. --David from Downunder (talk) 08:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Probably off-line or giving him a chance to prove us wrong after the block (second is unlikely but not unreasonable). We will see --Nate1481(^t/_c) 09:10, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, he is/was online... he answered the thread started after mine. --David from Downunder (talk) 09:15, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, your message from earlier this month must have got overlooked when someone else changed the page, so I may not have seen it. In any event, if there's continued disruption from 99.132.177.200 past the final warning you've given out already I'll block, and will probably then block the account indef as well, as that would have been the route I'd have taken if he'd made the IP edits whilst logged in.

Incidentally, who are you describing as a very strange fellow above...me? Or Tenteisai? ;-) _GB^T/C 12:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#DemiLovato15[edit]

Please see this sockpuppetry case. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 18:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aoki's Page[edit]

"Not what the reference says"? I'm sick of the disgusting bias on MMA fighters pages due to fans of theirs being wiki addicts and making the pages whatever they feel like. During the HDnet dub of DREAM 1 Frank Trigg made those comments, so unless you can turn back time and change what Frank said, I'm afraid my point is valid, I'll be reverting the page now. Cyrus777 (talk) 12:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After going through what you wrote there, let me just say one thing: If you're going to accuse me of something, be sure of it before you do. You brought up what someone wrote in my talk page once, I removed it for good reason, it was wrong. He assumed I had written something (I didn't, I reverted it to what it was before since that was closer to reality) and you try to use that in order to make me sound bad and somehow expect people not to trash talk you? Get a life. Cyrus777 (talk) 17:21, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The version you reverted it to was totally unacceptable according to encyclopedic standards, and it was the same version for which the other editor received a block for reverting to it a number of times. Whether you wrote those words or reverted to them is irrelevant... it was still your edit. --David from Downunder (talk) 19:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Article Talk"[edit]

I removed the discussion on Aoki's page since it was complete and you put it back claiming that it is not acceptable to blank a page except under special circumstances? You're the first I've heard that from since talk pages in the past have often been blanked. Explain under what circumstances they should be removed and why leaving that there would serve any purpose since I doubt anyone will be looking to cite anything I brought up. Cyrus777 (talk) 18:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cyrus... you can read Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Behavior_that_is_unacceptable where it refers to "No personal attacks", "No insults", and "do not edit others' comments". Examples of when it is OK to remove talk page comments are given here: Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_comments. For example, I recently removed a talk page comment because it asked how to escape half guard. Look at most talk pages and you will see a history (sometimes archived) of all issues discussed, including the resolved issues - else stuff is more likely to get re-hashed. The talk page history this also acts as documentation backing decisions made about the article's content. Thanks. David from Downunder (talk) 18:59, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of atheists[edit]

Hi Oolon. I have split List of atheists. Please see:

Lipoma[edit]

Just wanted to check what the revert on the lipoma page was for. I agree that external links and sources should be kept separate, but your revert made other changes that could have been fixed in one edit (removal of some links, edit of heading). The reason I moved the link to the external list is that it isn't referenced anywhere in the article. If we want to have it as a source, we should get it put inline and have it added to the reflist. Schu1321 (talk) 12:01, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Originally, Wikipedia only had Sources, and no inline references. Inline references are certainly preferable, but 'Sources' are still valid and widespread in Wikipedia. Yes, it would be much better to change any 'Source' to one or more inline references, but that is a massive task and it is no justification for moving a valid 'Source' to the 'External links' section. Read up on the purpose of 'External links' and you will see why they should not necessarily all be lumped together. Thanks. --David from Downunder (talk) 12:18, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not arguing that it potentially shouldn't be a source, but your revert made other changes. Moving the said link from the "external sources" to the "references" heading would have been preferable to the blanket undo. I've also read over the article, and the reference (both are fairly short), and can't seem to find much relation between the two of them, to the extent of the two article even having contradictory evidence. Schu1321 (talk) 12:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I recall adding that source myself, I should have added it as an inline reference given its narrow focus. Yes, my reverts changed other things as well but I can't afford time to pick through every edit needs reverting to save any possibly worthwhile potions. Also the fact that the two articles have contradictory evidence is not really relevant - they are each used as inline references to support corresponding statements in the article. --David from Downunder (talk) 12:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The disputed reference is not used as an inline references, so the fact that they have contradictory evidence is relevant. While picking through edits is somewhat time consuming, my edit was made in good faith, and I believe with adequate reason, to at least merit a discussion prior to a blanket revert. Schu1321 (talk) 12:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have your terminology mixed up. Also, you first sentence above mixes singular and plural so it really doesn't make any sense, especially as you are not stating which articles you are referring to - so could you please specify exactly what articles you are referring to so I can understand what you are trying to tell me? Lastly, I do not need to instigate a discussion before reverting any more than you need to before reverting my original edits that added the two inline references and the American Family Physician source. Furthermore, I note that you reverted my edit before any discussion with me... it's a two-way street!! --David from Downunder (talk) 13:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The edit you reverted was for moving "Lipoma Excision by Gohar A. Salam, in American Family Physician. March 1, 2002." to the external links section and for changing the heading "Notes" to "References". The American Family Physician source has no inline citations that I can see now, or before (if I'm missing these citations, let me know). I reviewed the article and the AFP source, but, since it was listed as a general reference and had sections that generally matched in content, I removed it from its own section. As for the edits, my change wasn't an undo, which is why I didn't open a discussion. Had you moved the AFP line from external->references, I wouldn't have complained, but the undo I feel was unnecessary since I had a reason for moving the information. If you can let me know where in the article the inline information should be, I would be more than happy to put it back in. Schu1321 (talk) 13:09, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you still didn't reply as to which two articles have "contradictory evidence". You state "the undo I feel was unnecessary since I had a reason for moving the information" but your statements "The reason I moved the link to the external list is that it isn't referenced anywhere in the article" and "I reviewed the article and the AFP source, but, since it was listed as a general reference and had sections that generally matched in content, I removed it from its own section" - both statements make it quite clear that you do not understand the meaning of "Sources": (a) of course it isn't referenced directly - if it was, it would have been an inline reference, not a "Source", (b) so what if it generally matches in content? That is quite typically what a source does!! Finally, sure your initial edit was not a revert bit your second edit was a revert, done without consultation, which is exactly what you were complaining that I should not have done! -- David from Downunder (talk) 13:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That was a typo, I meant that the two did not have sections that generally matched. If you can show me overlap, I'm more than happy to add it back as a source. If you can find where to put inline citations, we can add as a reference. However, as it is now, I don't see a reason to have it listed as either. Schu1321 (talk) 13:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a source doesn't need to have sections that generally match either: it just needs to contain one or more facts used in the article. Re "I don't see a reason to have it listed as either"... either what? Your writing is very difficult to comprehend, and you STILL haven't replied as to which two articles have "contradictory evidence". --David from Downunder (talk) 13:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"If you can show me overlap, I'm more than happy to add it back as a source. If you can find where to put inline citations, we can add as a reference." (Source is one option, reference is the other). If there is a single fact, let's add it in as an inline citation. If we can't find the fact, then it shouldn't be mentioned as a source/reference/citation. Schu1321 (talk) 13:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'you STILL haven't replied as to which two articles have "contradictory evidence" --David from Downunder (talk) 13:58, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You require a lot of reasons to remove an unused reference =) The only unsourced/uncited section is the Treatment heading. The first discrepancy is with the size of tumor that can be removed (the wiki article says soft and small, while the AFP article says small or large). The second is an absence of information in the AFP article about the ultrasonic method of removal. Do you have a section that the AFP article applies to? Or a fact? If so, let's add it back in. If not, then why are we having this discussion? Schu1321 (talk) 14:04, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have serious cognitive issues: The wiki article does not say that only "soft and small" lipomas can be removed. Secondly, as I have already told you, there is no requirement that *all* facts in the source must be quoted in the article - just one or more.

Your various comments including "The American Family Physician source has no inline citations that I can see now, or before (if I'm missing these citations, let me know)" makes it clear that you do not know what a 'Source' is - if it had inline citations, the it would be under 'Notes' or 'References', not 'Sources'. --David from Downunder (talk) 14:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<-As to your claim that the source I provided didn't have any facts that match the article, I found the following facts that match in the first several sentences alone:

Lipomas are adipose tumors
usually first appear between 40 and 60 years of age.
nonpainful
round
mobile masses
with a characteristic soft, doughy feel.
can be treated with a variety of procedures ranging from ... injections to excision of the tumor.
Lipomas are ... nearly always benign,
most often found in the subcutaneous tissues

so I am totally puzzled as to how you could not find any and ask me to provide even a "single fact". --David from Downunder (talk) 14:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Serious cognitive issues? Not very Wikipedian of you =). If we started sourcing articles that have single facts that are the same, the "source" lists for articles would be endless. The facts you described above are also found in the other two referenced articles, and therefore don't require a third citation. As far as your other argument, a source is any article you get information from and the term is interchangeable with reference. The style guideline Wikipedia:Citing_sources has no mention to a separation of 'Source' versus 'Reference', if you can point me to the location where this differentiation is made I will definitely look over it. Schu1321 (talk) 15:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, for example, (a) you claimed that you could not find a single fact in the source that was also in the article - I provided nine facts just from the fist couple of paragraphs; (b) your argument that what you call "a third citation is not required has so many flaws in it I can't be bothered going through them all; (c) your claim that Wikipedia:Citing_sources doesn't differentiate between the two different sourcing styles is further evidence of your problem: read this paragraph (it's only three sentences): WP:Citing_sources#General_references_versus_inline_citations - the source you removed, as I have been telling you all along, is one that falls into the category of "books or other sources that support a significant amount of the material in the article". P.S. Are you a doctor? -- David from Downunder (talk) 15:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They do make a difference in how a reference can be cited; however, both methods are called references. There is no difference between the use of the word "source" or "reference". Whether they are cited inline or at the bottom of the document doesn't change the term. Now, in the section of WP:Citing sources you pointed out, it states that inline citations should be used to help if facts in the document are protested (such as this long string of arguments). With your previous information, I've added an inline citation for the AFP article for you. In the future, please just take the time to review an edit an make the appropriate change rather than undoing. I can understand doing a revert on vandalism, copyright violations, or other specific changes, but the time you've taken now has far surpassed what a simple review and comment could have fixed at the beginning. Also, your tone and arguments have been somewhat uncivil and inappropriate at points of this discussion, simply for my recommendation to remove what I initially considered an unnecessary source. Schu1321 (talk) 20:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The two reasons you gave for removing that link from the 'Sources' section were:

It didn't contain any facts that were used in the article. I listed nine of them for you - you claimed there were none. As I pointed out to you before, you are wrong on that as a matter of fact - I provided nine examples out of many.
It contained contradictions with the article. You gave, as two examples:

(a) "The first discrepancy is with the size of tumor that can be removed (the wiki article says soft and small, while the AFP article says small or large)" - as I pointed out to you before, you are wrong on that as a matter of fact and you were unable to quote where the article stated that.

(b) "The second is an absence of information in the AFP article about the ultrasonic method of removal" - you are wrong on that as a matter of logic: it is not a contradiction, it is an omission. Furthermore, you are also wrong on that due to lack of understanding the use of the Sources section: there is no requirement that source can only be quoted if it backs up every fact mentioned in the article - that would be quite silly. The fact that the source does not mention ultrasound is quite immaterial.

After me pointing out to you all the errors in reasoning that you made in your decision to remove that link from the 'Sources' section, how can you still stand by that decision?

Then there was your claim that he style guideline has no mention to a separation of 'Source' versus 'Reference' - also wrong in fact. I've never seen such a series of errors in fact and logic from an editor.

It's clear that you still do not understand the difference in purpose between an inline citation (normally files under 'Notes' or 'References') and a general source (filed under 'Sources'). Now you have put that source back in by attaching it rather randomly to one non-contentious fact, ignoring the numerous other facts that it was used to source.

The time taken here has been out of proportion simply due to the huge number of errors in comprehension and reasoning that you have made, to which you have now added another: "it states that inline citations should be used to help if facts in the document are protested (such as this long string of arguments)" - this long lien of arguments is not about a protested fact, it is about your wrongful edit and the unsound reasoning behind it. So then... quote for me which "protested fact" in the article this "long string of arguments" is about! --David from Downunder (talk) 21:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<-I'm still trying to find something about the "Sources" heading. I see one for "Notes" (inline) and "References" (general), but don't see anything about "Sources" in the style guidelines. Is it on another page? Also, if you continue with character attacks, I will recommend having someone else look over the discussion. Schu1321 (talk) 21:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The distinction between inline sources (often seen under the heading Notes or Footnotes or References) and general sources (often seen under the heading Sources or References) is the distinction I have been trying to get you to see - it's the one you have blurred by moving that article's general source to attach it to a solitary arbitrary fact (making it now an inline source.) Prior to that you incorrectly moved the source into the "External links" section, removing its status as a source for the article and relegating it to the status of further reading (all because of your erroneous claim that it it did not contain any facts that were included in the article... in response to you challenge, I provided nine matching facts from the first couple of paragraphs alone.) If you don't like the "Sources" heading (which is quite commonly found on Wikipedia) then change it, but don't keep diminishing the integrity of the article by moving its content into inappropriate sections: that link is a general source for that article - it's not an inline source for one fact, and it's not just further reading.

"Continue the character attacks"??!! All I did in my last message to you was to list the numerous factual errors you have been making to support your edits. I note that you never acknowledge them in any way. Please go ahead and get someone else to look over the discussion - you clearly cannot distinguish between a debate and a character attack. I point out what you claim to be "discrepancies" are not discrepancies at all", point out that you are wrong when you defended your removal of that link from that section by asserting that general sources cannot be listed as such unless all the facts contained in the source are included in the article, etc, etc. --David from Downunder (talk) 07:40, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying that the statements "You have serious cognitive issues" and "I've never seen such a series of errors in fact and logic from an editor" are not character attacks? Those two lines to be somewhat more than simple discussion. Also, when all I'm doing is asking for help from another editor, I don't need you following my comments around and posting. My argument wasn't to remove the AFP article from the list of references, but rather to push you into doing some checking on it because you reverted my edits. Had you simply moved the AFP article back from the "External links" into the "References" section on your first edit, there would have been no problem. My issue has only ever been that you reverted all of my edits because you "didn't have time", which I don't feel is a valid argument. Whether it's an edit or a revert, you should take some time to look and see why the edit was made, rather than revert 4-5 edits to fix 1. Schu1321 (talk) 20:27, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Statements like "My issue has only ever been that..." are patently false. You had a number of issues and arguments, which I refuted on matters of fact and of logic. I am not going to waste any more time with your revisionist arguments. --David from Downunder (talk) 06:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guys, I'll help out with this. Just stop sniping at each other. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:28, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please revert[edit]

Please self-revert your last edit to Thomas W. Davis or I will be forced to ask for arbitration enforcement as you are editing an article under article probation in a tendentious manner. Please self-revert and contribute to the ongoing discussion. Thank you. --Justallofthem (talk) 06:38, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to discuss, but why is it OK for you to edit 11 hours ago, and not me now? --David from Downunder (talk) 06:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David, I believe I made one edit and one revert, you have made three reverts. Four reverts will draw a block under normal circumstances but this article is under probation and rules are stiffer. Please self-revert pending an outcome of the ongoing discussion. Thanks. --Justallofthem (talk) 06:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David, it is late and I am going to bed. Since you have not responded I am going to post this to WP:AE. Suggest you self-revert. Good nite. --Justallofthem (talk) 07:00, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted a requested. My three reverts were not the same reverts. Things progresses during that time. Nearly all of my first revert was maintained by other editors. Sleep well! --David from Downunder (talk)

Thanks David, FYI, please review WP:3RR as any revert counts and your reverts were of essentially the same material anyway. Take care. --Justallofthem (talk) 07:18, 1 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah... like I should have just waited another 25 minutes. :-) --David from Downunder (talk)

Lipoma[edit]

That article is looking very good now, it's nice to work as apart of a team that is all pulling in the same direction I've spent far too long in acrimonious alternative medicine tarpits recently! Tim Vickers (talk) 01:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Thanks for all your great edits. Altmed! I'm like a 6.9 on that (using Richard Dawkins scale of disbelief.) Mostly junk, but I am not, however, a member of the quackwatch congregation! --David from Downunder (talk) 02:07, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dong Sik Yoon[edit]

You reverted my insertion of a PROD template in the article Dong Sik Yoon with the reason "(rm PROD - violation of GFDL)" - could you please explain why you did that and what violation of GFDL are you claiming? (I have reverted your edit.) -- David from Downunder (talk) 13:19, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

you are not allowed to delete edit histories of kept content
you are not allowed to reimplement PROD on things that have had prods removed, for :whatever reason. They must be sent to AfD. In this case, since it is now a redirect, it needs to go to WP:RFD.

Since you merged the contents of this page into the other page, you are in violation of GFDL by proposing to delete the edit history of the merged data.

Further, it is a useful redirect, so why delete it anyways?

70.51.8.63 (talk) 06:00, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, you sure seem to know a lot for an Anon! Why then for List of nontheists, which went to arbitration, was it decided to merge most of its content with List of atheists and then delete the article? --David from Downunder (talk) 10:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD does what AfD does, which is not necessarily compliant with what should happen. However, PROD can't do that, and RfD just about always rejects efforts to delete edit histories. So if you still want to delete it, bring it to AfD, as RfD will probably reject you. But it is still a likely search target, so why nominate it in the first place?

As for being an anon, why wouldn't an anon know 2-bits about wikipedia? They still haven't implemented the much debated policy to ban anons from editing, that has been discussed since atleast 4 years ago. So, is there a point to having an account, besides when you need to move pages or request an AfD? Everything else doesn't require you to log on, so there's no point in logging on, unless you're nominating an article to AfD, or renaming one.

11:24, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks 70.51.8.63, or whoever you happen to be at the moment! --David from Downunder (talk) 12:10, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Porter Article[edit]

Hi Dave,

I'm Soothsayer12 and I initiated the request that the Philip Porter article be reviewed in light of the "Controversies" section which had been added. Thank you for looking into this. I'm sure that to a Judoka, Porter's acceptance of a 10th dan from his own organization is controversial and I truly respect that point of view. I think that it is important to remember that all of Porter's previous ranks in judo, up to and including Kudan, came from sanctioned authorities.

The contention in the original "Controversies" section, that anyone can buy whatever rank he wants from Porter, was particularly galling to me, and I'm sure to others like me who may have seen it. I have 35 years experience in the martial arts and am a member of Porter's USMAA, which he established to create a level playing field for all American martial artists, as well as to provide an avenue for rank advancement for qualified practitoners. Having studied Shorin-ryu karate for many years I tested for and received godan rank from my instructor, a shichidan, in 1996. Thereafter I moved from Ohio to North Carolina and had no avenue for rank advancement due to my instructor's poor health and retirement from active teaching until I joined Mr. Porter's organization. Since I was by that time (2000) overseeing four schools in Ohio as well as teaching here, rank was becoming an issue for me. In the intervening years Mr. Porter has offered me promotions after examining my credentials and time in grade as well as my teaching activities and the activities of my students. He maintains detailed files on all of his members, including timelines and dates of promotion throughout each martial artist's career. This is a far cry from giving anyone any rank they want for money. Additionally, at 83 he continues to travel extensively and hold seminars for his members. The man is truly hard working and a good example to us all. For him to be disparaged as he was in the "Controversies" section was uncalled for and, moreover, libelously inaccurate.

Furthermore, the head of the black belt masters' council in the USMAA is Fuse Kisei, 10th dan in Okinawan Shorin-ryu karate on Okinawa. Therefore I feel that my rank is completely valid, and I am only one a great many American martial artists, many quite well-known, who are USMAA members and have received their highest rankings from Porter Sensei. Judo and BJJ have had their political ups and downs (I've trained a couple of times with Royce Gracie), but they are relatively cohesive entities. The myriad karate and tae kwon do styles were crying out for some sort of umbrella unification in the United States, and Mr. Porter has provided it. We are grateful that he did. Just as an aside, I'm including this reference ("How the Masters Got Their Rank" judoinfo.com/karateranks.htm) from a respectable judo website which details how the Japanese and Okinawan budo practitioners went through their own perturbations of developing rank and the organizations for granting it. It's not a new story, and it's the same story we are living through here with the USMAA and the "controversy" Mr. Porter endures.

Respectfully, I thank you for your time. Soothsayer12 (talk) 01:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

TKD[edit]

History/orign edit war, any help in keep getting a vaguely neutral version up would be appreciated --Nate1481(^t/_c) 15:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mitsuyo Maeda[edit]

Hi man! You went to great pains to copy-edit the Maeda article! I've put a lot of effort on the article to make it complete but then, shortly after it was promoted to GA grade I couldn't stand anymore working that much time in wikipedia... I had to do a wikibreak!!! It's nice to see that people are taking care of things. Congrats! Good work. Loudenvier (talk) 04:33, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Felipe... but it is all of us who should be thanking you! I see we have quite a few things in common: you just had a four month break and I just logged in after seven months; judo; BJJ; Delphi; C#; and I used to own a Fiat 124 Sports (the sexy looking 1969 model!). We will surely meet one day. --David from Downunder (talk) 10:01, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Michael Parrella[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Michael Parrella, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Parrella. Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. --Explodicle (T/C) 14:21, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

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) 13:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]