User talk:Dhartung/Archive 4
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Dhartung. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 8 |
Lionel Bryer
and for Lionel Bryer you said what amounts to a keep, but you never quite said keep DGG 06:39, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
- I see reason triumphed with keeping LB, for once.User:DGG 07:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, I think it usually does. I just wish I weren't so often the guy feeling like the lone champion of an article that's easily improved. --Dhartung | Talk 07:18, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
'Just ask, though I may not always have time to find the necessary improvements.'DGG
Request
I did not realize that this wasn't allowed. I apologize. Infomanager 00:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marija Pavlović
I would ask that you return to the article Marija Pavlović, and then do a simple google on the name without diacritics "Marija Pavolivic" there are over 15,000 ghits in English alone, and even more than that it you use her married name and look in other languages. So, I think we have reached much more than the required WP:BIO for this article. I did, by the way, add to it a bit, fixed the links, and will work on the redlinks therein in the next couple of days. SkierRMH 06:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
Category:Military brat
A few months ago, you voted to delete a category:Military brat. It has been reintroduced and once again is being nominated for deletion. The discussion is here. I am contacting you so that you can revisit the discussion, but before doing so please read the article Military brat (U.S. subculture) as the term is not POV and is a highly researched subject. The previous discussion was done before I got involved, but I think you will find out that this is a credible subject worthy of its own category. Balloonman 22:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
Adminship
Has anyone ever suggested that you run for Adminship? You're ridiculously qualified and appear to be non-controversial. You're being drafted because we have a lot of backlogs. You can not refuse. - crz crztalk 20:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- My, when you put it that way ... !
- As a matter of fact it has been suggested before, and I haven't pursued it because though it would be nice to be able to e.g. close an AFD or RM, I'm leery of all the politics at the other end of the scale. I'm probably uncontroversial because I usually flee edit wars like the plague! Well, that's not entirely true, I have a philosophy that proper NPOV editing and careful article structuring squeezes the air out of a controversy. I do realize I could still keep my head down and be a quiet maintainer and definitely would make myself available for such useful work as is needed.
- I will say that definitely, before I take on such a visible role, I believe I'd like to go a tad less cognito and change my username. How is that usually handled, i.e. how often do admins change their names and before or after nomination?
- In any event I am duly flattered. --Dhartung | Talk 21:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
- Username change requests may be filed at WP:CHU. Let me know when you're ready - you'll be a shoo-in. - crz crztalk 06:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for your involvement in the discussion of this article's deletion.
However, a new source has become available, as mentioned on the disscusion site, should you wish to reconsider your vote. --Reverieuk 19:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks For Speedy Close
Thank you for the speedy close on the debate for the deletion of my User Page. Just so you know, my User Page is well within the User Page Guidelines (I encourage you to see for yourself), and that Opronc-oB is a sockpuppet of Opronc and Opronc-oA. I am dealing with this User at the moment, so don't worry. Acalamari 23:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Heh, yeah, I found a bit about that afterward by following your history. De nada. --Dhartung | Talk 00:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
A clarification on WaPo at Talk:Verifiability
Hi, Dhartung thanks for your comments on Talk:Verifiability I notice you said “The fact that Emanuel's father was in Irgun is reported in the WaPo and other sources so can be used; the accusation of participating in particular terrorist acts, though, is not sourced satisfactorily.” I replied there, but as there is so much action on that page watchlisting it doesn’t really tell you if someone responded on your particular thread. After your comment I wrote the following "Actually the Washington Post only says he was a member of 'the pre-independence Israeli underground'. There is a big jump between 'the underground' and a paramilitary force - if you shelter Allied pilots in WWII France your part of the underground, that doesn't mean you took up arms against the Nazis. Had the post mentioned Irgun I would have just deleted the refs and quotes taken from the anti-Semitic blogs and quoted the WaPo about Irgun."--Wowaconia 12:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- My bad memory, then. I had thought there was one such reference. --Dhartung | Talk 16:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
USS Fultons
Would you mind taking your subpages on the various USS Fultons out of the category "United States Navy ships"? They've been sitting there for a while and don't need to be. Thanks. Jinian 17:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
- Oh dear. I had forgotten all about those. At the time I didn't know about the [[:Category]] dodge, so fixed. And I'll polish them for mainspace shortly. --Dhartung | Talk 17:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
WP:MUSIC is not policy!
Hi, on a recent AFD you said that WP:MUSIC is policy - just thought I'd let you know it's not. It's a criteria guideline, and as such you're perfectly allowed to ignore it (particularly when AFD is supposedly a discussion) :) -137.222.10.67 14:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
- Oh, I know it's a guideline. But read again. I did not say "that WP:MUSIC is policy", I said that one should cite policy in an argument, meaning as opposed to popularity. I'll make a popularity argument at times myself but always in conjunction with a particular policy or guideline. I suppose I should have said "policy or guideline" in that line, but I was trying to be succinct. --Dhartung | Talk 16:41, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
AfD comment
THANK you for your comment on the The Lee Nysted Experience AfD. You said what I'd been trying to get across far clearer than I've managed to. Hopefully, the SPAs working on that will realize what's going on now. Cheers. Tony Fox (arf!) 06:20, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
- Great! I'm glad my pulling my hair out for an hour before replying helped two people, heh. Alas, as usual, they're probably just too close to the subject to get it. --Dhartung | Talk 03:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Dhartung,
As you suggested at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of killed, threatened or kidnapped Iraqi academics, I've started a new article at Violence against academics in post-invasion Iraq
GabrielF 02:20, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- Good start. Better title. (I belatedly realized that "academic intimidation" could sound like "academics doing the intimidation" or worse, intimidation that was only "academic" ...) Anyway, although it obviously needs expansion, I think you hit the major points. --Dhartung | Talk 03:53, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
Spiritual Humanism Afd update
I appreciated your vote and comment on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Spiritual Humanism (second nomination), and of course your work at the article. Meanwhile, as original nominator, I think the situation has sufficiently changed to appeal once more to your interest. Kind Regards. — SomeHuman 21 Jan2007 04:11 (UTC)
- Reply moved here from above user's talk page:
- Hm, personally, I think rebooting the discussion just makes things messy. Additionally there is no reason to vote on the name of the article; let it survive then let the page's interested editors choose a name by consensus. If you think the article should stay you can simply withdraw the nomination. Simplest, cleanest. If you still think consensus is needed, you only have two editors who put in delete votes. --Dhartung | Talk 04:24, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
- You've got a point, but I already notified each contributor to the Afd. Furthermore, and seeing 2ct7's assumptions, a simple move might even be proper but could easily cause all kinds of allegations or even an edit-war, and finding consensus amongst a few would probably cause a Requested Move delay. As the Afd contributors are largely aware of the topic and discussion, I think they can now quickly come to a thereafter undisputed title, as deletion is now indeed very unlikely. So, please vote. — SomeHuman 21 Jan2007 04:52 (UTC)
Lee Nysted
NOT EVERYONE AGREES WITH YOUR METHODS MR. DHARTUNG Sometimes the truth is more important than editing skills
Comment by Lee Nysted:
- Quite the assumption, about the two journalists that wrote my article, Mr. Dhartung. The two journalists that wrote the article are to be commended for their works and the due diligence expended to get all the details in, so the article would qualify for publication according to Wikipedia guidelines and criteria. Rambling Man indicated what was needed and that has been supplied many times over. The basis for Wikipedia, as a resource of information, is getting to the truth rather than throwing it away. A good editor would help to write an article about an artist that works within the framework of this encyclopedia. My work is very real as is the band/ensemble. The Lee Nysted Experience is notable by every standard known to mankind, including Wikipedia. The idea of starting out this way on Wikipedia, is unfortunate. It is even more unfortunate that editors with less than 6 months of experience here, can and do, destroy the very framework of this organization. Journalists are not required to like the people they write about, nor do journalists have the right to censor the real truth from an encyclopedia.
"This page in a nutshell: Assume that people who work on the project are trying to help it, not hurt it." Is that what you are doing Mr. Dhartung?
This page in a nutshell: Comment on content, not on the contributor. Is that what the rest of the editors are doing, Mr. Dhartung?
- Now back on topic:
The article is in need of some polishing but clearly has what it takes to qualify for entry. I would like my name taken out of salt, and have it directed to this article, please.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Nysted 03:25, 23 January 2007 (UTC) -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lee Nysted (talk • contribs).
- The closing administrator will decide. I don't think you have much of a shot, personally. Going around insulting and ranting at people is not a way to persuade, I suggest you think about that. --Dhartung | Talk 05:13, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Good point from Lee Nysted; I agree.
I think the truth should get out, and will get out, eventually. The review, by the way, that was deleted for "copywrite infringement," is owned by my company. It is up on my web site. NystedMusic.com It is a pdf file. There are about 90 reviews available through the links CLEAR put up in the article at hand. I disagree that reviews are now the "end all" to notability. The inclusion of "notable people" is far better, in my opinion.24.13.148.105 16:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lee_Nysted 16:26, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
- Lee, please don't sockpuppet on my Talk page, adding your signature[1] two minutes after the comment[2]. Alas for you, your self-published reviews do not meet our guidelines. Disagree all you want, but when you're on a community site like Wikipedia, you are subject to community rules. --Dhartung | Talk 17:58, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I expanded the article. Perhaps it is worth keeping now. --Eastmain 21:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Death erection cites
Should the "accessdate" for the articles you found (thanks for that!) be 2007? DMacks 19:19, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Customer experience
Thanks for your support in keeping the Customer experience entry, and the extra work in searching for the word on the New York Times. -- DavidJacques 07:14, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Hi. There isn't any need to campaign and it can hurt your cause, just so you know. I do have one recommendation, that you explicitly grant Wikipedia permission to use your words under the GFDL as your intent seems to be (based on Talk:Customer experience). Go to Wikipedia:Example requests for permission and follow the steps to send in a "response" to the permissions e-mail address. This e-mail should come from customerinput.com. Alternatively, you could change the notice on [3] from "Copyright 2005 All Rights Reserved" to "Licensed under the GFDL". This would help to resolve the copyright dispute. It doesn't look to me like you've done anything wrong in putting your own words on Wikipedia, but you've created suspicion by using the same words you have elsewhere under copyright. --Dhartung | Talk 07:20, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks for your suggestion. I looked at the page and cannot seem to find the "response" instructions. Perhaps you could suggest where to look? I've also read theeh GFDL information thoroughly, and will consider placing the original text under a GFDL License. I have also started on additional text to make the definition more comprehensive, in the context of competitive differentiation. Kind regards, -- DavidJacques 04:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Dhartung, I have added a lot of detail and references regarding the above article since the time you cast your vote on its AfD, I wonder would you like to revist the situation again. Regards --Vintagekits 16:02, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Diarmuid O'Neill- you may also be interested in this AFD- another non notable IRA member. Astrotrain 22:30, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi
Hi, Dan. I came across a link to your user page here in an odd place, and I thought to myself, how many dhartungs can there be? And I was right! So just thought I'd drop you a line to say hello. It's a small world! It's been many years, but I'll just jog your memory with a note that HQ was on Belmont (if memory serves), and I still have my website and email address there (though in fact it's no longer physically at HQ, because HQ is no longer HQ); I no longer participate much, though. This message will self-destruct in 30 seconds. Laura1822 17:08, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
Billy Campbell AfD
Please review my comments regarding your nomination for the deletion of Billy Campbell. I have referenced over 20 non-trivial, reliable published works, whose sources are independent of the subject itself.
Given that numerous independent authors, scholars, or journalists have decided to give attention to both the emerging trend of Natural Burial in North America as well as Mr. Campbell’s role as a pioneer in the natural burial movement I would suggest that the primary notability criterion to determine whether "the world" has judged this individual and topic to be notable has been met.
Please reconsider your vote Eulogy4Afriend 18:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
I have found multiple sources for this article which was nominated for AFD as a hoax. It turns out this bizzare thing is actually true. Now, the debate needs to be closed somehow. Retiono Virginian 17:16, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
RE:
Please put new discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Real Social Dynamics (2nd nomination), and not an old archive. Thank you. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 00:43, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Sorry, you're just never suppose to edit an afd archive if your making a new nomination. The proceedure with renominating involves using a different page (so whoever started the re-nom must have just forgotten to read it). I just wanted to make sure that everyone who was involved in the new discussion knew where it was being moved. -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk·Review Me!) 03:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Deleted Colleen Shipman
I just deleted the Colleen Shipman article because it violated Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. While I agree with others that the article's subject is also not notable, the fact that this was a violation of BIO made the deletion urgent. Best,--Alabamaboy 19:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
colleen shipman
no i firmly disagree with the deletion of the page...it is not easy to find any info on colleen shipman just yet on the net...yet it is going to come flooding in... u betcha... in the next couple of days...we will be able to vastly expand the article...and i think its fair play too...as we need to see more of the more sane woman in this sensational story...Lisa Nowaks page is being hit like lightning...if u want to edit it u have to type fast or someone else has already changed it...to see more of the stalkee is fair play unless u are propsing to eliminate lisa's page (the stalkers page) as well...it made me think instantly of silence of the lambs it did...shipman...mrs lipman...it was sort of eeiry...Benjiwolf 19:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hi. Please read our WP:BIO guidelines and our biographies of living persons policy. There is no reason for Wikipedia to satisfy prurient curiosity about a crime victim. In any case, an administrator has deleted and protected the page, which I believe was proper. --Dhartung | Talk 21:28, 6 February 2007 (UTC)
Formosan Mountain Dog
Just a quick note to thank you for the content and links that you contributed to the Formosan Mountain Dog article. No reply necessary, . . . just keep up the good work on Wikipedia. // Internet Esquire 00:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
You commented on the AfD of WinLIKE, and the consensus was to delete. However, an appeal has been made at deletion review to restore the article. The main argument is that sources which assert notability have now been provided. You may wish to comment here: Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 12#WinLIKE. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 13:29, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
You may want to comment on this other president list
Hi, I noticed you contributed to the AfD discussion on U.S. Presidents' previous jobs, so you might also want to comment on the very similar AfD discussion on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unsuccessful major-party United States presidential candidates' military service, especially since I think much of your comment would apply to both. Best, Noroton 19:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for all the work you put into getting more sources for the article. EnsRedShirt 04:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
- Hey, no problem! I had seen this once before online (probably Roadside America), so when I saw the article I knew it should be saved if possible. I kinda get a kick out of saving articles from the chopping block. ;-) --Dhartung | Talk 04:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
afd victorian election campaign
Hi there, you may be interested in this afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2006 Victorian election campaign Grumpyyoungman01 11:31, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
No problem
Thanks for adding the free image of Régine Chassagne. I kept meaning to put a {{reqimage}} tag on the article and never did remember to.
No problem. =) User:Burnedthru 19:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Stay the course
Great job on expanding the stay the course article, especially with the "Origins" section. :)--TBCΦtalk? 03:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Thanks! I'm glad you like it. ---- | Talk 03:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
Bruce McMahan
Hey, Dan. Thanks for fixing my duplicate citation to the Village Voice article about Bruce McMahan. Good Catch! After I finish typing this, I plan to read the article you created on Miles Copeland, Jr.. I'm a huge fan of The Police, but unfortunately somewhat new to Wikipedia editing. Apologies if I've screwed anything up or stomped on any protocols! Ronstock 24 February 2007 (UTC)
- No problem. It was previously an issue regarding retention of the article as some editors thought having the VV article was an attempt to slip past the guidelines, so I merged them. I had thought about putting the abalone reef thing myself, just didn't bother as it's pretty slight, though interesting. (Part of the history of the article is representatives of McMahan asserting he is not a public figure.) --Dhartung | Talk 02:46, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
- Interesting that his "people" are claiming that he is not a public figure. 1. A quick Google search of his name gives you about 25,700 hits; 2. He is one of the richest men in America, which in today's culture, nearly guarantees public figure status; 3. His charitable and philanthropic efforts are well publicized (even more so following the incest allegations); and 4. He is a pioneer in international hedge fund development. I think what his representatives fail to realized is that fame (or infamy) is sometimes gained unintentionally, and that one can become a public figure whether one desires to be or not. Okay, I'll tuck the soapbox back under the sink where it belongs. Stay warm up there in Wisconsin, and thanks for the welcome and the advice.Ronstock 00:44, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- I have a feeling things are about to get interesting again on the BM page. The Broward folks just did a fairly scathing follow-up article regarding the editing wars that have taken place on Wikipedia amongst Pro and Con sock puppets (and more reasonable types like yourself, Dan and me). The article also purports to identify one of said sock puppets as BM's eldest daughter, Alison...Ronstock 18:11, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Ay-yi-yi. Thanks for the heads-up. It was brought to the attention of the paper by Brad Patrick?! Seriously, I had wondered if there was an OFFICE intervention in the offing. --Dhartung | Talk 20:10, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
- Yes indeed. I gave Brad a head's up as well (on his Talk page). Just in case he didn't know he was quoted by name in the article. I'm wondering if at some point the McMahan clan will realize that their efforts at damage control are a just tad counter-productive... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ronstock (talk • contribs) 22:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC).
- Thanks for the explanation on my talk page. I've frankly gotten a bit tired of the whole Bruce McMahan topic, and battling with his proxies. I probably would have been in a better mood yesterday if the Bears had not just traded away Thomas Jones for basically nothing. :)Ronstock 03:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Pallywood
Following the recent AfD discussion on Pallywood, I've made some changes to the article to address your concerns about original research and neologisms. Please feel free to comment at Talk:Pallywood. -- ChrisO 11:05, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Matthew Haughey, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Pandacomics 06:10, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks
Thanks for your help. I'm loving Beloit. I have a lot more pictures that I've taken and I'll try to upload some better ones. Taking photos in the Flood Arena is so hard, but I've gotten some very good ones recently. I'm still getting used to this whole wiki editing thing, but i'm trying to learn. I'm not really a HTML savy person, but I'm trying to learn. Thanks for the help. Sifiboy31 23:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
I notice that you did some great
editing and additions to the John Waddell article. My writing style has always been pretty informal, unencyclopediac if you will, and you did a great job fixing it up. This happened at an interesting time for me because I was supposed to go to Phoenix last weekend and visit with Waddell, but I couldn't get there. A friend who was setting the meeting up probably did go and so when I saw your edit I thought that it might be his report. But no. In any case, thanks. Carptrash 06:43, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
- No problem! Glad to help. The article already had a lot of good material. --Dhartung | Talk 06:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia Community AfD
You may want to look at the current version of the article and consider revising your opinion since the current version has multiple reliable sources including a note about a notable award the community has recieved. Thanks JoshuaZ 02:27, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
Dresden Dolls and LGBT
Check out [4] for why I re-added them. Ronabop 09:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Funeral
Corrected song title. Changed to as it is spelled in the booklet. It's not too important, I just believe it to be correct. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.130.71.239 (talk) 05:08, 10 March 2007 (UTC).
New NRHP Collaboration Division
Hey, saw you were a participant in the National Register of Historic Places WikiProject. I thought I would let you know that there is a new Collaboration Division up for the project. The goal of the division is to select an article or articles for improvement to Good article standard or higher. There is a simple nomination process, which you can check out on the division subpage, to make sure each candidate for collaboration has enough interested editors. This is a good way to get a lot of articles to a quality status quickly. Please consider participating. More details can be seen at the division subpage. IvoShandor 11:03, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
New WikiProject Illinois Collaboration Division
Back again . . . I am . . .
Hey, saw you were a participant in the Illinois WikiProject. I thought I would let you know that there is a new Collaboration Division up for the project. The goal of the division is to select an article or articles for improvement to Good article standard or higher. There is a simple nomination process, which you can check out on the division subpage, to make sure each candidate for collaboration has enough interested editors. This is a good way to get a lot of articles to a quality status quickly. Please consider participating. More details can be seen at the division subpage. IvoShandor 11:28, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
prod outcome
I do not think we actually disagree, and probably I shouldnt have picked up on the word. About genealogy pages, I more or less agree with you, & it encourages me to AfD a few. Apologies. -- —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DGG (talk • contribs) 17:48, 10 March 2007 (UTC).
Possibly unfree Image:JesseJacksonJr.jpg
- Note: The reason I listed this is because it seems that it is not an official U.S. Gov image, but rather one made by a private studio. Notice the copyright in the lower right corner. Thanks. --Tom (talk - email) 22:56, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
Univ. of Wisconsin dab
I like your proposed dab, but would like to make a few modifications; but I'm not about to do so without your OK. It's your sandbox! --Orange Mike 15:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
- Feel free, I put it out there for that reason. I'll put a tag on it.-- Dhartung | Talk 15:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
USS Fulton
User:Dhartung/USS Fulton Are you gonna paste that in main space ? --Pmgpmg 14:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'm finally getting some time and thought space to start working on articles again, so soon. Thanks for the reminder! -- Dhartung | Talk 20:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Image:Sundays.jpg
I don't believe I have another photo like it, but if it's a big deal I might be able to rotate it a few degress with an image editing software I have, but that would mean cropping it which I don't think there's a lot of room for. It was really a difficult shot to get, the room it's in has 5 Van Goghs on one wall, then this on another wall so the room is packed for about 99% of the day, and I could only be alone with it for about 5 minutes before the museum closed that day. NIRVANA2764 17:41, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
WP:UW future?
Hi, Sorry for the blatant spam, but you have yourself down as interested at WikiProject user warnings WP:UW. There is a discussion on going here that might be of interest to you about the future of this project. There are two strawpolls on the talk pages and the second one is about the future of the WP:UW project. Now we have the end in sight we are looking at wrapping up the project and merging it with Template messages/User talk namespace WP:UTM and creating a one stop shop for all userspace template issue. As you have yourself down as interested in this project we thought you may have some input on this issue, and would like you to visit the discussion and give any thoughts you may have on the matter. Cheers Khukri 10:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
Eliot Bernstein
An editor has asked for a deletion review of Eliot Bernstein. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Iviewit 02:45, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
After reading your biography, you certainly should have stated if you had conflict with Eliot Bernstein or Iviewit prior to and after your opinions.--Iviewit 02:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
- You claim I "closed the deletion discussion": I did not. I have never met Eliot Bernstein in my life and had no knowledge of him prior to the AFD discussion. Please avoid making assumptions of bad faith. -- Dhartung | Talk 02:53, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
Penn, Schoen & Berland
Did you ever think of talking to me before rushing off to DRV? – Steel 13:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Plese reconsider your vote to merge Human rights in pre-Saddam Iraq
Hi Dan,
I've just put a lot of work into improving Human rights in pre-Saddam Iraq so that the article is not now anything like what it was when you voted to merge. I don't know that it meets your objections to it, but please take another look and see what you think. I'm still not satisfied with the article, but it has roughly the proper scope and many more reliable sources. I think what I've done shows that there's too much material out there to merge this article with anything else. Significant gaps remain and some subjects should have footnotes from more sources, but I think the article is several steps toward what it should be. Best, Noroton 22:17, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
Beloit
Thank you for your help on the Beloit page, I am new to Wikipedia, and I am still trying to figure it all out. I will try to find the original link from my good friend who took the pictures. Thank you, oh and by the way I hope it was OK putting this in discussion, its the only other thing I know how to do! -Dan L
- You're welcome. It is important to get those credits, because our editors who work on the image beat are very aggressive about protecting Wikipedia from potential copyright violations! (And yes, this was an appropriate place to "talk".)-- Dhartung | Talk 01:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Mr. Hartung,
Again, you fail to address the gravamen of your and I "discussion," pardon the expression. My specific challenge was for you to address your following statement: "It isn't interesting at all, nor does it make much sense." First, your lack of interest is fine and is a matter of personal choice, but to state, and I yet quote again, "[Nor] does it make much sense," demands a specific response of what you fail to understand, specifically "[what doesn't] make much sense" to you. As former CEO of Iviewit, I am offering you the opportunity for a high level discussion to clear up your thinking. Your lack of follow through in this regard seemingly has a whiff of "whoa, when I do understand it, maybe I and the community are wrong, and I can't have that." So, let's break it down into 2 simple problems the answers to which when combined will solve the whole. First, what about the Iviewit matters and my earlier introduction into the discussion does not make much sense to you? I look forward to your response to this first issue, and I submit that, until resolved, it is in the best interest of the community to follow along on this discussion page; we have nothing to hide, right? ````P. Stephen Lamont, former CEO of Iviewit.
Mr. Hartung,
Again, you fail to address the gravamen of your and I "discussion," pardon the expression. My specific challenge was for you to address your following statement: "It isn't interesting at all, nor does it make much sense." First, your lack of interest is fine and is a matter of personal choice, but to state, and I yet quote again, "[Nor] does it make much sense," demands a specific response of what you fail to understand, specifically "[what doesn't] make much sense" to you. As former CEO of Iviewit, I am offering you the opportunity for a high level discussion to clear up your thinking. Your lack of follow through in this regard seemingly has a whiff of "whoa, when I do understand it, maybe I and the community are wrong, and I can't have that." So, let's break it down into 2 simple problems the answers to which when combined will solve the whole. First, what about the Iviewit matters and my earlier introduction into the discussion does not make much sense to you? I look forward to your response to this first issue, and I submit that, until resolved, it is in the best interest of the community to follow along on this discussion page; we have nothing to hide, right? ````P. Stephen Lamont, former CEO of Iviewit.
Iviewit - Response to your comment
Bold text THE ART OF PATENT SABOTAGE: HOW IT WORKS!
By way of introduction, I am P. Stephen Lamont, the former CEO of Iviewit Holdings, Inc. and its subsidiaries, affiliates and related parties (collectively "Iviewit"), from 2001 to 2006, with more than a fifteen year track record as a multimedia technology and consumer electronics executive and holder of a J.D. in Intellectual Property Law, an M.B.A in Finance, and a B.S. in Industrial Engineering, and I write in reply to Dhartung and in support of Eliot I. Bernstein, the founder of Iviewit and the principal inventor of the technologies in question; I have been silent since the opportunity to transfer my responsiblities to a successor to Iviewit, but in this age of on-line encyclopedias and blogs, I can be silent no more.
Moreover, and while grant it I was not a participant during the alleged burying and purported theft of the technologies, I found myself leading a company in the midst of a cover up of the aforementioned depictions of frauds, deceits, and misrepresentations that run so wide and so deep that it tears at the very fabric of what has become to be know as free commerce in this country, and, in the fact that it pertains to inventors rights, tears at the very fabric of the Constitution of the United States.
Furthermore, early in my tenure, rumors began swirling around the company with finger pointing and all from Florida to Los Angeles wherein it catches the jet stream and arrived very soon in New York of alleged breaches of confidentiality pertaining to Iviewit technology, transfers of trade secrets, and, even in certain circumstances, the knowing and willful invention fraud by the outright switching of signature pages of patent filings by early patent counsels. Additionally, during my tenure, I was in possession of an executed patent application pertaining to Iviewit's core imaging technology with the inventors of Bernstein and Shirajee, when, out of thin air, and just prior to filing, such patent application witnesses the addition of a one Brian G. Utley ('Utley') as an inventor, and an individual who could not have been farther from the heat of the inventive stage of the imaging technology.
Still further, I submit that at the first disclosures of the inventions, patent counsel, who had spent half a lifetime procuring technologies for the transmission of full screen, full frame rate video across a variety of transmission networks, and who during the Iviewit disclosures have been known to state "[I] missed that," and "[I] never thought of that," and "[This] changes everything," or words to those effects, were so fearful that Iviewit would partner with other proprietary technologies across the video value chain and wipe the carefully crafted patent pools off the face of the map, therefore, the Iviewit inventions HAD to be buried to preserve those pools.
That was the first step, with the second step, through the direct and indirect introductions of Iviewit, with executed NDA's, to some five hundred potential licensees by colleagues of patent counsel, being the proliferation of Iviewit disclosures across a wide array of potential licensees and competitors (have you ever wondered why the free download of Windows Media Encoder defaults to a 320x240 frame size, the first essential characteristic of the Iviewit video scaling technology that proceeds to innovate and enhance that frame size?).
Following along, we arrive at the point in the past when the Iviewit inventions had been buried and that everyone had begun to use it, when past management in the company and new patent counsel may have thought �Hey, okay, great, but now what's in it for us," that proceeded to a final step, and in addition to the intentional change of inventors with the inclusion of Utley, the corporate shell game that involved multiple, unauthorized, similarly named corporate formations and unauthorized stock swaps and unauthorized asset transfers that resulted in the core patent applications assigned to an entity that may have only one shareholder, the limited liability partnership of the alleged perpetrating patent counsel, perhaps, with a view towards resurrecting the backbone technologies at some future point.
Lastly, does it seem too far fetched when you include house break-ins, death threats, car bombings, and wrongful evictions? I further submit that I had been a victim as well where every file on my former Iviewit machines were changed from the original date of creation to on or about August 25, 2003, a time in which I was on a business trip in Florida to meet with the Boca Raton Police Department. Still too unbelievable? Then recall the browser wars, particularly the Internet Explorer/Microsoft/Spyglass/University of Illinois at Urbana battle, a situation I was very close to during my tenure at Thomson Multimedia S.A. (in IE click "Help" then "About IE" and read all about it), and you may agree that, as I had many times termed it, "invention stealing is the world's second oldest profession," only this time, as Jack Nicholson has termed it, "[They] fu--ed with the wrong marine." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pslamont (talk • contribs).
- You know, that's all very interesting. No, sorry, I lied. It isn't interesting at all, nor does it make much sense. Mr. Lamont (or Mr. Bernstein, whoever you are), your article was deleted by community consensus. Its deletion was upheld by consensus. Please find another place to tell your story. -- Dhartung | Talk 18:34, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Mr. Hartung, thank you for your comments, however, they [your comments] seem on the confrontational side, and as such, allow me to withdraw that thank you and submit a no thank you. Your confrontational style holds no place in the sprit of knowledge creation, and perhaps you have spent a bit too much of your career on the consutling side, and not enough on the "doing" side. Both Mr. Bernstein and I firmly will continue to submit that the Iviewit matters are not advertising, they are not biographical in nature, nor any other instance contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia, the spirit you so eloquently trash in your confrontational manner. Therefore, you should be on notice that the Iviewit matters are the creation of knowledge on "How Not to Pursue Patent Prosection," and for all eyes to see I challenge you to restate what does not make sense to you and about what scholarly references you wish advise upon - there are at least a dozen; I anxiously await you reply.
- P.S. Lamont
- Former CEO of Iviewit —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pslamont (talk • contribs).
- What. Ever. I have no power to change consensus, so pray tell, why are you haranguing me? -- Dhartung | Talk 21:46, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Mr. Hartung, are you avoiding my offer to restate what does not make sense to you and about what scholarly references you wish advise upon? I anxiously await your reply; the matter of deletion by census is no longer the issue. Let me explain, that if you want to comment on these matters, stand up to the challenge, and not merely state your comments and hide in the wilderness of Wisconsin. Lastly, should you not wish to stand up to challenge, keep your cowardly rhetoric to yourself. Which is it, Mr. Hartung?
````P. Stephen Lamont, former CEO of Iviewit!
- Okay, that's a personal attack. This is just harassment; please do not contact me again. -- Dhartung | Talk 22:25, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks, for instance, stating "Your statement is a personal attack..." is not itself a personal attack.
- Mr. Lamont, I do not perceive that you have a question that I can help you to resolve. Your article was deleted by the community, not by me. I will pose possible questions and their answers:
- Q. "How can I get an article about Iviewit on Wikipedia?" A. You can't, unless there is more coverage by mainstream news sources that specifically discusses the company.
- Q. "How can I get an article about Eliot Bernstein on Wikipedia?" A. You can't, unless there is more coverage by mainstream news sources that specifically discusses the individual.
- Q. "How can I get an article about our company's general opinion of the patent process on Wikipedia?" A. You can't, because that is opinion and original research, which are not allowed.
- Q. "Can you tell me how I can participate on Wikipedia?" A. Please contact the Wikipedia welcoming committee, or just see Help:Contents/Getting started.
- Beyond these questions, I don't know why you are contacting me. You are certainly failing to make yourself clear. If you do have a question that can be stated as clearly as these examples, do so. I do not wish to be impolite, but I don't have time to wade through another ten paragraphs of legalistic prose with very little discernible content. If you do reply, please do so below, in this section, not in another part of my discussion page. -- Dhartung | Talk 22:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
- Mr. Lamont, I do not perceive that you have a question that I can help you to resolve. Your article was deleted by the community, not by me. I will pose possible questions and their answers:
Mr. Hartung,
Again, you fail to address the gravamen of your and I "discussion," pardon the expression. My specific challenge was for you to address your following statement: "It isn't interesting at all, nor does it make much sense." First, your lack of interest is fine and is a matter of personal choice, but to state, and I yet quote again, "[Nor] does it make much sense," demands a specific response of what you fail to understand, specifically "[what doesn't] make much sense" to you. As former CEO of Iviewit, I am offering you the opportunity for a high level discussion to clear up your thinking. Your lack of follow through in this regard seemingly has a whiff of "whoa, when I do understand it, maybe I and the community are wrong, and I can't have that." So, let's break it down into 2 simple problems the answers to which when combined will solve the whole. First, what about the Iviewit matters and my earlier introduction into the discussion does not make much sense to you? I look forward to your response to this first issue, and I submit that, until resolved, it is in the best interest of the community to follow along on this discussion page; we have nothing to hide, right? ````P. Stephen Lamont, former CEO of Iviewit.
- This is my User Talk page, and no, I do not want to have that discussion with you. -- Dhartung | Talk 04:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I see, and, by avoidance, thank you for losing your credibility in these matters. ````P. Stephen Lamont, former CEO of Iviewit
Hi Dan,
Following up on your feedback on the MedHelp deletion debate ("Weak delete unless reliable sources provided"), I have added some sources to the "MedHelp" article --- one article from Time Magazine, 3 articles from the Wall Street Journal and an interview on the US Department of State Global Issues Magazine, all highlighting the work that MedHelp.org does.
In addition to the sources above, 22 medical-related articles on Wikipedia (eg Dyshidrosis, Milton Diamond, Proteinuria, Addison's disease, Swyer syndrome, Nicotine gum, Vaginoplasty, Diabetes mellitus type 1, Adverse effect (medicine), Androgen insensitivity syndrome, HLA-DQ8, Herpes simplex, HLA DR3-DQ2) cite articles from MedHelp as sources.
Is this sufficient to have you reconsider your "Weak delete" vote or should I add additional sources?
Thank you. Fdesouza 07:04, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
Wichita Massacre provacateur at work
Seeing as you've taken an interest in The Wichita Massacre, I thought you might like to take a look at what just erupted over atTalk:List_of_massacres#The_Wichita_Massacre. FYI, when I made my initial edits of The Wichita Massacre a while back, I also deleted it's entry at List of massacres (which was where I saw it in the first place).
Now two people have started clamoring on the talk page for it to be included there. After I replied, giving my explanation for excluding it from the list, I suddenly got attacked by an anon. user -- who turns out to have quite a history of this sort of thing. (see his talk page). Looks like the right-wingers are coming out of the woodwork on this! Cgingold 03:35, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
I have a few positions open. If you know a lot about technology, particularly MediaWiki, you might be interested in writing our technology report, which can be compiled from the MediaWiki commit log. If you're interested in press coverage about Wikipedia, you can help with our In the news section. What I'd really like are a few people to cover special stories, like the story I wrote this week about Danny and Brad's resignations. Personally, you sound like the person who might be great at doing this type of story. If anything appeals to you in particular, let me know, and I'll give you more information. If you're still not sure, let me know, and I can give you an idea of what I'm looking for. Thanks so much for volunteering. Ral315 » 05:05, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
Morgan Innes AfD
No worries about the edit conflict. JRG 09:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)