User talk:Isotope23/Archive 8

Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 17

Geo Chester

Istotope - I found this page for Geo chester and felt that it needed speedy deletion. I thought this to be an obvious decision, but I didn't want to overstep my bounds on tagging or commenting this article. What's the best course of action here? Trigam41 15:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks like someone beat me to it... Trigam41 15:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Bot

I just saw SelketBot in action... nice work on that.--Isotope23 15:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! ;) --Selket ^Talk 15:31, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

User:Sdubois

This user continued to post attack articles after you posted a message that said he had been blocked. Realkyhick 17:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Sir William Arbuthnot, 2nd Baronet

I have now done more work on this page as you requested and hope it is what you required. David Lauder 11:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Walker

Notability is a guideline for the existence of an article, not the content of an article. I don't see a good reason to exclude this information (of course, with due weight... which would be very little... where is this info supposed to go?) — Demong talk 07:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC) comments actually by 67.163.7.227 (talk · contribs)... not Demong (talk · contribs). Demong is not associated with this IP.--Isotope23 13:41, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Demong wrote the statement, yes?

It is beyond us why you want reviews. Popularity is not an issue for a bio about Matt.

Here is a link to iTunes If you scroll down to the bottom of the reviews on the first page you will see that Apple uses AMG for the review of Mr. Nysted's first album. We do not want to war with you, you seem like an ok guy. Second album will be up all over the world too ! Cheers!67.163.34.18 19:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

http://ax.phobos.apple.com.edgesuite.net/WebObjects/MZStore.woa/wa/browserRedirect?url=itms%253A%252F%252Fax.phobos.apple.com.edgesuite.net%252FWebObjects%252FMZStore.woa%252Fwa%252FviewAlbum%253FplaylistId%253D104462219

I will put this up for the rest of my gang to read at the school ! Lee's Orchard links have a thousand of these things around the world in a lot of languages. 287500 and counting.67.163.34.18 19:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• I requested reviews because one of the primary criteria for notability is coverage in reliable third party sources. I think you said something along the lines of notability is not the same thing as popularity (at least I think it was you... might have been that other IP) and that is true. What I'd want to see is evidence that outside sources, like music journalists and/or websites, have taken notice of Walker's involvement on the album in question. I can't see the Itunes link you've mentioned because I don't use iTunes, but if it is based on the AMG review... the problem is that there is no review at AMG, just a picture of the album. As of yet, with all the links that have been provided, I've not seen one legitimate external review of the album. This has nothing at all to do with popularity and everything to do with notability. Regardless, it's not up to me at this point. I'm going to allow the RFC to run a bit longer and if that doesn't garner more than the anemic participation it has gotten so far then we can move on to other solutions.--Isotope23 19:40, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh the humanity!

In other words, because you do not or cannot get the most widely used music service in the world, (iTunes) which happens to carry 16 reviews of Nysted's first album on it including the AMG review and disclaimor from AMG and iTunes, you cannot verify anything?

Let's look at this in a perspective that makes sense: if the administrators that are making up consensus on Wikipedia do not or cannot look at the very evidence requested, or required for accurate sourcing then how is anyone going to ever get to verification of anything save for what the administrators want to see? mmmmmhhh. Interesting, is it not?

How many other links are you unable to see? There are hundreds. The irony, however, is the fact that popularity is not to be used as a criteria for inclusion of content and the fact that you cannot look at the evidence anyway, sort of cancels you out as a decisive factor in all of this. Word. 67.163.7.227 20:07, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

• Having downloaded iTunes onto one of my junkboxes and viewing the link above, I am not surprisingly underwhelmed. There is a review cited to Allmusic Guide (which quite interestingly enough doesn't actually appear on AMG's own website) that makes no mention of Walker being on the album. The other 15 reviews you refer to are customer reviews... this in now way even comes close to reliable sources establishing that this album is in any way a notable addition to Walker's discography. Sorry, try again. Now if you excuse me I have to clean my junkbox of iTunes.--Isotope23 23:43, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh and really now... this is a discussion of album cites... I think a Hindenburg reference is a bit of hyperbole no?--Isotope23 23:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

It is quite appropriate for the crash and burn of your logic. Face it Mr. Powers, it has failed. You lost your argument back at popularity and not using content in an RFC. Notability is not about reviews, even though I am giving you plenty. You are grasping at straws so as to to not succumb to obeying the guidelines and policies that made you an administrator. Try the Orchard link Mr./Ms. Isotope. That gives you hundreds to choose from. Good luck. The RFC is not happening.

Walker shut his site down so you don't even have that now. The whole information section at the bottom of the article is all about the Pumpkins, and nothing about Walker. That will go. Get rid of Ashtar and Cupcakes, there is no foundation save for MP3 and a MySpace site. Yes it is about Matt and his discography that is dwindling fast. 67.163.7.227 01:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha ha... you crack me up. Notability is absolutely about reviews, press, etc. If nobody is paying any attention to the album and the fact that Walker played on it, how in the world can you claim it is notable? I've looked at the Orchard link and that also offers nothing compelling. Sorry, but I don't see any reason to deviate from the current RFC process regardless of your argument that it isn't valid in this case. If you've got a big problem with the RFC or you feel that I've somehow abused my admin status, the admin noticeboard is right here. As it stands, I'm making no edits to the article from this point on until the protection is lifted and the Nysted album mention is resolved.--Isotope23 12:32, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

all shellfish is saying is give peace a chance lol notable smotable it does not make a diff. man, cuz whateve mw did he did it makes no diff if the album sells or anyone knows about it like the artist example---matt played on an album it is part of his life you have verifiable proof how do you think unknowns become knowns? you guys are radless imo btw please do not do anything---that would be a great thing---i'll come back in the fall and see if you are still here--- signed not emo enough for you67.163.7.227 13:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, from a Wikipedia sense it does make a difference. Unknowns can become knowns as you've put it... but Wikipedia should not be part of that progression; it is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Once something becomes notable, then it should be here. Otherwise it should not. Just because it is verifiable that Walker did something does not mean Wikipedia has to document it. I could give you countless examples of information that is absolutely verifiable, but doesn't need to be documented here. Like I said before though, I'm disengaging here for the time being because this conversation seems to be leading nowhere fast.--Isotope23 13:59, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

• Time to write during a coffee break: I just read your presentation(s) (this last week since I was blocked) in all of this (Walker+Nysted saga) and I must say, I find your actions not indicative of a bright editor, and you certainly seem bright enough, if not just a waste of time. You took an article about a drummer and his life and have joined forces with a cabal of administrators, a lawyer from Chicago with nothing better to do than slander Nysted (see his 2 month history) and you have removed or will force the removal of pieces from Matt's life that may important to his biography. Who cares if one of the artworks he participated in, isn't selling much, or never sells? He worked on the album in question. Did he not? That is all that matters to Matt's bio. Do you have verifiable proof from a reliable source? Collaborations are not new. It appears he took down his own web site. You went for a RFC when guidelines ask that content disputes be resolved by editors, not by your peers. By bringing up all the old Nysted news, you encouraged trigger happy administrators to come back from the Nysted grave to defend their "MySpace" positions and one fresh administrator even blocked our corporate IP address. For what? I am thankful that our court systems do not try and hang people based on what little you seem to be able to work with. I do not know if your RFC will bear fruit, I doubt it, but what I do know, is that smart minds watching this type of behavior, will simply walk away shaking their heads. In the time since your RFC and advertising the Nysted name, not Walker, you have how many likely takers? If Mr. Walker and Mr. Nysted indeed have an album together, and Mr. Nysted creates another work of art, I suspect you will be the one admitting that you spent wasted time defending nothing. One final thought: Think about discography like the places an artist lived and worked and the paintings that the artist painted. Does it matter that no one knows the towns or that some paintings were never seen by the world? The trees fell in the forest, Mr. Isoptope. You were not there to hear the sound. They did fall and there was sound.63.93.197.67 20:51, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
• I seem bright? Don't let me fool you... I'm nothing more than a jack-booted thug carrying out the will of Der Cabal.
  

Joking aside, while I understand that you disagree with my actions, I am comfortable with them. If the RFC fails to resolve this then so be it, but I'm infinitely more comfortable having this decided by individuals who have no connection with Nysted or Walker either here or in person. If at some future date something that Walker and Nysted produce meets our guidelines I'd have no objection to it whatsoever. To me this isn't time wasted, but unlike some other individuals who have been involved in this conversation I don't see my time as money; it merely has sentimental value to me. Finally, in regards to your analogy, yes it does matter that some paintings were never seen by the world... at least from a Wikipedia sense. I don't know if you are familiar with Henry Darger, but he spent a large portion of his life writing a book that has never been published in its entirety along with numerous illustrations. Had he died and his things simply been boxed up the world would have taken no notice of him. As it were, his landlord found his work and ended up selling some of his illustrations at auction. If there were the end of the story, there would be some individuals out there who owned some fabulous pieces of outsider art, but there would be no reason to have a Wikipedia article about him. Given the fact though that Darger's work has been extensively written about and his life was the subject of a PBS documentary, he is notable in the Wikipedia article sense. Even if there were no Wikipedia article about him though, it wouldn't change his artistic legacy... he just wouldn't have an article here. Don't make that out to be more than it is.

...and if there was nobody around when that tree fell, I'd argue that it made no sound.--Isotope23 01:02, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Bright, but not very wise, I fear. Age is a factor for certain. Young people with very little life experience at anything, always seem to know the answers for everything. I had a suspicion you would end up opting for the ego maniac argument in the philosphy 101 class. Ego based and selfish people believe that without their presence in the universe, there is no sound.That is true for that person, if they turn to coal and have no soul. Nevertheless, Lee will end up just fine with or without the Wikipedia experiment. Matt will not play on Lee's second album which is being mastered tomorrow in Chicago at Colossal. Todd Sucherman from STYX plays all drums on the album. "Whispers of Wisdom" You could have read that in Citizendium if you had looked up user: Lee Nysted. I looked him up and I did read it there. It seems Mr. Nysted is welcome there. Maybe he will even write something. Probably not. I hear he has other people doing that most of the time. Best of luck to you. 12.35.96.66 03:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

• Don't be so quick to correlate age with wisdom... it's an assumption on your part how old I am and how much "life experience" I have. Somehow I think I exceed your assumptions on both counts, but that fact gives me no special claim to wisdom and I make none; nor have I ever claimed to have all, or even a considerable chunk of the "answers". Beyond that, your assumption of egotistical solipsism on my part is incorrect... but if you want to believe that is what my response meant, by all means interpret it that way. You are correct though, Lee will be just fine without any mention here; in the grand scheme of things it will not matter one way or another if he has a Wikipedia article.--Isotope23 13:09, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Comment: To age is to have experience, albeit, many people age without gaining any insight or "wisdom." Experience is a required element in the paradigm of wisdom, to be sure. The way you breeze right by blatant and explicit facts, figures, guidelines, policies, and laws, underscores your desire to be "right" with or without thought to what it ultimately means to this encyclopedia. It takes wisdom to know that what you are doing wastes time and accomplishes nothing. In the final analysis, you will look back at this RFC and all your rant about how Mr. Nysted is not notable, only to realize, the whole point was to improve on an article about Matt Walker. You see, there are also other players on the said album that Matt has been friends with since high school. Scott Bennett is playing with Brian Wilson and writing for Disney. Alan Berliant played with Matt and Scott in a band on and off for many years. When you take links out of peoples lives, you take away part of their bio. A full bio includes the person's life, discography and all things in between. It had very little to do with Mr. Nysted. As soon a Mr. Nysted's second album is released (within the next 2 months) to iTunes and the rest of the free world, he will have two albums out in circulation. (See Wikipedia guidelines for notability of musicians.) The rest is history. Matt will have Lee's album in his discography and all will be well with the universe. The kids from MySpace will go on to Psych. 201 and we pray will continue on their journey toward filling their 60 gig. ipods. I will edit on occasion, from here, or there. 63.93.197.67 13:26, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• I have no desire to be "right"; that is why I opened an RFC... to allow this to be decided by editors who have no previous involvement here and who are ultimately neutral. Sorry, but I don't see that process as a waste of time, even if in the end it doesn't garner the intended result of generating some worthwhile independent feedback. Obviously we have a differing opinion as to what constitutes worthwhile biographical information. On a side note, the guideline you are referring to in regards to Nysted's albums is probably WP:MUSIC "Criteria for musicians and ensembles" #5... which requires 2 albums on a major label or important indie. I don't think he will meet that criteria even after his next release given the fact that his first album was released on his own label. Beyond that, the rest of your message is incomprehensible to me; I have no idea what MySpace, psychology courses, and iPods have to do with this.--Isotope23 13:51, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Correction please: Nysted's music is released through The Orchard It is his label and it is also notable. They also happen to be the largest digital distributor in the world. (See Coldplay, etc.) http://www.TheOrchard.com (Go to "who we distribute.") You are confusing "publishing rights" with labels and distribution. Most successful musicians retain their own publishing rights, when and if they can. 63.93.197.67 14:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I understand the difference between a label, distributor, and publisher; my understanding was that NystedMusic was his label that his album was released under said label; if this is not the case then I am obviously mistaken. If the Orchard is his label or distributor, that might be a different scenario. The Orchard may or may not qualify as an important indie; I can't say I know enough about it at this point to have an opinion either way. Regardless that is a debate for another day and one I don't really see myself being involved in.--Isotope23 14:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Here you go: Confusion is not an entirely unknown phenomenon when it comes to the "arts and sciences." http://www.billboard.com/bbcom/discography/index.jsp?pid=699660&aid=744269

The true source of confusion in the universe usually starts with a lack of willingness to admit that we are not at the center of same, or that there is a God, and we are not Him/Her. 63.93.197.67 15:23, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

• In this case the cause is considerably less metaphysical. Some of the sources I looked at list NytedMusic as the label his album was released on and make no mention of Orchard in relation to the album.--Isotope23 15:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

on nearly every site i have ever seen that is called WOW ! i see what is happening and it is amazing !67.163.7.227 03:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC) i guess the sites that shellfish listed would help if anyone looked-----ha ha http://www.theorchard.com/dist/artistPage.php?artist_id=57284 or you and oderdictum can use myspace and mp3 to leave non notable cupcakes and ishtar 67.163.7.227 01:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC) this one lists matt: http://www.theorchard.com/dist/releaseInfo.php?upc=669910450864 67.163.7.227 01:16, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The RFC has "run it's course" and you did not get one objective person, inclusive of you, Mr. Isotope, to give reason why the Nysted album should be left out of Mr. Walker's discography. One editor states the necessary policy and you have ignored same. Further, you have left links and information that was mentioned as not at all referenced according to reliable sources, i.e., MP3.com and MySpace. This is hardly a finished issue, is it? 63.93.197.67 19:38, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Claudette Colbert

Thanks for your comments and for reverting some edits. I have to admit that my patience is being stretched to breaking point and this editor seems completely unable to learn how to get along here. Mind you, he's stopped vandalising my talk page and insulting me in edit summaries, so that's a start ;-) Seriously, I've thought of doing a wholesale reversal of all recent edits but then I thought that there are some good ones hidden in there and to go through the whole thing would take more time than I can spare right now, but maybe in the next few days I'll have a closer look at it. There are just so many edits, more than 500 just in the last couple of months alone. I've tried wading through them but they breed faster than rabbits and it's too confusing. I would also support your idea for starting a discussion to ban. I think he's on his fourth user name in the last few months, so blocking the previous incarnations served no purpose at all. He's shown no interest in being part of a community - which is fine in itself - but he's resisted all attempts at discussion, and blatantly reverts anything he disagrees with. He still uses inaccurate edit summaries - I've challenged him on this before, but even in the last edits where he said he kept everything but the Mankiewicz comments, it just wasn't true. Normally I give people the benefit of the doubt, but I'm way past that point right now. I see you've semi-protected the article again after an anon IP suddenly read his mind, and made the same edits. The trick didn't work the last dozen times he tried it, and yet he tries it again. Very odd behaviour! Rossrs 13:23, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

His being Japanese isn't the biggest problem but I suppose it is part of the issue. If he had a language problem and wanted someone to help him, there would have been plenty of editors willing to help, but there have been a number of instances where he has changed something from grammatically correct English into something very jarring and incorrect and has reverted attempts to correct the grammar, even though English is not his first language. That's arrogant in my view. There's no reason for him to be so confident in this regard that he is prepared to revert corrections to his use of English. I think he misses a lot of nuances in the English language, which may explain some of his edits, and some of his disagreements, as well as this edit summary which, I have to say, I found amusing. It must have sounded very unusual when he translated your comment into Japanese. Rossrs 14:34, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the dingoes are a constant annoyance: when they're not busy stealing babies they're cutting off our cable, and usually when we're in the middle of a football game or a nice Claudette Colbert film. Rossrs 09:35, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

thank u

u seem rele nice 2 give me a second chance!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Oh yes it's me (talk • contribs) 15:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC).

hey??

r u a real person or r u a robot? my friend dat is right next 2 me says u r a robot

I'm bionic.--Isotope23 17:05, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

snowball's chance

I was directed to wp:snow by another user and don't quite understand it. What is this policy saying? Can you shed some light here? I know I've been leaning on you alot recently for information, and I appreciate your patience with me. Trigam41 20:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

There's some confusion going in in the conversation that brought up WP:SNOW. See discussion here for more details. I put the db-nonsense on an earlier version of the article with a slightly different title, while Trigam41 I believe made his statement based on reading a later version. Hatch68 21:59, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Composers

Please take some time to review WP:OWN. Greetab (talk · contribs) is not a "guest"; he is an editor just like you or I.--Isotope23 17:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are right, My use of the word 'guest' was inappropriate. Thanks for the reminder. Next time I'll consider your Voltaire quote before I get involved in this kind of situation! Regards. --Kleinzach 22:56, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Shock site protection

Link: Shock site

Hey Isotope23, there's been a request on RFPP to either downgrade the protection on this article or remove it completely, seeing as it's currently on AFD and should be freed up for users to improve the article during the course of the discussion. Would you object to unprotection? Cheers, – Riana _ऋ 10:50, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for getting back to me! I've dropped it to semiprotection for now. Cheers :) – Riana _ऋ 13:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

ExpertSatellite

How should I proceed in readding the page without getting it deleted again ? How can I have you look over it ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Bin asc (talk • contribs) 13:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC).

Bette Davis

Could I ask you a small favour? Could you please have a look at this edit which I think has been copied and pasted from Colbert to Davis only to make a point. Aside from the fact that it contains irrelevant info, it also duplicates some facts that are already in the very paragraph it was inserted into. I don't think the author took the time to actually read anything, that would be a little too sensible. This editor is getting under my skin tonight more than usual, and I think I need to step away, before I allow my irritation to draw me into a 3RR situation. Thanks. Rossrs 14:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Expunged... ugh.--Isotope23 14:34, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Expunged is a great word. Thank you! Rossrs 14:49, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

My (Selket's) RfA

Thank you, Isotope23, for your support on my recent RfA, which recently passed 54/1/1. I hope I can live up to everyone's expectations. I will certainly take the constructive criticism I recieved to heart. Please, if you have any comments or complaints about my actions as an administrator, leave a note on my talk page. Thank you again· --Selket Talk 18:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

MDX

You don't know who you are messing with. From User:Melbourne DX

Thanks...

...for clearing up the vandalism on my user page. I really appreciate it :-) P.B. Pilhet 03:08, 3 May 2007 (UTC) No problem.--Isotope23 13:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.

Thank you for what you did with Prussian Blue (duo). That was such an easy problem to fix, and now I feel like an idiot because it was simple. I am sorry I reported it to the administrator's noticeboard. I'll know better next time. Acalamari 19:24, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

MySpace Events

I was going to rewrite it but you obviously didn't give me anytime to put hangon or anything. Can you put it back so i can fix it? Martini833 19:47, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Ygr1

Do you intend to indefinitely block this user and all his socks? There seems to be ample consensus to do so. If not, I suggest removing the five-day-old discussion from the community sanction noticeboard. --Tony Sidaway 01:45, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

He seems to be editing again under the names I posted to the Community Sanction Noticeboard. By the way, he has also taken an interest in editing Ingrid Bergman-related materials, in addition to Claudette Colbert film articles. --PhantomS 04:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

He also seems to be editing with the username Soonpush (talk · contribs). --PhantomS 04:09, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Expertsatellite

Ok, I did the page in my sandbox, please check it out, having in mind DirecTv`s page too, which, from my opinion has blatant advertising too. Anyhow, I only want my page to be up. :)

integrating

I integrated the trivia section into the body of the article but I was reverted. I do not understand. I was following your advise. Any suggestions. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 18:02, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I responded at the article talkpage.--Isotope23 18:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Still need your help though. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 18:47, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: Alansohn

Thanks for your help. Certainly my own degree of civility in discussions with Alansohn is nothing about which to write home, but the sensible thing to do in such circumstances is to walk away and cool off. That being said, he's certainly a dedicated editor and I wouldn't prefer to see him blocked, so here's hoping.  RGTraynor  21:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

ANI

This might show which group of editors could be described as a "cabal". One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 15:57, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not taking sides here. The old saying goes that it takes two to tango and it appears there are two groups of editors who have a real issue with each other and this is spilling out into all sorts of AFDs etc. It needs to stop.--Isotope23 16:00, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not asking anyone to take sides. The evidence is there for anyone that chooses to look at it. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, I've suggested a compromise to this on Nick's talk page, just waiting for him to look over that page first. One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting you were asking me too... my point is that from where I stand, I see general silliness that borders on disruption from editors on both sides of the divide. At this point formalized mediation or dispute resolution is probably the logical next step.--Isotope23 16:04, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't consider nominating John Alves Arbuthnot for deletion to be disruptive, and as can be seen by the ongoing AfD it's mostly the usual suspects who are documented in the page above arguing that the page should be kept, and claiming it's bad faith. If I'd nominated John Arbuthnot that would most definitely be bad faith. If other people want to push for DR that's fine by me, as people will really struggle to find many examples of me editing in a disruptive way, I'd rather spend my time more constructively. Had KB not created that template today I'd probably have carried on improving Real IRA, which looked like this before I started editing it. My time is spent more constructively like that, rather than getting dragged into disputes that are really nothing to do with me. Have a look at the deleted history of Seamus Clarke, and see how prodded it. Have a look at how I voted in these Irish republican AfDs:

• Seamus Donnelly
• Tony Gormley
• Eugene Kelly
• Patrick Kelly
• Gerry O'Callaghan
• Declan Arthurs

All those "merge" votes make the "cabal" accusations look a bit silly don't you think? One Night In Hackney₃₀₃ 16:15, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem

No problem at all. Hope to see it up to GA someday soon. DoomsDay349 20:06, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

History of the State of Israel

I noticed that you deleted massive portions of History of the State of Israel. I understand your logic, but I am going to revert your edits. Be Bold, but in this case, I think it went perhaps a little too far. I would be a pity to loose so much information. You might want to discuss this on the talk page first. I might consider splitting the page - if you are interested, that may be a better solution. J Are you green? 00:36, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

• Didn't notice that! Sorry. J Are you green? 00:40, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow! :)

When I saw RfA thanks at AN/I I thought, "whaaaaa...?" That was perhaps the funniest thing I've ever seen on our otherwise utterly boring Noticeboard, dear Iso ;) Have a wonderful day! Phaedriel - 14:15, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Please check out my talk page

I have striked out my own uncivil behavior. I was not watching his page so I didn't know and I let my anger get the best of me. Sorry. --Crohnie 22:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Quick Question

If an article is deleted and it is written again, but the second time it actually is noteworthy and follows the rules and guidelines of wiki standards does that article still get deleted? JoeyC5 00:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Old offer still outstanding?

Many moons ago you offered to nominate me for adminship if I was interested. At the time I declined, for various reasons. Anyways, these days I sometimes find myself with free time for editing that might well be used to clearing backlogs and the like. If you're offer to nominate me still stands, I'd gratefully and humblely accept. WilyD 13:16, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks - no hurry, I'm supposed to be writing a thesis proposal anyhow. ;) WilyD 14:22, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Isotope23 - No, that actually seems like a pretty fair summary - anything I want said about myself I can say myself - that's probably a more honest way to do it. Thanks for the nom and the confidence in me. WilyD
    • Thanks - I should be done before noon. WilyD 14:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
    • Thanks - I think it's good to go. I really appreciate all of this, FWIW. WilyD 15:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
    • If it's not too much of an imposition, I'd just like to thank you one last time for the nomination and support. WilyD 15:28, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Of course, I see that they've opened up a RfC instead (smacks forehead). I hate to be unkind.. but I'm beginning to think the two groups deserve each other, preferably, if I had my druthers, in a place where they can't pull others into their war. Should I immediately archive the material, or is that being too bold? SirFozzie 19:10, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Yup. I agree with you there. They're not going to stop warring unless one side or both are blocked from continuing it. SirFozzie 19:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Response to a Question You Asked Me In February

You asked how a girl from Maryland specializes in Detroit Garage? Passion, research and the internet. www.motorcityrcks.com is a great resource, as is littleroom.whitestripes.net, a White Stripes messageboard. jigwashere

I know quite a bit, but I'm not as knowledgable as some. My friend Corwin, who I go see a lot of shows with, is friends with Ben Blackwell and was interviewed for "It Came From Detroit" but I don't know if he actually made it into the documentary. That's so cool that you got served by Meg White!

Warhammer 40,0000 graphic novels

Dangnabit, I just know you're going to protect the the wrong version ! ; ) --GentlemanGhost 17:06, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

User:SanchiTachi/Graphic_Novels

That is the correct version of the page.

user:Someguy0830 is currently Wikistalking. Furthermore, the name (Graphic Novels) is a proper title of a series of books by Warhammer 40,000 and needs to follow the naming convention of the Warhammer wikigroup. Other such works, like Sisters of Battle (Warhammer 40,000) and Emperor of Mankind (Warhammer 40,000) can show you the naming convention in its fullest effect. SanchiTachi 17:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Please provide where the title conflicts, as Graphic Novels is a proper noun, not graphic novels the genre, produced by the company (Warhammer 40,000) for that game. Thanks. SanchiTachi 17:32, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming_conventions#Lowercase_second_and_subsequent_words_in_titles Graphic Novels is a name in this case: "Convention: Do not capitalize second and subsequent words unless the title is a proper noun (such as a name)"

You know, it is extremely rude for you to claim a page needs a rewrite when it was moved just 4 hours after it was created and had tons of people suddenly come in to complain before things were even filled in completely! Gesh. Try reading WP:EQ before posting again, because I think you need a refresher on how to treat new pages. SanchiTachi 19:09, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

The person who suggested it was a list (user Someguy), and his friends, are wikistalkers who are not part of either project. Please note that, and realize that he and his friends are going out of their way to try and harass me any way they can. I would have been able to produce more information on the project, contributors to the project, miniatures in the project, etc, but I have been dealing with these issues. SanchiTachi 19:23, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

User:SanchiTachi/Graphic Novels Current about a quarter of the way done. Still have to add in White Dwarf articles, other reviews, more miniatures, and the rules for the rpg game/miniature "chapter approved". I put this here so you can see what the page was intended to be, and how its a slow process trying to create it all. I also lack some of the resources (I only have so many of the White Dwarf) which was why it was put up so the warhammer community could join in. I have since contacted the Warhammer wiki to take the page and will probably stop bothering to put forth it here. They want to create a list page discussing only the comics, but that already exists, so they are going to be SOL when someone realizes the redundancy. SanchiTachi 18:00, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

HMMM...

Did Apostrophe come and whine to you? How cute.--Roxas 00:41, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

AfD closing - question

On May 25 you closed this AfD on Gay Left. You wrote that the AfD was withdrawn by the nominator, which would presumably mean a "keep", but the article is now a red link, as are Gay Left and Gay Left Collective, alternative titles suggested by one "keep" voter. Did someone come along and speedy the article after an AfD in which everyone favored keeping it? Something seems amiss here. JamesMLane t c 07:37, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying the copyvio deletion. I hope someone will eventually go back to those sources and use them for a noncopyvio article. JamesMLane t c 14:34, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Anubiz

I know Anubiz, You came to that conclusion becouse of what? Bluefire princess 15:10, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Well you guess wrong, I don't know him. Bluefire princess 15:25, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Who dosn't like bannas? Bluefire princess 16:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I can't stand them...--Isotope23 16:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I do but, I did not like you replasing my page with it. Anubiz 16:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you watching her? Just asking. Anubiz 12:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeas are you? Here I want you to have this with my Apology. Bluefire princess 17:55, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

This user is a modern follower of Bushido.

Rock & Roll Library

I added Rock & Roll Library today. I am new to wiki and would like to fix whatever needs fixin but I'm not totally sure what the problem is. I created a talk page there but I'm not totally clear on how things work here. I understand that you nominated it to be deleted (a bot told me so) so I'm here to find out what I need to do. I had a less than helpful exchange with someone earlier today and explicitly asked for help with none to be had. Someone else told me not to post external links to rocklibrary.com so I stopped (even though they're a good independent source for info). But I don't understand why now the entry is going to be deleted. If you read it you will see that they are an established nonprofit organization with a free website, do a lot of relevant work in music and work with well established artists and songs. Can you help me out here? What do I need to do? --Teamplayer007 04:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Ok thanks for clarifying as I said this is my first time contributing to the wiki. So here are some that I found; how do I link them or what do I do next.

Library of Congress talking about the Melissa Etheridge Song Lesson Contest and Lesson plans http://www.loc.gov/folklife/teachers/distributor_list.php?distributor=Rock+and+Roll+Library

Gavin DeGraw Song Lesson Contest (article on page 2 on the right) http://emer.org/Spectrum/05-04-new.pdf

Another Gavin DeGraw Song Lesson Contest (page 2 on the right again) http://emer.org/Spectrum/05-02-new.pdf

Music Museum Alliance http://www.musicmuseumalliance.org/roster.php?InstID=97

Thanks --146.115.56.71 16:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Give me a bit of time to look through the sources.--Isotope23 16:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism on the talk page

Hi, Isotope23.
There's a problem with user:Giovanni Giove.
On the talk page of the article Republic of Dubrovnik, he removed [1] the warning text about his behaviour on article page.
The warning is made in order to make him change his behaviour.
His behaviour is listed in the section "Shtokavian" [2].
In that very sections is a list of his POV's (he gave no background for his "original work"; I've covered my contributions with references - that makes his contribution a POV), which prooved his ignoring of the data and links to academical institutions given on the talk page (in the sections above).
The warning about his behaviour (on the talk page) should stay (multiple reverts).
He should have a reminder that he's working against the rules.
Maybe the matter of the article isn't your "territory", but the admin's reaction is needed on the talk page. Because... he's now removing the evidence of his behaviour. Kubura 12:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

My opinion is that we are beyond any possible limit. Kubura has became a serious problem. He just spread his own ideas, doing vandalism on well supported articles. His target is to support his nationalistic ideas without proper refernceahould. He accuse me to "hate" Croatia and oter... There is a difference between him and me. I my edits are supported, Kubura's edit no. He open agin and again, dispuutes already discussed and closed. A small example.... to change "Repulic of Ragusa" into "Republic of Dubrovnik". The above comments are (of course) false. Kubura is well known to several admins, like a fanatic. I've no probelm if my edits will be put under control: I've nothing to hide. I sholuld not tell the same aout Kubura. I want to pint out that Kubura was NEVER able to show that my edits are wrong, all he can do is to accuse that "I want to hide the word'Croatia'". But he can't support this claim. Best regards--Giovanni Giove 13:03, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

• Have you considered trying some form of dispute resolution? Maybe mediation or a 3rd opinion? The text on the talkpage regarding Giovanni Giove (talk · contribs) doesn't really belong on an article talkpage, it belongs in a user request for comment or Admin noticeboard report.--Isotope23 13:33, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It'll obviously go to that, I'm afraid. But, RfC, DR, RFM, 3O needs preparation.
In the meantime, Giovanni Giove has again removed the warning, as well as remarks about his behaviour on the article [3].
The comment was "That not the place for the personal attacks of a vandal.". Has he mentioned you his block log?
Those remarks were important, because they were, in fact, a material for RfC, DR, RfM, 3O. Kubura 06:56, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

If it is material for a future RFC/ANI report etc it would be better to post it at User:Kubura/temp than at the article talkpage.--Isotope23 13:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Giovanni Giove AGAIN removed the section we've talked about. See the difference between revisions [4]. That's fourth or fifth time he removed the content.
I've restored the deleted section.
If you order me to move it to my temp subpage, OK, I'll do it.
Still, I'm not requesting RfC or similar. More preparation is needed. That's why I'd keep that section. I have to point out the matters where users disagree in the article. That's why we have talk page, to avoid "fights" and editwars on the article.
And, that's why I've turned to contribute more on talk page and less on the article. But, that seems invain. I'm "barking on the moon" (it seems that nobody reads the text and references on the talk page, while G.Giove calmly pushes his fixations on the article, neglecting the critics and arguments given on the talk page, and getting more impudent with his contributions (language questions, italianized nameforms where no such is in use in science...).
On the other hand, Giovanni Giove (previously) made a section "Vandalism of Kubura". But, I haven't moved it, neither I intend to do so. Let it remain as a proof. For others to see how Giovanni Giove proofs his claims, and whome he names as vandal. I'm not childishly deleting the criticism pointed against me.
On the other hand, it's easy for G.Giove to name someone as vandal (with no proofs and references why).
But, when someone criticizes him (with references that show where he did something wrong; explanations and counterargumets are on the talk page), then he childishly removes the section.
Why can't he live with the critics on his behaviour?
After deletion of content he dislikes in the article, now he turned to delete the content of the talk page.
Shall we allow him to deny the purpose of the talk page: talk, discussion, arguments...? Kubura 19:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to order you to do anything, but as I said, that whole section belongs in an RFC... article talkpages are not the place to air grievances against other editors.--Isotope23 19:46, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, agreed. Kubura 20:15, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

My fault for getting involved in that particular quagmire in any way. No good can come of it. Ben-w 20:06, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Questions

Deleting constructive comments on your talk page is considered vandalism? --User:Entei-Anubis

I have another question. Is it really fair that Anubiz somehow found a way to have one of the user boxes but not be in that category that goes with it? Bluefire princess 00:09, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Huh? I'm not the best person to ask about userboxes... but I don't see a problem with that.--Isotope23 16:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

my bad

sorry about, I didn't realise. Thanks for being nice and letting me know though. I'll try not to make the same mistake in the future. -007bond aka Matthew G aka codingmasters 13:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

My RFA

You supported my candidacy in my recently completed request for adminship. The debated ended 40/4/1 and I'm now an administrator. I'd just like to say thanks for taking the time to consider me, and thanks for the confidence in me. I hope your confidence in me proves to be justified. Regards, WilyD

On a more personal note, thanks for the nom. I was surprised it was so smooth - I guess most people think more highly of my editing history than I do! WilyD 14:16, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks VI

Wow, I'm your sixth thanks. Well, thanks for understanding that Bushdid911 was the vandalizer, not me.

Kaaos 16:24, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

User talk:Erayhfjhdgasugjhfg

See User talk:Erayhfjhdgasugjhfg. I originally did the username + VoA block, but the user now wants a username change, and I figured you'd want to handle this (since you said that in the previous unblock request). Thanks, Nishkid64 (talk) 18:54, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, talk about coincidences. I came here before I got your message. Anyway, I would AGF and handle the situation for now. We'll see what happens afterwards. Nishkid64 (talk) 18:57, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

Why are you unblocking a vandal, who vandalised the main page, then vandalised my user page [5] after I warned him, about the main page? --Bryson^{{Talk}{Edits}} 19:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

regarding references

Hi isotrope,

While editing Mudaliar you have said google searches are not valid. But I want to add the book: Union Territory of Pondicherry By Francis Cyril Antony, Pondicherry (India : Union Territory) a valid source recognized by the government of India. Should I just add the name of the book or can I add this link: [6]

I added the google links just to prove that I am not adding some random book as a reference and trying to manufacture references. So you tell me, is it ok to just add the name of the book ?Thanks. Baccarat 21:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you protect the article Mudaliar for a week or so: it was already protected multiple times, see [7]. Now this 203.101.45.171 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has begun an edit-war all over again by using profane language in Tamil ([8], [9], [10], and all editors are abusing each other. He is just making extremely vulgar statements in Tamil. Please see his block history: [11]. He was blocked multiple times for hurling abuses and vandalising articles. I suggest a block of his ip or this is just going to continue and escalate. Thanks. Baccarat 22:55, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

RfC opened on editor conduct

I've just opened an RfC on myself for my conduct in a dispute that you were involved with concerning the Gary Weiss article. You took part in the AfD discussion for the article. The RfC is located here and I welcome your comments or questions. CLA 21:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Renaming

You can only request to be renamed yourself - you cannot put in requests for other people. Secretlondon 05:15, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Restoring text to List of notable conflicts to Christianity

Would I be counted as being in an "edit war" if I restored the section which has been deleted by the user you just blocked or not? John Carter 14:05, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the Freudian slip there. That should be List of notable converts to Christianity. John Carter 14:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Christine

I presume you already saw this and this. Thanks for eliminating that step for me :D Wikidan829 16:04, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Unbelievable. I wonder what this person gets out of this. Is there a way we can keep that IP from making new accounts? Wikidan829 16:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Tina Turner

Thank You. This editor is driving me insane Maggott2000 19:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

sorry if you're going insane,but you're removing truthful facts from the page,the biggest part of the material added was not written by me so it isn't point of view.thank you. Salmoria4 June 2007 (UTC)

comment: I did not remove it, I put it in the appropriate spot as per your discussion page. Maggott2000 19:59, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

tina turner

thanks, i did read what you told me to read,it helped me,i will change some materials that were searched in verifiable sources to keep the "peace" in the page,but not everything because the biggest part of the page was not written by me so it is not point of view. hope you understand my position. whish you a great day. thank you!!!. salmoria 4 june 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is point of view... even if it isn't specifically your point of view or wording. Even if it is cited, it still is not neutrally worded.

Take for example "she embodies the best and the earthiest meaning of women in Rock and remains the truest Rock diva of all."[12] .

This text is attributed to the John F. Kennedy Center for Performing Arts and was apparently written when she was honored there in 2005. The actual text at the source says "She embodies the best and the earthiest meaning of women in rock." so the text as cited isn't 100% correct. Rather than just stating the text as fact, it would be better to write it as:

She has been referred to as embodying "...the best and the earthiest meaning of women in rock."[13]

Right now the additions you are making are stating subjective opinions by other writers as objective fact, which is not a neutral way to write this.--Isotope23 19:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

yes i did understand you, so i should KEEP the following: tina turner IS ONE OF the most successful female artists of all time INSTEAD OF TINA TURNER is ONE OF THE most successful female-ROCK artists of all time.

ONE MORE QUESTION, IF I KEEP THE FOLLOWING:"She embodies the best and the earthiest meaning of women in rock." (AS YOU TOLD ME TO KEEP) it won't be removed because it is POV.salmoria 4 june 2007 (UTC)

OK IT CAN STAY IN THAT WAY,I THINK THAT I NEED TO MAKE SOME CHANGES YET BUT I WILL TELL YOU WHEN I MAKE. THE PAGE "MADONNA" NEEDS SOME CHANGES TOO.we can say that she is ONE OF THE most successful female artists of all time in instead of THE MOST. LIKE WHAT HAPPENED IN TINA'S PAGE.CAN YOU MAKE THE CHANGES?

OK I CAN MAKE IT TODAY AND YOU LOOK AT IT TOMORROW AGAIN TO SEE IF THE CHANGES WERE KEPT.

Once again thank you for your efforts in this. The page is looking very good, is precise, and referenced. Thanks also for giving me back my sanity. Maggott2000 06:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi

Bluefire princess sayed something on my talk, but I don't know if it was a flame of not. Can you have a look? Anubiz 20:30, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

The one in "Thanks" Anubiz 20:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for you kind words. I'll use this time to become a better editor and gain trust from the community. Happy Wikying! hmwithtalk 21:32, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

YechielMan's RFA

Thank you for participating in either of my unsuccessful requests for adminship. Although the experience was frustrating, it showed me some mistakes I was making, and I hope to learn from those mistakes.

Please take a few minutes to read User:YechielMan/Other stuff/RFA review and advise me how to proceed. Best regards. YechielMan 21:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Re. Dom56!

Sorry for being away when you needed my input on the Dom56!'s socks blocks, dear Iso; tho I see you concurred with my judgement there, which was blatanly evident from my humble point of view. He's been requesting me to unblock both accounts using IPs for a few days now. Let's hope he desists now. Hope you're doing great, sweetie - have a beautiful day! :) Phaedriel - 06:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Re: Duggs (talk · contribs)

WP:NLT does say "Users who make legal threats will typically be blocked from editing indefinitely" so no problem here. --Geniac 15:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello

You failed to read my argument, youve just glossed over it with wikipedia laws and something or other about a kettle. Hmm... Moron isnt the strongest insult ive ever heard, i remember the days back then when moron used to draw protests from people for being too violent, dont you? Anyway its not needless, its factually correct, Um Bongo is NOT marketted in or around the congo therefore i am justified in putting that comment down. Anyway if you had read my argument you would have seen that i have givin reasons for wikipedia being a joke site afterall i mean does Cow tipping belong in a serious encyclopedia? no it doesnt, but it belongs here becuase it amuses some admins and keeps them content, well putting one comment on which is not only factually correct but also has a british- humourous tone to it wouldnt do wikipedia any harm, if you can prove to me it will do some harm then i will accept i am wrong but untill you dont prove that i will stand with my views defiantly (not to say i will run amock and vandalise or make changes rashly, i will still be civilised dont worry). Aarandir 16:29, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Again the fact of the matter is he was being immature, if you would have read the argument you would have seen all hes doing is replying back like a child (no offence) not actaulyl contributing to a thoughfull discussion, i hope you can and i hope mr frederick day could have after deleting it without saying anything. I cant belive one comment has caused this, honestly. Just goes to show you.... grrr... makes me angry it does. Please read my argument, you will see it is well constructed and that comment is justified. Aarandir 16:34, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Can i have a reply from you please? (on my page) im going to move the previous 2 comments to my page hope thats okAarandir 16:52, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Racial and ethnic attacks in article Mudaliar

Hello Isotope23,

70.49.118.167 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has deleted the comments of other editor and valid references from the talk page [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], in the talk page of article Mudaliar. Moreover, this person is now making racial and ethnic attacks [20], [21]. I am reverting the the talk page to the last version by admin Ganeshk (talk · contribs) (who blocked some vandals yesterday). I suggest an indefinite block of this ip as this is definitely an ip used purely for vandalism and for hurling abuses. Also protect the talk page and article if possible. Thanks. Baccarat 18:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but I just want to remind you that this article has been the target of many attacks over the last few days. You and admin Ganeshk (talk · contribs) have been blocking many users [22] over the last few days. It might not be long before the attacks happen again as clealry some unsocial elements are very keen to incite clan/ religious [23] conflicts and play the editors against one another. Baccarat 19:10, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Holodeni

Sure. Wouldn't you feel attacked if you were called an "ultra-nationalist Holo[caust] den[ier]"? The guy has a long record of viciously attacking his opponents in the crudest terms (coupled with little productivity); this is but the latest example. (Actually the penultimate example - he told Anittas, "I'll sue you for slander", then quickly changed his remark to "Maybe I'll ask you to pay damages for slander", so as to shield himself from WP:NLT.) Biruitorul 19:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

If you're interested, he's now back to attacking me and Turgidson along with Biru: [24]. K. Lásztocska 13:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Email

Sent. Wikidan829 20:56, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Request

Can you please talk to User:Aarandir about this post to my talk page? I'm not comfortable associating with him any further. --Masamage ♫ 23:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Nevermindish. I've mentioned it at the WP:ANI thread. --Masamage ♫ 00:11, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Steve Gilliard

Thanks for your comments at my talk page. I've been trying hard to get the DailyKos community to understand that this issue is merely a functional issue rather than a personal issue. As I've said on a number of occasions, the editors / admins who proposed the article for deletion were not doing so out of spite but because they had a genuine concern that Steve was not notable. Hopefully my comments at Kos will convince many to not engage in votestacking or astroturfing. --One Salient Oversight 00:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism of Discussion Page by Warlord John Carter

For the second time now, User:Warlordjohncarter has vandaized the List of notable converts to Christianity discussion page. This time he has removed an entire section. Would you mind taking a look at this, please? I do not want to enter into any sort of revert war with him. Thank you. Cleo123 02:47, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Please note that what the above user calls "vandalism" is removal of comments made by that user which have seem to qualify as Personal Attacks. I also note the hypocrisy of the above user (their word) in requesting on the Talk page of the List we all know and love that negative comments against them be sourced and specific violations of policy and/or guidelines be cited. In the attack thread which I did delete, that user rarely if ever lived up to the standard that s/he demands any criticism of him/her meet. By removing the clearly and I believe explicitly unacceptable thread, I hope to indicate that such blanket criticisms should be avoided in the future. However, I clearly have no objections to the removal of the attacks, if you believe they meet wikipedia standards and policies. In any event, whether you agree or disagree with the removal, I would appreciate an indication from you, probably on the Talk:List of notable converts to Christianity page, whether you believe it meets the standards of quality for such talk pages or not. And, if you do wish to reverse the deletion, I will in no way object. John Carter 13:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

My RfA ...

Hi. Thanks for supporting my request for adminship. It was successful and I am now an admin. If I can ever be of help, please let me know. Cheers, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello

I have just woken up at the unholy time of 8.30 in the morning and i need something to occypy my self with... if you are there would you like to conclude our discussion? Aarandir 07:27, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Patrick DeMeyer

Hello, you deleted my Patrick DeMeyer page, as it was speedy deleted as it had previously been deleted. I had rewritten the page with more sources, as I was informed last time that if I added more sourcesthen it could stay. So if possible could you undelete the page. Many Thanks - Curious Gregor^TALK 12:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• I put it up for a deletion review before, and used the arguement:
  

Patrick De Meyer was one of the composers for technotronic, as well as playing the syntheiszers. Hence, the page for him alone. T99 when it became famous was him and Olivier Abbeloos and so cannot claim to be an article solely for Patrick de Mayer. The WP:BAND#Criteria_for_composers_and_lyricists suggests that he is notable enough as he he fulfils rule 1

Has credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a musician or ensemble that qualifies above, a notable theatre, or has been taken up by a musician or ensemble that qualifies above.

because if we look at his page on all music guide in the composed section we see he has written songs for Technotronic, Daisy Dee and 2 Unlimited, as well as | T99. Technotronic, T99 and 2 Unlimited have all had chart hits. Thereby qualifying him as notable on this count. He has also been a music producer on a number of albums, this is not covered by wikipedia notability rules, however, the producer is often influential on the sound of an album/band (see for example Wall of Sound). The references for the article were All Music Guide & Discogs, | this and IMDB film score credit (independent film, little known - doesn't add much to notablility) can also be seen as showing his work, as he has no official website that I know of. The article had been expanded and modified from the previously deleted stub, which was little more than a list of his pseudonyms, so that it contained more details about him.
. No one commented after I put up this defense of Patrick DeMeyer and so I feel it is enough for wikipedia. If you disagree, could you please tell me exactly why he does not meet the standards.
The reason I reposted with the added references (as well as a minor expansion, discussing his composing for bands and his one film score - it was not exactly the same article as you seem to suggest) was because in the deletion review the first comment was:

Subject-specific guidelines do not override the need for multiple, non-trivial, independent sources. Without those, we can't verify that the article satisfies core policies of verifiability and neutrality. Fix that problem and you can have an article. Guy (Help!) 11:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Hence the repost and minor expansion and modification, as it is not a major article - I am not an expert in the area just interested - I put in all I knew, with the hope that the article could be expanded upon, thus enriching wikipedia. - - Curious Gregor^TALK 10:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank You - Yoy have been very helpful and kind. - - Curious Gregor^TALK 12:26, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Spectra-Morphic

Thank you for your discussion of the issue. I have nominated the article for deletion through the AfD process. Digwuren 16:54, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Kimchi Article

I have been participating in the talk page. This last spat of RW started when Komdori and Lactose abandoned the talk page and began reverting knowing that they would outnumber me. As things stand, their revert has been PP'ed and they have still not responded to my requests for comments in the talk page. This is really a disservice to those who have been editing and adding to this article for some time now. Komdori and Lactose participated in ONLY this revert war and now their reverts are PP'ed.melonbarmonster 21:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I have to leave for the weekend but I'll let you know if Komdori and Lactose continue to ignore the talk page. Thanks.melonbarmonster 17:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

PureVolume

But half-seriously folks: If this is a site where "up-and-coming" bands can promote themselves, maybe we need to be encouraging its use as a means of keeping people from posting vanibandspam on WP, no?  :-) Take care. --Finngall ^talk 19:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

C:CSD

Evidently Vancouverguy was compromised; either way he's been blocked. I was just really confused when CSD didn't appear... David Fuchs ^{(talk / frog blast the vent core!)} 20:36, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Re:PROD

Yes, your edit summary told me enough to go look at the proper procedure. Jeffrey.Kleykamp 20:46, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Rambutan's edit war.

Thank you for clearing that up for me.--MrClaxson 16:19, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I've listed him as an SSP; I used Dwrules as the primary account.--Rambutan (talk) 16:35, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Alive Bible Club

Ok, I'm not hung up about it. It looked like some nonsense that someone made up. CJ 20:13, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

About Anubiz (and his many alter-egos)

Sir, I've been observing the User: Anubiz case for a while now and I believe he also goes under the names Entei-Anubis and probably even more, if you don't already know. He is a pretty unusual fellow, to say the least, and is starting to become more disruptive. He even talks and replies to himself sometimes on his various talk pages (probably forgetting to log in under one of his other sockpuppets.) Just a heads-up. Thanks for taking the time to read this. Nintenboy01 20:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Sure thing. Nintenboy01 20:58, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

My Pleasure

You're Welcome Sir,Arnon Chaffin (Talk) 21:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Vandal

Not a problem.. Wikidan829 21:10, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome. Have you asked an admin to protect your page for a while? Corvus cornix 21:20, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

OK, makes sense. Have you done a RFCU? Corvus cornix 23:07, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

White Rabbits deletion

I see that you deleted the article White Rabbits (band). I realize that I hadn't put much info on the page yet, so it appeared to be non-notable, but I was still surprised to see the whole article gone in just a few hours. I don't know how notable a band has to be for inclusion on Wikipedia, so I'll let you decide. The band's CD "Fort Nightly" is available on Amazon (link to it here), eMusic (link to it here), and the iTunes store (link to it here). It was reviewed by PitchFork (link to review here). If you look, it's available on many P2P networks as well. The band is very new, and they just released their first album, so I think that's why they're not so well known yet, but I read somewhere that there is a little bit of hype surrounding them. In case you're wondering, I do not know anyone in the band or anything like that. I just discovered the band today myself, from a music blog. Once I saw the CD was available on Amazon, iTunes, and P2P networks, I was surprised to find that there was nothing on the band on Wikipedia, so I added it myself. They also have their own website, and it's not just a MySpace or free GeoCities site or anything like that. Anyway, let me know whether they the band meets the notability guidelines. Thanks --Muéro^(talk/c) 00:55, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Hannahrama

Thanks for helping with Hannahrama. I know it may have seemed like I was being harsh in recommending a block, but I have dealt with this user before when the user was using another account. If you check Hannahrama's talk page, you will see that she has already removed the warnings that you and MastCell added after my request for intervention.

To be fair, I don't think the user is being deliberately troublesome. I think she just doesn't understand some of Wikipedia's policies, but at the same time, she makes absolutely no effort to understand them. Chicken Wing 08:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

My mistake. I had seen admins warn editors in the past not to remove warnings from their talk pages, but apparently that has gone in and out of style: Wikipedia:Removing_warnings. Chicken Wing 20:12, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

FlameViper

Am I correct that he is editing even though blocked [25] ? I was one who tried to hope for the best but he has proven otherwise. Thanks for your time. JodyB _talk 14:49, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

"Unlocking" for redirect

I think I've collected enough material on the talk page of the article Jakov Mikalja (currently wearing a name of Giacomo Micaglia) to proove an redirect as justified .
What do I have to do to make redirect frm Giacomo Micaglia to Jakov Mikalja? Bye, Kubura 19:31, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

thankyou

thankyou for blocking that homophobic monster that is daveyjones. Dont unblock him though he never changes , he`s been doing this for ages using different user names.Realist2 20:02, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

excuse me I have every right to be angry, it was me he called a Fagboy, a wierdo, a loner, unemployed, he called one famous person "as bent as a bomerang and BLEW more men than he`d had hot dinners, he asked one user how often his father has FU*K him, he told me and other user to Fu*k off. When I asked other user`s to block him they said they would keep an eye on it that was all. So please I have been suffering for weeks with no help. cheers. Realist2 20:10, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Give me a few minutes ill sort it [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] there are so many more.

this user page shows a conforsation between Uber and another user. Look at the sub heading John Wayne Vandal [34]. Get back to me when you have viewed all this. Realist2 20:45, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Industrial music

I saw that you undid an edit by one of Diluvien's sockpuppets to a previous version by another of his sock puppets, leaving out the phrase "By 2007, the majority of remaining artists and smaller label rights have been acquired by Metropolis Records, now the largest industrial label in the world." Was that a mistake, or did you intend to excise that phrase? I wouldn't necessarily object to its removal, as there's no source proving that Metropolis is the world's largest industrial label (although I believe that it is obvious.)--Halloween jack 03:20, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know of any published data I could cite, but I'm certain that there are no labels with more bands signed than Metropolis.--Halloween jack 16:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Ears burning?

You're probably already aware of this, but just in case no one's mentioned it, you're being discussed here. MastCell ^Talk 19:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

At it again

Hello. Did you happen to reach any conclusion on Anonimu's attacks? The only reason I ask is that he's at it again, though in a slightly less direct fashion. For the record, my version is significantly watered down from the original source, which states "During his university studies, like almost all Arab students in Romania, he lived mostly off contraband sales..." Now, I understand the "allegedly" is there for WP:BLP reasons, but his claims of "racism" are absurd, given that Jurnalul Naţional is among the most reliable of Romanian newspapers, used here extensively. The idea that Arab students did earn their income in this way, while perhaps unpleasant, is perfectly plausible, and as it satisfies WP:RS, I don't think he should be removing it. Anyway, your input would be appreciated, as I have again been tarred as an "ultra-nationalist", with insinuations of "racism" now emerging as well. At some point, I'd like to be able to edit in good faith (like I always try to do) without fear of slander from this user. Biruitorul 07:22, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and he just implied that his Baltic opponents are Nazis. Biruitorul 15:42, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I've been thinking about it, and may pursue that as time allows. Thank you for your advice. Biruitorul 18:15, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

For your information

Please see here for what I believe may be an example of someone you had earlier warned not to do something doing it again. John Carter 15:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Where's the edit warring? I see no violations of WP:3RR or anything of the sort in the recent edit history. There's only one edit warrior (I guess you could call it) and its been User:Bus stop. Is it sensible to protect an article because of one person? I'm fairly certain your recent actions on the List of notable converts to Christianity article was because of this user and I'd sooner have this editor who has had a repeated history of such abuses removed from participation from this article, whereas the rest of us have been seriously discussing it and trying to come to a consensus. Drumpler 21:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, you blocked the page. Where are the violations? I am just curious as I would like to know your reasoning for doing so. Thanks. Drumpler 05:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

As I explained here, the continued addition, removal, and re-addition of sections while the discussion is ongoing constitutes edit warring; that is why I protected the page. I've been away from the talkpage for a couple of days (busy elsewhere). I know the protection says "indefinite", but that is simply because I didn't want to update the protection every time it lapsed if the talkpage conversation took too long. I'm fairly satisfied there is a consensus on the page right now and I'm willing to unprotect it.--Isotope23 13:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I thank you for your help, however, it would seem Bus stop is already gaming the article.[35][36] The individual has not taken part in any of the discussions and when consensus has been reached, often filibusters in order to distract from the issue at hand. The problem is not with the article, its with him. I have asked other editors not to touch the article, inspite of Bus stop's edits. We've already been through two mediators and this user has ignored all counsel and attempts at consensus -- in fact, he rarely participates, except to give his own "copy-paste" dry response. What would be the next best step? Drumpler 14:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFC, WP:CN, or possibly WP:ARBCOM. This article is going to exist in a continual state of flux unless some of the editing behaviors here are addressed. Protection was the band-aid I slapped on there to let a discussion happen without continual edit warring.--Isotope23 15:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

My ANI and your idea

apologies for the mail spam (wasn't thinking)...

If it helps, my article is from November 2006. See history for Aredvi Sura Anahita (also peer review date at Talk:Anahita). -- Fullstop 15:43, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Feb 2006 is simply not possible. I didn't write it before November of that year, and the owner of the site didn't know that the article existed until March 2007 when I rubbed his nose in some really bad OR of his. (cf Talk:Suren-Pahlav Clan) -- Fullstop 15:54, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

That article on the wayback machine is nothing like my WP article. He superceded his OR with my WP content. -- Fullstop 15:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

But as you say, that indicates nothing... :( -- Fullstop 16:01, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
ps: please reply here (no point in cross-talk).

Right, what I was looking for was a clear designation... i.e. Day 1 is the old CAIS version as archived on wayback, Day 2 is the day that you posted the wikipedia article, Day 3 the CAIS version suddenly changes to be a near mirror of the Wikipedia article. Wayback has proved useful in the past for establishing this chain of events... this time it wasn't clear though. Sorry. I'll brainstorm for a bit and see if I can come up with something else. I've had the same thing happen to me where an article that I was heavily involved in writing showed up as a newspaper column in a U.S. city newspaper. In that case though the article was dated so it was easy to demonstrate that I had not copyvio'd them.--Isotope23 16:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Blocked user - question from adopter

A couple of weeks ago, you blocked User:Christine118Maureen as a "sockpuppet" (of who, I don't know). Now I've adopted User:Christine118500 who would appear to be the same person, given his username, his contributions and so on - he has admitted in talk page posts that he's not been good on Wikipedia in the past but says he wants to be good now. Another user has pointed out the link between the two accounts to him and me, not that it came as much as a surprise to me from what I had seen and been told. I have been hoping that he would edit constructively and live down his past. I asked for suggestions on WT:SSP but didn't get far in terms of guidance as to whether/when previous blocked (not banned) users could reappear on WP under a new name if they behaved themselves second time round. However, it was suggested to me by email that I should notify you as the blocking admin, hence this message.

His edits range in quality, I must admit: this edit today wasn't too clever, for example, although he has apologised in the past for some comments e.g. this edit. My adoption review of his edits before the weekend, on his talk page, gives more detail, and he's left a couple of messages on my talk page too. Anyway, to get to the point, I'm just letting you know the position, so that you can decide whether (1) a block is needed, or (2) he should be on strict probation (e.g. for good editing and civility) with or without "community service" of improving articles to show good faith, or (3) you're happy for him to continue editing in the normal way. Obviously, I'd like him to be allowed to continue editing if possible, but I do recognise (as I think he does) the fact of his previous block and the difficulty this poses him. Regards, Bencherlite 22:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your helpful and understanding reply. I will endeavour to keep Christine under close watch, until he either gets better, gets bored of Wikipedia or gets banned. If I need a "bogeyman" to wave at him, I'll just point in your direction! Yours, Bencherlite 00:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Christine won't be able to sleep at night! Bencherlite 00:35, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Giove's behaviour

Hi, Isotope23.
I still do not dare to do anything regarding article Jakov Mikalja.
Still, we're having problem with the behaviour of user Giovanni Giove.
Besides removing of references and ignoring the data given on discussion page, and pushing his "stories" (that were "beaten" by removed and ignored data), now he's trying to hide the history of his italian iredentist nationalist (and anti-Croat) behaviour on Wikipedia.
Then, I got the information of user Zenanarh (on my talk page).
When I looked at Zenanarh's talk page, I saw more of Giove's iredentist nationalism.... First, as usual, he accused his opponent as "nationalist" [37]. With no argument, he just names someone as "nationalist". Then, he writes his italian expansionist and "croat-denialist" ideas [38].
And, even worse, Giovanni Giove's etiquetting/discreditation behaviour. He etiquetted that user as some sockpuppet [39] and [40]. That user maybe is, maybe is not someone's sockpuppet, but only admins should put those tags on someone's userpages. But, Giove allows himself a lot of things. He allows himself too much.
My words may seem heavy, but someone should finally look at Giovanni Giove's contributions. As first, take a look at his insisting on toponyms in Italian, instead on local language, Croatian, on the Republic of Dubrovnik. This is en.wiki, so, if no English term, local term is used. But, Giove fiercely defends his (reverts everytime, many times till now). Examples are numerous, it's enough to look at my discussions with him on the talk pages (Republic of Dubrovnik, Jakov Mikalja, possibly some other articles, these are the most frequent).
Some other users have seen his removing of talkpage content. They can tell you themselves what experiences they had, I'll tell you mine case.
The recent case is on the talkpage of Jakov Mikalja.
See this change [41]. There he has removed the data that show Giove's ideological attitudes (his burst of ... anti-Croat attitudes..., see for yourself.). The message was Giovanni Giove's message from italian Wikipedia. I had to put that on en.wiki, because if I can't prove him anything with the arguments, than I have to show the others his attitudes, so the interested parties can understand him better.
After an user asked him to explain his behaviour, he again removed (second revert) that, together with the request [42].
After that, his next contribution showed his "game of playing dumb" (ignoring of posted messages with references). [43]. As he said ...Can you present some original documents of the time enforcing Mikalja... (I've told that on the talkpage before).
Than, he has, for the third time in a day, reverted, removing that way the message that an other user posted later. He also used words like "bullshit", calling other user's messages as "vandalism".
Than, Giovanni Giove is so "productive" in his reverts (without proper answer on opponents' arguments), as well as in his POV (I allow myself to say this after all my experiences with him) messages and contributions, that I'm simply can't "catch" him (to report all his suspicious contributions - it's too many for one person to check all that); why I'm dealing with his "work" on few articles, I got a message from other user that has complaints on his behaviour (see above).
Here's recent removed contribution. That was his message on Italian wikipedia.
Giove's attitude
Hi, everybody.
Here's Giove's message on it.wiki from July 30, 2006. I give it here, to show interested users Giove's attitude towards Croats and Croatia. [44].
What have you said there? "...: La nazione croata è un'invenzione dell'800. Prima non esisteva: non avevate nemmeno una lingua vostra. Ve la siete dovuta inventare a partire da uno dei vostri dialetti...".
The translation: "The Croat nation is an invention from 1800's. Before it hasn't existed: you (Croats, translators' note) neither had your own language. You (Croats, translators' note) had to invent it from one of your dialects...".
In the same message there's an explicit anti-Croat attitude (though, it referres to Croatian War of Independence): "Ti faccio da ultimo presente inolre che hai elimanato tutti riferimenti ai crimini di guerra croati.. "... that you have removed all references to Croatian war criminals". Giove mentioned general Ante Gotovina, althought Gotovina is still under process. And even worse, he "attacked" me for removing that false reference (interesting, he hasn't mentioned any Serb war criminals at all, like Milan Martić and Milan Babić).
Sorry, Isotope23, for being too long, but Giove's behaviour is frustrating for others. This is going for almost whole year, and is getting worse. We're getting nowhere with him.
I'm (in fact, we, others are also trying) trying to talk to him, discuss, but he's getting more impudent.
I've narrowed my area of contribution to few articles because of him. I've engaged whole myself in order to find proper references to prove him something, but he simply ignores and belittles that (how do you call that, when someone ignores and belittles certain sources, just because they are from some other country? I won't wrote that word -ism here.). Kubura 04:20, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I've removed several times a personal attack by Kubura in Giacomo Micaglias talk page. He has introduced comments tottaly off topic, just a piece of a comment I wrote in the Italian Wiki, with the aim to start flames against me (BTW outside the proper contest). The Micaglia dispute shall be continued on the relatve page, not here. Kubura has no right to introduce personal attacks on a talk page. Best regards.--Giovanni Giove 07:54, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Has anyone tried dispute resolution? This looks like a situation that needs a request for comment... From the looks of it there is a large amount of incivility, POV pushing and general misbehavior by numerous editors surrounding Dalmatia related articles. Editors shouldn't be using talkpages to discuss another editor's actions on another language wiki. This really, really needs to go in a WP:RFC.--Isotope23 13:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

This'll go to RfC. Till then, will you, please, Isotope23, prevent Giove's slashing of other users' comments? Recently, I've asked him on the talkpage of the article about Jakov Mikalja to answer some things, but instead of answering, he "cut" my message, removing the parts where I warn him that he hasn't proved my arguments wrong. See [45].
I'm trying to make a dispute resolution before further steps, but Giovanni Giove's cutting any such try. Kubura 18:50, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm playing according to procedure of dispute resolutions.
I've sent him the message on his talkpage [46] few minutes ago, with all the remarks regarding his behaviour on the talkpage of article Jakov Mikalja.
The message contains all references, organized according to the sender (FYI, others involved 've sent there to Giove over 40 (forty!!) explanating and warning messages regarding various matters discussed in the article and his behaviour).
Sincerely, Kubura 14:20, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

That 40 are useless, if Kubura just ignore references. The dispute is over, references and the article itself are clear. BTW, Kubura is known as a troll, not me. Anyway if u have a suggestion how to manage the exausthing conflicts with User Kubura, just tell me. Tx.--Giovanni Giove 14:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I would stronly suggest you pursue some form of dispute resolution. Maybe a request for comment.--Isotope23 14:43, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

when fully referenced

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wp:context#subsections: "However, sometimes there is a relevant discussion in a subsection that should be linked to." After it has been fully sourced I am allowed to link to a subsection. Anything that is referenced can be linked to a subsection. There are plenty of refs as you know. Instead of reverting there is a solution within policy. After external refs are provided, it can be links to another article. Therefore, after I provide the refs, I can link to a subection for readers. Please explain some of your reverting edits from subsection links after the context has been fully referenced. Some of the articles are already referenced. Providing an internal link is relevant and in accordance with policy when it has been referenced. I will fully reference everything. After it has been referenced, internal links are in compliance with policy. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 18:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[47] Your edit was not based on policy. It has been referenced. Adding an internal link is appropriate. I recommend you undo all of your edits for articles where it has been fully referenced. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 18:56, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

links

Please stop trying to source "co-founder" with an internal link. Wikipedia is not a reliable source for itself. If this needs to be sourced for some reason, use a valid external link; there are plenty of them out there.--Isotope23 18:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I have tranfered the above comment from my talk page to yours to keep the conversation together. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 19:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Interanl links are appropriate after it has been fully referenced. You have misrepresented some of my edits. Not all the edits were unreferenced. You could of just added a tag and I would of been more than happy to reference anything that was not referenced. Moreover, some of the articles were fully referenced which you did not explain. You intentially removed an internal link that was fully referenced such as from the Wikipedia community article. Please explain. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 19:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

What you are referring to is a guideline, not policy; your edits were no more based on "policy" than--Isotope23 19:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC) mine were Quack. In my opinion, your links to History of Wikipedia#Origin of the Wikipedia concept were overlinking. What relevant additional context is being added by that link? The fact that Wales and Sanger disagree on if Jimbo was founder/co-founder? How in the world does that enrich an article like Owning the Future? Sorry Quack, but I don't see how it is relevant in the articles where you've linked this, particularly in cases like Imagine (TV series) or Wikipedia Community where "co-founder" is already externally sourced. Internal linking adds no value or context here. As I said above, if the issue is that "co-founder" needs sourcing in some of these articles, use the NYT source; the internal link is of no value.--Isotope23 19:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

If you do not have any objections based upon policy, I can add the all internal links back to any article where it has been fully referenced. I recommend you revert you edits that were fully referenced and add a fact tag to any unsourced context. I will provide the refs to source the fact tag. It provides extra value for the co-founder issue. An internal link provides more in-depth information for the reader. It is simply a link. It is not a long statement. It is not a explanantion. Just a link. Articles are allowed to have internal links. Further, the internal link is simply an easy way for readers to click internally. It gives the reader the option. Let the readers decide and not your reverts. The link enriches the context without having a long explanantion at any particular article. External links provide value just as the same as internal links do. Thanx. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 19:36, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, I see no added value in these internal links being added to "co-founder" in this set of articles; indeed, the guideline you've cited above would appear to suggest against the way you've done this linking to a subsection. It has nothing at all to do with referencing; whether "co-founder" is referenced or not is a completely separate issue. Internal linking the word to the section you were linking to doesn't enrich the articles in question at all because any controversy over the term is irrelevant in the context of these articles (and IMO, unless there is controversy over the use of "co-founder" in those articles the external sourcing isn't really necessary either). The question is, does this internal linking make the articles better. I would say no.--Isotope23 19:47, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, the internal link adds value just as the same with an external link. The internal link gives the reader an option of clicking on external or the internal. The real question is: Does it enrich the statement. The answer is yes. Anyhow, it does make the article better. Futhermore, there is a controversy over the co-founder issue and the link solves the problem without going into detail at said articles. Respectively, :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 19:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

...and that controversy is irrelevant to the articles you've linked this in. As I said above, I don't think the external link adds anything of value except in the case where there is a dispute over the usage of the term. The internal link adds no value whatsoever.... I still fail to see how it in any way enriches any of the articles you added this linkage to. Whether Jimbo was founder or co-founder of Wikipedia and whether this moniker is disputed or not has nothing whatsoever to do with an aritcle like Imagine (TV series); it's random.--Isotope23 20:10, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

At the risk of repeating myself... The provided link enriches the statement and thus enriches the article. The valid link (appropriate under guidelines) adds context to the specific statement. This is easy to understand. Now then, I will go about my editing. Thanx. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 20:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are repeating yourself. As I've said before, I disagree with your contention that this in any way enriches the statement and thus the article. In fact per the guideline you've mentioned I would argue it is inappropriate per "In general, try not to link to subsections, as the reader will arrive mid-article without context..." That is, linking "co-founder" to that subsection in random article X gives no background that there is any sort of relevant dispute pertaining to this term, it is pointless cross linking in my opinion & that is also easy to understand.--Isotope23 20:31, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

However, sometimes there is a relevant discussion in a subsection that should be linked to. I noticed you left out the other part of the guideline. Hmmm. The valid link is to the co-founder issue and not a random link. Based on guidelines I am correct, policy-wise. The link is a specific link to the co-founder issue. In this regard, it is relevant to the specified statement. A linkage from the statement to a relevant article is relevant. You gave me an idea. Maybe, I should start Wikipedia co-founder dispute. I'll meet you there. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 20:46, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

"Based on guidlines I am correct, policy-wise"... no, not quite. Quack, you need to learn the difference between a "guideline" and a "policy". You are not correct policy-wise because there is no policy covering this. I'm not trying to nitpick you, but your trying to stand on a pedestal of policy where none exists.

Going back to the additional text of the guideline, you are asserting that this is a relevant discussion to the term "co-founder" in an article. I disagree. It is in no way relevant to the articles you've linked it in. If you want to go start a Wikipedia co-founder dispute article, be my guest; I have no intention of stalking you over there, though I imagine someone will come along and nominate if for deletion in rather short order... The bottom line though , I am not in any way convinced by your argument that the linkage in anyway improves these articles; it is off-topic and of no real interest or relevance to the topics you've linked it in. Feel free to respond though so we can both have another round of stating the exact same thing to each other.--Isotope23 20:57, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

It is linking the specified statement. Specified statements are allowed to be linked. The linkage improves the co-founder statement because it clarifies the statement by providing an option for the reader. By your asertion, externals do not help either. Yes they do. Both internals and externals benefit the article. Having both links helps the reader understand the statement rather than believing it at face value. All in all, the link clarifies the issue. Nothing more. Thanks. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 21:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

As I've stated before... it's an issue that has no relevance to the articles in question.--Isotope23 21:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

The link is related to the relevant statement which is part of the article. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 22:02, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

How did you find all those articles I was working on? Did you follow my contributions? Were you looking through my contributions? Did you revert based on policy or your "opinions." I felt like you were stalking me. Sorry, but I have to bring this up. I prefer to ask you here first about you following me before I report you to the noticeboard. This is a very serious matter. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 22:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Report me to the noticeboard? Quack, if that is where you want to take this... by all means do so but this is not a "very serious matter" as you've put it. I noticed the change on an article I watchlist, noticed you made the same change in several articles, and I reverted you. Given the fact that you and I have had one previous interaction at Wikipedia Community and we generally don't edit the same articles, I think you'd be hard pressed to prove that I'm in any way stalking you.--Isotope23 00:47, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. You noticed the change in an article as you put it. That means you noticed the change in only one article. The other articles were not in your watch list and you did not contribute to those other articles. You went through my contributions and reverted based upon your opinions and not policy. You have put me in an uncomfortable position. As I see it, you did look through my contributions and was watching my edits. You did do a lot of reverts. You did come to my talk page. You put pressure on me by telling me to please stop when I did nothing wrong. I merely made an internal link for the readers to understand the co-founder statement better instead of the readers taking it at face value and then, you are telling me to stop as if I wronged Wikipedia. What is wrong is not giving the reader an option to click and a specified statement and fully understand the statement at hand. It is part of the article because the statement is part of the sentence that is in the article. It does not make any sense to say it is not part of the article when it is part of a sentence that is part of the article. I will continue to add the links. I would appreciate it if you do not follow me to multiple articles and make multiple reverts based on opinions. For example, Wikipedia is linked from many articles. You did not revert my link to the Wikipedia article. I did not add an unrelated link. It is a relevant link. Anyhow, the link contributes insightful knowledge to the relevant statement. A simple link resolves and clarifies any controversy over the statement. I must say, let the readers decide what they could or can read. As I explained before, where there is an external verifiable link I can also apply an internal link which is not using Wikipedia as a source. Hooray and Godspeed. Cheers. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 01:43, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't put you in an uncomfortable position Quack. I don't stalk your edits, but if I notice any editor making a change to an article, and I notice they have made that change in several articles, and I disagree with it based on my understanding of guidelines or policy, I reserve the same right that every other person who participates in this project has to revert them. The links are unnecessary and in my opinion you have not made a strong case for including them based on any policy or guideline. There is no controversy over the statements as they stand in the articles you've added the link in.--Isotope23 01:48, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You did not discuss the matter with me. You reverted me and gave me a warning to please stop as if I wronged Wikipedia. I did no such thing. I did not break policy. You are entitled to your opinion. A simple link does add to the statement because it gives the reader with an option which you don't want the reader to have. There is a dispute/controversy. The best way to clarify the co-founder issue is to provide the link. It is against Jimbo and Larry when readers read the statement and do not have an option to better understand the facts. I do not want readers to blinding read something as if it is a hard fact when there is a controversy. A link enables the reader to completely understand the statement. This discussion has been fruitful. Now you understand my valid reasons for including the link. Thanx. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 03:01, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

There was no reason to discuss it with you at the point I made the changes. You boldly made the change and I boldly reverted you. Despite your contention otherwise, I disagree that you have valid reasons for adding the link... it simply is not necessary to link that text to that article subsection in the articles you made this change in.--Isotope23 13:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

To drop my two-cent in here, what QuackGuru is doing is actally against the recommendations of Wikipedia and it seems also to be motivated by a biased agenda. The relevant policy (which I have pointed QuackGuru to several times) is WP:CONTEXT. Specifically, under "Subsections" it reads: In general, try not to link to subsections, as the reader will arrive mid-article without context. What concerns me more than his ignoring this recomendation, is that QuackGuru is going from article to article making this same edit. This seems to suggest that he is on a campaign which is motivated by a biased agenda. Given QuackGuru's current RfC, I would advise he to discontinue this sort of tendentious editing. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 04:10, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Levine has just made a personal attack at me and has created massive disruption at the talk page of the Stephen Barrett article. He has followed me here and wants to get back at me for warning him of his massive disruption. Given the personal attack by Levine, I request he stop. Moreover: However, sometimes there is a relevant discussion in a subsection that should be linked to. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 04:27, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that QuackGuru should start assuming good faith; rather than accusing me of acting out of spite. My presence here is to support Wikipedia policy which I believe QuackGuru is violating for the specific purpose of pushing a POV. With that, I leave you to continue this discussion. My apologies for any intrusion on your talk page, Isotope23. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 06:07, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Er, where was the personal attack? Did I miss something?--Isotope23 13:19, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

There was none, I assure you. Accusing others of personal attacks, stalking, etc. is all part of QuackGuru's chicanery. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Sikh4Life

This guy keeps altering Sikh articles to a POV. He needs to be monitored to avoid an edit war. --Sikh-history 12:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Ben Going

Any advice on what unreliable sources I should chuck? One of the voters brought up a concern about the video links; but I'm not sure if she didn't like how I sourced them or that I was sourcing YouTube videos in the first place. Ichormosquito 17:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

As you expected, this has been brought to DRV for review. Please come opine. GRBerry 13:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Ha, I should start a psychic hotline.--Isotope23 14:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

• Istope23, sorry i lost my password. anyway, here is the deal of why i am confusion that non-consensus was reached:

• http://www.boh3m3.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=2162

"Over the next few days, Wikipedia should allow editors to work on Boh3m3's entry. It's been protected in order to prevent further editing for a while now; but I'm fairly confident I can bring it back, at least temporarily. Since I don't know as much about him as some of you do, I'll need your help.

Boh3m3's deleted page

Page undelete discussion

We might need to write an article off of Wikipedia first before handing it to admins for approval. If you want to get started now, keep in mind nearly every bit of info must be sourced. Ideally, any pictures must be taken by YOU or signed off on by their creators.

EDIT: Page is back. We still need a picture of boh3m3 that has been signed off by its creator for noncommercial use: see the licensing information under Smosh's or Barats and Bereta's picture for a better idea of what I'm talking about. Pictures you might have taken of him at "As One" are acceptable."

— ichormosquito post on boh3m3 personal forum

---

that is my entire argument on why the article is bias, advertising that needs review. thanks Heideggger 18:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Bias isn't a reason to delete an article; it is a reason to mercilessly edit out the bias to achieve WP:NPOV. Advertising is only a reason to delete if it is clear that there is no other purpose for an article to exist other than as advertising and I was not convinced that is the situation here. Closing the AFD as no consensus simply means that I didn't see a consensus to delete per the opinions in the AFD and I saw no compelling reason per policy to ignore that consensus.--Isotope23 18:36, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Gypsy Sun

Hi Isotope, I never seem to run into you anymore, so it's a pleasure to be able to post to your page to let you know that I have redirected the Gypsy Sun Experience page to the Jimi Hendrix Experience since, after a year, nothing - nada - has emerged to satisfy the WP:V concerns raised in the AfD and on the talk page. Please let me know if you disagree with this. Thanks, Eusebeus 14:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks man. Long overdue. Eusebeus 15:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

The list of Christians

You know much more about the procedures involved than I do. Personally, I can and do see that there is probably at least one valid argument regarding where reverts and those who convert to more than one faith should be listed, if anywhere, and, actually, as per a discussion I started on the WP:BLP talk page here, whether these lists might eventually prove to be a bad idea in and of themselves. There is also the basic issue of what the specific criteria for inclusion in such lists should be. Unfortunately, that is a rather difficult issue and one that really hasn't yet been addressed for very long, before Bus stop and Cleo dragged it back to Dylan. I personally would like to see some opportunity to at least discuss these matters. Which approach of the three options you see as being available do you, in your greater experience of these matters, think would be the best approach to use to at least give us all a chance to address these issues? And thank you again for your assistance to date, with my apologies for all of us who acted in such a way as to require it. John Carter 15:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks like Drumpler is already working on initiating a WP:ARBCOM request and I'd say that is the best bet here. WP:RFC probably wouldn't work at this point given the fact that 2 informal mediations failed. WP:CN is more for clear cut discussions where 1 person is obviously disrupting an article or articles. WP:ARBCOM is the best forum because this is a complex issue. There are obvious editor issues here with regards to some of the behavior that has happened at the article, but there are legitimate WP:BLP concerns that should be discussed. Given some of the BLP related stuff that has been happening here (the ongoing Badlydrawnjeff (talk · contribs) arbitration, the Daniel Brandt situation, etc) the BLP concerns are probably better deliberated by ARBCOM.--Isotope23 15:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Silly follow-up. I note that User:Cleo123 has, as per his/her user page, decided to leave wikipedia with what is to my eyes with the same sort of allegations which were going to evidently precipitate a RfC on his/her conduct. Is there any way to replace the content of that page with something more, well, neutral? John Carter 16:20, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Cleo123 left Wikipedia because John Carter and Tendancer posted harassing and threatening and untrue statements on her Talk page about 24 hours ago. In typical John Carter fashion we hear him now agitating to transmogrify that into something more to his liking. Bus stop 17:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, there is no reason to replace the content there. It's not like there is a personal attack or anything. If Cleo123 feels the need to state why he/she wanted to leave Wikipedia I don't see a problem with that.--Isotope23 17:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

You might be interested in the recent activity on the List of notable converts to Christianity page. It looks like Bus stop has already twice more tried to adjust the content and parameters to fit his own, unsubstantiated opinion. Just thought you'd want to know. OK, not want, but I can't think of the better phrasing. John Carter 22:28, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

John Carter -- Stop pushing your points of view. There is no place in the basic understood parameters for List of notable converts to Christianity for mention of a Jew. All non-Christians should be excluded from that article, which is a list of converts to Christianity. Bus stop 23:09, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

ArbCom

I have submitted a report on User:Bus stop on the ArbCom page here. As an individual who was involved in this debate, your participation would be appreciated. Thanks. Drumpler 17:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

User:Anubiz

Shouldnt he be indef blocked for being a suspected sock puppeteer? I beleived he was but it seems he is still editing... User:Fonzie77

He was never indef blocked. I'm monitoring the situation.--Isotope23 13:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

...and now he is.--Isotope23 16:23, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

From Alex V Mandel

Isotope23, Thank you for your attention. No, that recent attempt to create that new userpage "User:Alex V Mandel" was not mine, for sure. Possibly, i suspect, it was somebody's attempt to use my name for vandalism or some silly jokes... so, many thanks for deleting it! Kind regards - sincerely, Alex V Mandel 11:21, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Single use sockpuppets?

Could you please take a look at these:

Special:Contributions/Singhopurush

Special:Contributions/Tulabalance

Special:Contributions/Korkotkranti

Special:Contributions/Valomanush

Special:Contributions/Brishomanush

Special:Contributions/203.188.253.169

Special:Contributions/Mithunrashi

Then deal with them accordingly? ;) Thanks Wikidan829 13:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Neighbourhoods of Detroit - Foxtown

Thanks for letting me know that! What would be other apppropriate sources? maps, perhaps? i have a few maps of Metro Detroit lying around somewhere... RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 18:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

What about this? http://www.visitdetroit.com/visitorcenter/maps/ RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 18:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Unlock request

Hello Isotope. Following this outcome for the WP:CN notice on Bus stop, I request that the Christian converts list be unlocked. Thank you. Nick Graves 07:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. The protection was intended to be temporary until a solution to the constant edit warring was found... given that a solution appears to have been found, I'm fine with removing the protection.--Isotope23 13:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

User talk:NewAsmodeus

Perhaps you could protect that page to stop him from continuing to post is contrary advice, I just blanked it there. Frankly I am glad you site has a no personal attacks policy. Until(1 == 2) 15:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Giove's behaviour

Shall we treat this as a kind of harassment and/or discrediting?
Giovanni Giove put a tag "suspected sockpuppet of user Afrika paprika" (Afrika paprika is a heavily compromised user on en.wiki) on the userpage of the user Zenanarh [48] and [49].
I've looked if there was/is any request for checkuser regarding user Zenanarh, and I haven't seen any, neither opened case (Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser), neither closed case. (Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Zenanarh).
I thought that only admins can put such tags on user pages (admins are some kind of policemen and judges on wiki, ordinary user can't allow themselves everything).
So, I've removed that tag [50].
Will you, please, warn him not to that, and to leave that to admins?
If Giovanni Giove thinks that certain user is a sockpuppet, why doesn't he starts the regular procedure? But, as I've seen above (Requests for checkuser), he didn't (but he still allowed himself to stick around those tags, which are heavy accusation).
Thanks for the understanding, Kubura 09:16, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm familiar with Afrika Pakrika... I'll take a look. By the way, those tags are not restricted to admin use. Admins are not policemen/judges per se; they just have access to some additional tools that other editors do not. Adminship doesn't confer any special privileges though.--Isotope23 13:05, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

This looks a bit stale... The tag was added on the 17th and the editor in question made no attempt to remove or contest it from what I see. Ideally the editor adding this sort of tag would request a WP:RFCU or WP:SOCK investigation, but I don't see anything here that requires an admin intervention.--Isotope23 18:01, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

This is supposed to be treated as provocation ...or revisionist propaganda [51]. The same provocation would be something like making a link to "Posen" instead of Poznan, or "Straßburg" instead of "Strasbourg". The article as whole is for speedy deletion, see talkpage.
Sincerely, Kubura 07:52, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Editing

Wikipedia... the page "anyone" can edit?

I am Panamanian and have been to Kuna Yala 100 times, unlike you.

What would you know about Kuna Yala?

Why would you believe every gringo-written article about Kuna Yala in the web?

If a Kuna edits this page will you still revert everything he writes?

There is so much info in this wiki article that cannot be proved but I still know it is true.

Try and prove everything written in it!

There is even a link that doesn't work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.90.143.2 (talk • contribs)

ONUS?

oh my god... pathetic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.90.143.2 (talk • contribs)

Disputable article title and article itself

What is a procedure for the title I find "disputable"?
What tag should I add?
I have a case where I find the title... completely missing the point, and also, a content forking.
These days I'm going to elaborate that also (on the talkpage of that article). Kubura 08:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd use the talkpage or maybe as on Wikipedia:Village Pump; I'm not aware of any "disputed article name" tag.--Isotope23 20:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Disputes........

I think you are disputable. Maybe you should be removed from Wikipedia. You must like to be annoying. Maybe you should take a break.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Altonwiki (talk • contribs)

Hmmm, I need a bit more context than that. What horrible crimes against humanity have I committed lately that have your feathers ruffled?--Isotope23 20:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind "Altonwiki"... I figured it out. "Alton", as in Alton, IL?--Isotope23 15:26, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

eserver.org linkspam dispute

You previously commented on User talk:Requestion about a disagreement over whether some links were spam or useful references. May I ask you to review WP:COIN#EServer.org and comment? A level-headed outside voice would be much appreciated there. -- Rbellin|Talk 22:06, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

75.176.1.82

Please could you take a look at this User's contributions, which to date are simply 3 edits adding advertising sites.--Major Bonkers (talk) 10:14, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Make that 4 now... I reverted and pointed the individual to WP:EL. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.--Isotope23 13:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks; the Marine insurance article has had the same advertising link added twice now. I suspect it's simply a case of constantly shooing the elephants away from the water-hole. I'll keep an eye on it and only come back if the problem persists. --Major Bonkers (talk) 19:15, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the IP continued after my warning. I've warned them again. Next step is a block.--Isotope23 19:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Winshill (again)

Hi there, Yet again this article is being vandalised with copyvio material. The full page protection of the article seems to have expired early, though I can't see anything in the logs about another admin unprotecting the page... Cheers, DWaterson 11:17, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Thank you for participating in my RfA. It was successful, and I am now, may God have mercy on us all, an administrator. Look at all the new buttons! I had heard about 'protect,' 'block user,' and 'delete,' but no one told me about 'kill,' 'eject,' and 'purée.' I appreciate the trust the community has in me, and I'll try hard not to delete the main page or block Jimbo. -FisherQueen (Talk) 18:04, 2 July 2007 (UTC)