User talk:Jakew/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

List of Self Referential Songs[edit]

Hi, could you point me to the policy pages regarding the need for/importance of secondary sourcing of published material? I am confused as to why that is an issue and don't want to clutter the deletion discussion with an aside regarding my ignorance (and inability to locate) a policy or essay about this. I am striving to avoid being some type of contrarian jerk. Rubioblanca 17:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Gotcha. I think I understand your position. Some rebuttal points:

  1. The case for whether or not a song is self referential is made on prima facie grounds and does not in my opinion need a secondary reference to support that conclusion. (I hope that was on point with your view). The list also is not original research, as there are no conclusions drawn or positions made regarding the list. Compiling lists does not constitute research, otherwise we'd have a lot more Phds cluttering up the landscape.
  2. I think notability is addressed here [1] The list itemizes instances of a topic self reference that has been of interest to philosophers for thousands of years. That's how it crosses the threshold from trivia into legitimate academic value for me.

Is it 'important' data in the grand scheme of knowledge. Nope, I can't even convince myself of that.

That said, I am troubled by the lack of proper attribution for the excerpts and the inclusion of songs that do not meet the published criteria. Rubioblanca 18:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Again Jakew, Please bear with me, and also tell me if you think I've gone off the deep end. From the documents you pointed me to and quoted in your last message, this is the part I focused on to form my opinion:

WP:NOR My annotations in Red

An edit counts as original research if it does any of the following:

  • It introduces a new theory or method of solution; No
  • It introduces original ideas; No
  • It defines new terms; No
  • It provides or presumes new definitions of pre-existing terms; No
  • It introduces an argument, without citing a reputable source for that argument, that purports to refute or support another idea, theory, argument, or position; No
  • It introduces an analysis or synthesis of established facts, ideas, opinions, or arguments in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor, without attributing that analysis or synthesis to a reputable source; No
  • It introduces or uses neologisms, without attributing the neologism to a reputable source. No

Do you disagree with any of those judgments?

Further, my contention is that this list satisfies the following condition from Wikipedia:Lists

Lists should always include unambiguous statements of membership criteria based on definitions made by reputable sources. I think the criteria for inclusion is clear and unambiguous and that self reference has been defined by a multitude of reputable sources

And from WP:Listcruft

In general, a "list of X" should only be created if X itself is a legitimate encyclopedic topic that already has its own article I think the self reference article serves as the parent topic Rubioblanca 22:09, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so then our difference is that I think a song is either self referential or not and that there is no judgement involved in making that assessment. You believe that categorizing something as self referential is a subjective judgement. I see the test as much like "Does this word start with the letter A?" Your view of the test is more like: "Is it good or bad?" Back in my past we used to work by something called the "reasonable person principle". I'd like to try that here: are there any examples where a rigid application of "The song must refer to itself in its lyrics" would leave reasonable people with differences of opinion? I will concede that there are songs in this list that do not meet that criteria. I think they should be removed because "reasonable people" would agree that they are not self referential.

Also, "... in a way that builds a particular case favored by the editor ..." doesn't strike me as what is going on when adding to a list like this. From WP:NOR we have "The original motivation for the "No original research" policy was to prevent people with personal theories attempting to use Wikipedia to draw attention to their ideas" Do you see that as the case here? I don't see any agenda associated with the list or any POV being pushed. It's just a list. Rubioblanca 23:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... As an aside: These are the guys who advocated the reasonable person principle Herbert Simon and Allen Newell. It was a way to resolve disputes in a highly academic environment. But that's not really the point I was driving at. I apologize for drifting off message. I was asking you for an example that called for analysis. My position is that there is no analysis involved in selecting for list membership. The only expertise needed is fluency in the natural language involved (would that make all native speakers experts?). I interpret the WP:V reference as saying the lyrics must be quoted correctly. Oh, and I like and agree with your "determining truth" point. I just don't think it's applicable here (my this is a prima facie test viewpoint). Rubioblanca 17:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC) (signature got hosed so resigning)

Hi again Jakew, Please forgive my pesthood. I noticed today that the page had been deleted with some claim of consensus. Do you agree that consensus was reached? Oh, and I had another argument for you regarding analysis: I believe a simple computer program could be created to decide whether a lyric met the test criteria. That is a mechanical (non-analytic) process can be used to determine list membership. Rubioblanca 17:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Invitation and bots[edit]

Hello, I saw your intervention in some articles, would you visit WP:TIMETRACE and see if you are interested in helping? You would be very welcome ! On other subject, you know anything about bots? ℒibrarian217:23, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. The TT basically is:

  • Check in any article if they make references to reliable sources (WP:TIMETRS) when they mention chronologies or history of whatever, so people don't just go around saying "this happened in that year" or "our organization comes from the templars" without citing some reference, some source.
  • If you come across articles like that, tag them so they see they need to find references(and optionally help them if you feel for) SeeTT Strategy and TT Guidelines.

That's about it but very important for the reliability of all articles.

About the bot, we are trying to find out how to get a bot which can help us to make an automatic to-do list of all articles mentioning "discovered in", "created by", "descending from", "first coined", "first discovered", "has its origins", "was created", "was founded" or "by first time" without been followed within a few words by a citation or reference. I don't know if I explain it enough clear ℒibrarian2 18:04, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Great! Welcome onboard WP:TIMET Jakew, great that you decided to join. Let me know anytime I can be of help there or other place. Face-smile-big.svg

I am at this moment working on a project and I REALLY need someone who knows code, can you have a quick look at WP:KIS and tell me, in the box that says "here go your labels" how I do for making that when they add the labels they go horizontally and when the line is full they go to one more line? As it is now they display vertically when I put the labels (templates). I am very bad at coding, can you help me please ? ℒibrarian2 19:38, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


Yeessss! That's it. Can you put it in that page or you want I do it ? Great Thank you !Face-grin.svg ℒibrarian2 20:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

No. it is just created a couple of hours ago, you are free to go ℒibrarian220:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Take care, no WP in languages if not you go to projects :) ℒibrarian2 20:30, 27 August 2007 (UTC) OK I fixed that of the overlapping,great, thanks ℒibrarian220:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Just great, is working perfectly, I used part of the code you placed in your sandbox and made it that it looks like the labels go on a rail instead of a box. Thanks for your help, if you need mine any time is just to ask. Hope you enjoy WP:TIMET . We keep in touch ℒibrarian221:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Laertes d[edit]

If he can stick to that, I'd be quite happy - do you want to suggest it on his talk page? ELIMINATORJR 22:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

If you'd please...[edit]

Could you look once again at your vote in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mingle please? I have added a considerable number of sources, which are notable. I am planning on improving the article itself once I get the chance.SilverserenC 00:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Good call at WP:TIMET[edit]

Good idea about {{Timefact}}, I went ahead and created it Vanished user 09:12, 28 August 2007 (UTC)


Like that template for making templates, do you want to go ahead and save it and add the info at the Project's page? That would be great! Also, do you think that should be changed KIS for KISimple? (In the shortcut and mentions?) I don't know if it doesn't sound odd . Let me know your feeling about ℒibrarian216:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

KIS it is. I just needed reassurance lol ℒibrarian2 18:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Please check out the talk page at WP:KIS and let me know what you think about limiting the categories ℒibrarian2 18:37, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you think that when you have the time you can try to put in the page of WP:KIS betwwen the TOC and the shortcuts, a line of the KIS labels like " KE EP - IT - SIM PLE "? I think could look nice, what do you think? ℒibrarian2 19:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Oprah Winfrey revert[edit]

My addition regarding the fact that the CIA has been editing Oprah Winfrey's Wikipedia page was true, well-sourced, disturbingly serious, and very relevant to the article. Removing well-sourced contributions is poor etiquette. If you disagree with it's relevance, please state your concerns on the talk page where the matter can be discussed. Thank you.--Bodybagger 06:23, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

For becoming one of the founders of WP Keep It Simple[edit]

Blueprint Barnstar 2.PNG The Template Barnstar
For creating KIS alternatives for all those users who prefer to Keep It Simple I add here a lapel pin barnstar in case you want to add to your KIS rack.
Blueprint Barnstar 2.PNG
Heltzen 08:45, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


Something is really wonky, lol, I think the "Label" thing is already related to something else, because look at this: Template:User_label_US. That's not at all what it should say! I'm sure I'm doing something wrong, but it really is evident that there's some issue with using "label" as it seems to be pre-assigned to something else. I'm sure I can figure out what is wrong by looking at some other things, but leaving it up until you get a chance to see it. Face-wink.svg ArielGold 09:57, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I copied it from the last one you posted on the talk page, after you said you'd fixed the category thingie. Face-wink.svg ArielGold 10:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay bear with me, but I'm really confused. What is this doing? And can you please update the main page with instructions on how to use whatever fancy thingies you've come up with, because I don't understand what they are or what they do, lol. ArielGold 19:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
No, the link I gave you is to your change to the Rotor-5 template, you added something and I was just wondering what that is, what it does, etc. (Again you have to bear with me for not knowing this programming stuff like you do, so feel free to talk to me like I'm an idiot, lol) Click that link, it will show your edit, the diff. ArielGold 19:09, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

LOL Okay I trust you, and those look just awesome, seriously! I sure hope that you'll be able to write up instructions on how to use those options and what effect each one has, because lordy knows I sure wouldn't be able to do it! Face-grin.svg ArielGold 19:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

That's what I'm just about to do... Jakew 19:26, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Sweet! ArielGold 19:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


Nifty labels. When I hover over "B:EN" it says "English language ... English is a Germanic language ...". (By the way, I'm using Popups.) Shouldn't it say something more along the lines of "This user speaks English"? And what about the levels, e.g. fr-3, de-2 etc. to show how well the user speaks the various languages? Just my $0.02. --Coppertwig 20:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Butting in here, but when you look at the userbox for speakers of the English language {{User en}} it links to the category User en, and the link is to English Language, because that's the article about the language. Also, as stated on the project page, we'll be doing levels of proficiency eventually (probably on demand/request), but for now, this project is only a few days old, so we're working from doing "near native" to start, and have placed that stipulation on the project page so that's understood (as well as on the templates themselves). Feel free to request any label you like over at the project page! ArielGold 20:59, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
It does link to English language, but it also links to Category:User en and Category:User en-N; my fr-3 userbox for example links to French language, Category:User fr and Category:User fr-3. Of the three, perhaps Category:User fr-3 would be most informative. Also, the various templates e.g. Template:User fr-3 could be edited so that, like the Template:User en one, they begin with a sentence in plain text which will show up when you hover over it with Popups. (I don't know what happens if you're not using Popups.) For example, as it stands now, Category:User en begins with "This is a list of Wikipedians who can speak the English language." It seems more appropriate. On second thought, for those languages whose Babel category pages do not begin with such a plain text message, the way you have it now may perhaps be best.
I've used Parserfunctions a bit, e.g. at [2], so I might be able to help if you run into any trouble, but it looks as if you (Jakew) perhaps know at least as much about them as I do. All those wiggly brackets get rather confusing, so I can't necessarily read my own code when I go back to it later. :-) Comments in the code to explain how it works may be a good idea. I haven't learned how to use "div" yet. --Coppertwig 21:19, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, let me try to explain how the concept is, as I understand it. First: The reason it links to the category, is that the point of using those boxes, is that you'll be automatically entered into that category for others to see, whether it is what language you speak, or project you participate in, or your interests. (Perhaps you know that already, but just clarifying it). Now, taking your User fr-3 box as an example, clicking on the word "français", takes you to that category page, where your name is listed. There the generic userbox shown, says "These users speak French." and the link goes to the article on the French language. This is basically the same thing. Ours links to the category, to list the name of the person using it, and the link inside the box itself, leads directly to the article on the language, thus skipping the category link. Now, the advantage of userboxes is that they can do both in one box. We don't have that option, or the idea of "minimalism" ends up being a pretty long box. I guess if there is enough call for it, we can make it so all the boxes lead to the category page instead of the article on the language (is that what you were asking for it to do?) but I think in the newness of the project, that's something we'll need to discuss.
(Again if you know all of this, forgive me) The "popup" text is based on what article/page that link goes to, assuming the user has used the full name. For instance, if I type WP:MOS and you hover, you'll only see WP:MOS. But if I type WP:MOS, you'll see Wikipedia:Manual of style. However, I don't think that for the purposes of this project, it is possible to create a third, "alternate" hover message. This is why we're using full links, and not the acronyms when creating the links. However, I'm not going to say it can't be done, as Jake may be able to tweak things. My concerns, however, are a few: First, I"d say the majority of users do not use "popups", and therefore, it would be irrelevant. Second, the idea of not having a membership requirement, is that theoretically, we'd like to make this so simple, that anyone, even someone with zero programming knowledge, could come, look around, and create a box within a matter of seconds, with a minimum of instruction. That being said, we already have the five main variables: The name of the template, (where it needs to go in Wikipedia space), the full name of the link it will lead to when clicked, the prefix designation, the "short" label name, (what will display in the box) and the category the label needs to be linked to. I will give Jake ultimate props though, for making all of that into what has evolved from when we started, it is much easier now! So, that all said, and my reservations aside, I shall leave this to our dear, smart Jake to expound on! ArielGold 22:27, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


What would you think if a Wikipedia:WikiFairy happened to take her magic wand to your userpage? Face-devil-grin.svg ArielGold 22:12, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


Hi Jake, nice work with the options :) You think you can make a section or page for barnstar, starting by the two Heltzen did? Look also at Timeline Tracer Awards and you will see how nice those integrate in the barnstar messages. I think we could make that, what do you think? ℒibrarian2 11:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I think you have reason about talk pages, lets see what Ariel has to say . Can you make a French language label for me? ℒibrarian211:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

That is speed =:o Thanx ℒibrarian2 11:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

~*Whistles innocently*~[edit]

Nuvola apps kuickshow.png

Face-angel.svgArielGold 15:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Fairy visit uh?[edit]

Nice page you got! Fairy visiting? Lucky you :) It really looks nice. I just wanted to ask you, can you give a look at WP:UPDATE ? Is carrying me crazy for hours, cannot figure out which template, or what, self-categorizes the page (Outdate article), I think is the template "Updateneed" itself or so, if you have time today or tomorrow, can youuu...pleeease ? ℒibrarian2 19:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Are you interested[edit]

At WP:TIMET there are two doctors who may want to help you with [3], I say this because you may need some doctors opinion there and I have seen they are very well informed, mostly brumby. Just thought in letting you know after I read that in your page. ℒibrarian219:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


Is like this, the page mention spme templates and categories for tagging articles which are outdate, one of them is causing that the self page is categorized as "Outdated articles" and cannot find which is, I think that a template is causing it but cannot find it since hours ago ℒibrarian219:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes please, thanks ℒibrarian220:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I know that I keep saying it, but you keep doing nice things at flash speed, so once again, big thank you, you are great :) ℒibrarian2 20:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

What about[edit]

What do you think? Face-wink.svg ℒibrarian207:38, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Perfect taste[edit]

Got your mssg about timefact, thanx. Your user page is absolutely perfect in colors and so, you have nice taste. Vanished user 10:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jake[edit]

Have not seen you for a couple of days in any project, are you ok? ℒibrarian2 18:46, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I saw the changes, are nice! I like that of people saying "This is what I was looking for!" :) You should be proud of yourself, from a crude little thing you and Ariel made nice workable thingies. And your pink rack rocks ! :) ℒibrarian2 19:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


Sorry, I didn't save them because in preview were working wrong, I can do them again tomorrow, now I am about to go out. I do them and I let you know. Seee you tomorrow :) ℒibrarian2 19:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Weird left over chars in lables[edit]

Jake, can you take a look at all the language labels? There are leftover chars being displayed, ( |}} ), and I don't want to mess with your fancy template thing, lol.


Spanish one:

See? They all have that, all the languages. ArielGold 20:26, 1 September 2007 (UTC)


Do you have to add the proficiency when you create each label, or is it automatic? Thanks, Neranei (talk) 23:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, that is indeed what I did. Neranei (talk) 23:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Oh, thanks! Smiley.svg Neranei (talk) 23:18, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Proficiency levels Keep it simple[edit]

Hello Jakew, sure you may edit my userpage improving it. I tried a proficiency level for english and it works. I also tried to reduce the racks and the outer box. If you have better solutions feel free to experiment on my page. I like to keep it simple. Arjen Dijksman 08:54, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


I have initiated a deletion review of an AFD which you were involved in. You may wish to contribute to the discussion. Balancer 04:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Louis Cahen d'Anvers[edit]

As having deleted the Louis Cahen d'Anvers article, I would like to inform you that I translated this article from French as it was demanded on a list[4]. Why is it on the French Wikipedia but not on the English? Isn't it a shame to work to translate a page listed on the demands for translation page and then get your work deleted?

Cheers, --Wikihobby 10:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The Recycle Family[edit]

I may have, but I don't have much patience with users who go to such lengths to perpetuate such foolishness. Check out her comments on the article's talk page. It's like she knows this is WP:BOLLOCKS, But she's trying to do everything she can to block this. I see these users as nothing more than proficient vandals. Realkyhick 18:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Accidental deletion of others' comments[edit]

You might want to repair this. Jakew 20:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

These were comments within "my evidence" section that "supposedly" should never have been there in the first place. I was advised to delete them a long time ago, but demurred on doing so for fear of the kind of reaction I've had from you. I've deleted them now while adding something else. I wasn't sure anyone was even watching that page any more! PalestineRemembered 20:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
Can I suggest that you copy them into the corresponding talk page, with a note indicating that you've done so? Jakew 20:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I'll think about it - in the meantime, I'd be interested to know what you think I should do with further unwanted and aggressive responses to my new evidence. Do I have your permission to peremptorily delete this one? PalestineRemembered 21:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
I found the advice I was given to simply delete things put into my evidence when they shouldn't be - being a shy and retiring soul I waited for 2 weeks, then did it, then you told me I'd dun wrong. I think you're still a member of the Pedant Society - didn't take the opportunity to jump ship and transfer to the Society of Pedants - bit late to change your mind, we might not want you now! PalestineRemembered 22:26, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XVIII (August 2007)[edit]

The August 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 09:36, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


Hi Jake! Okay, bear with me, while I try to explain this, because I just know I'm probably not going to be able to explain it well enough. See the thread here. I made the Aviation project label, but there is only one "category" field, and so I used the Project category, not the member category. But it seems just so odd that out of hundreds of members, only 4 are on the category list. Anyway, Heltzen would like it to add him to that category, but that would mean removing it from the project category. Is there any way to get it to add to more than one category? And, can you figure out why hardly any of those members are actually listed on the member category page? No rush, just if/when you have some time on your hands. {Sheesh, reading this, it makes no sense, but it makes perfect sense in my head, lol.) ArielGold 17:23, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hrmm, well since I am honestly not sure how to fix/change it, if you have the time, could you add that extra cat to the label? Pretty pretty please? Nuvola apps amor.png ArielGold 18:06, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jakew[edit]

Thanks for your note. I have just gone through striking many things on that heated page, but I don't see a problem with the post you mentioned. Thanks all the same for your input, --G-Dett 14:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I've given it some thought, and I think the post is fine as is. Unfortunately, deceptive editing and systematic violations of NPOV are key components of the impasse on that page, and they need to be dealt with frontally.--G-Dett 21:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


i simple no longer assume good faith when it comes to TorstenGuise and his group there action make clear they do not act in it, so rather take caution towards there action particularly after the last incident [5], Sherzo 22:53, 9 September 2007 (UTC)


Hello, I wonder if you could, while editing diverse articles, check if they have sources in their history or chronology (or when they mention any important date. If they don't, could you please place inline {{Timefact}} calls where those citations to sources are missing, this will display [chronology citation needed]. If you find an article with too many inline calls to place or totally lacking needed history of the subject, you can instead place {{histrefm}} at the footnotes of the article's main page, just before Categories. If you could add this to your routines, it will most certainly help WP:TIMETRACE. Thank you for your help. Daoken 06:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of The School of Computing (RGU)[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, The School of Computing (RGU), has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The School of Computing (RGU). Thank you. Carlossuarez46 16:54, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jake[edit]

Sorry I didn't answer your message at my talk page, I was away for a while with all the headaches of moving, I will only be back fully in about a week or so I guess. See you Face-smile-big.svg ℒibrarian2 17:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Massacres during the Greek Revolution[edit]

Hi Jakew, you might be bored of these greco turkish disputes but this user, alexiuscomnenus and his IP`s showed up again in this article and reverted that article to a previous form which dates back to some months ago..[6] and in the processs large sourced content is gone..

He always keep doing the same thing again and again, and i think there is no way to come into terms with this user..thats is a massacre article and according to major works of history cited in the article, they were committed by both sides in the conflict..However he keeps deleting the section about the massacres committed against Turks..Massacres against Turk have been a notable event and all mojor historical works about the greek revolt do mention about it in several pages..

Just check this page that i uploaded, and sorry for the poor scanning.. Thats the first page of William St. Clair`s book about the history of Greek revolution and he is not a pro-turkish source by any means..

William St. Clair, That Greece Might Still Be Free, The Philhellenes in the War of Independence, Oxford University Press London 1972 p.1 ISBN 0192151940


Would you be able to present some opinion about this issue, regards..--laertes d 22:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

your wiki editting[edit]

what tool are you using to play with your sandbox/making many edits efficiently? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:19, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Just popping in...[edit]

To say hi, and see how you've been! Are you up to anything Wikifun lately? Hope you're doing well, and that life is treating you with kindness, and I miss having a reason to bug you lol. ArielGold 20:08, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jake![edit]

I have been soooo busy in real life, that I left unattended wikithingies for a while. How are you doing? All great I hope. On other subject, do you have any idea for a KIS logo ? ℒibrarian2 15:46, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


Hi Jake. Someone wants to change Category:User KIS to a category for members. WP:KIS has no members as such and the Category is for those who use KIS labels, do you want to comment at the discussion page so they have clear what is the category about? ℒibrarian2 11:40, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the message :) Here is a KIS label you can use for indicating your contribution to the project: {{WP KIS}} or just simply add to your user page [[Category:WikiProject Keep It Simple Participants]] ℒibrarian2 12:48, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XIX (September 2007)[edit]

The September 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 09:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Comments on intelligence disciplines relevant to your interest in underground testing?[edit]

I've been braindumping into articles on SIGINT and MASINT, as well as National means of technical verification -- and a few pertinent biographies such as George Kistiakowsky and Dino Brugioni.

The first two articles are far too long, and I'd like advice on breaking them up -- even though I have more material for both, especially SIGINT. MASINT may be a better first target.

With SIGINT, I don't think it's as simple as splitting into COMINT and ELINT; there's lots of overlap. Any help would be appeciated. Howard C. Berkowitz 15:30, 15 October 2007 (UTC)


Information.svg Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to HIV. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox for test edits. Thank you.

Medindia is not a blog, as you claim, it is a news site. Portal --Scottandrewhutchins 13:51, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

One source was a blog, and the other a press release. Neither constitutes a reliable source, and you even managed to misrepresent them. Jakew 15:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XX (October 2007)[edit]

The October 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

Delivered by grafikbot 14:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment to Blackworm and Jakew[edit]

Re comments by both of you at Talk:Circumcision: "...since that would imply either self-denial or deceit on your part, ..." and "Perhaps English is not your first language?": I would like to ask both of you to try harder to "keep a cool head" as it says at the top of the page, and to write in such a way that it's also easier for the other person to do so, too. Thanks. I have put a copy of this message on Blackworm's talk page. --Coppertwig 23:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately there are times when one is faced with a situation that is either a) a deliberate and disruptive misrepresentation of another editor's argument or b) difficulty understanding English. I felt it's best to assume good faith, but on reflection it may have been better to ignore the behaviour. Thanks for your note. Jakew 23:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
I think that in general, situations that seem to one (involved) person to necessarily be one of those two things are usually actually open to other possibilities. When reading a long discussion, people don't usually memorize the whole thing word-for-word. Someone with a POV in a discussion may tend to read something and then remember it as saying something somewhat different from what it actually said, and the difference will tend to be slanted in one direction. In general, people with different POV's do not fully understand each others' positions, so they cannot understand why the other person would believe X, and can jump to false conclusions such as "the person believes X, therefore... it must be that ...". The same words mean different things to someone with a different POV. What looks like an apology to one person can look like a deliberate insult to another, etc. To maintain civility, you need to go to lengths to compensate for these sorts of effects. Which you usually do. --Coppertwig 00:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
I congratulate you and Blackworm on keeping the discussion relatively civil at Talk:Prevalence of circumcision. ---- Coppertwig (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Ten Commandments[edit]

It's not that I don't know how to respond to Sigismont, but he just doesn't address my arguments. There is no hope of an RFC succeeding unless other users are also trying to reason with him. Perhaps you could have a try. I'm not sure what he's doing on circumcision. JFW | T@lk 08:29, 11 November 2007 (UTC)


Hibiscus india.JPG

Bouquets for Jakew!!![edit]

And brickbats for Blackworm!!! Come read all about it here!!! User_Talk:Blackworm and especially HERE!!!

Hi Jake. Was just wondering if you saw my last entry on my talk page. Actual serious discussion going on there. Blackworm 06:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

RfC Circumcision[edit]

Sorry to bother you, but I've been responding to the RfC on Talk:Circumcision. Only one person is responding. Am I just beating my head against a wall (as in is this a dead issue/steam attempt to push POV)? If other editors have come to the conclusion that things are ok the way they stand, I'm going to disengage from the quibbling over whether or not UN/WHO terminology is biased. Your input on this matter would be greatly appreciated. Please feel free to respond here or on my talk page. Thank you.Phyesalis (talk) 02:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Phyesalis, and thanks for your note. I've been reading the discussion with some interest. However, I've resisted the temptation to join in on the grounds that an RfC is a request for comment rather than a request for a fight. I'm sure you're perfectly capable of reading the previous discussion on the matter and forming your own opinion on the merits of the individual arguments (and I'm sure you've done so).
Personally, I feel that the 'circumcision' article is fine as it is, and I sympathise with your feelings. Best wishes, Jakew (talk) 12:40, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Thank you so much! This was my first "contested" RfC (I'm still an inexperienced WPian). I wasn't sure if I had done something wrong or was doing something wrong - and now I know. Yes. Best of luck with the page! Phyesalis (talk) 21:53, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


You should be aware, by now, that Wikipedia does not allow original synthesis of published material to advance a position. Do you have a source that specifically remarks on Viens' being a philosopher in the context of his comments about Taylor's ridged band? Jakew (talk) 19:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand what you're talking about. Are you suggesting that if an author lists his credentials as "Department of Philosophy" in an academic journal, it is an "original synthesis" to describe him as a "philosopher"? If you don't like my presentation of Viens' credentials, why don't you change that presentation, instead of repeatedly deleting it? Swampcritter (talk) 08:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Dispute on FGC[edit]

Hi. I am having a dispute with a user on FGC. I noticed your previous contribution and hoped you might provide some third-party commentary on a dispute at Blackworm’s objections. Your opinion would be greatly appreciated. Thank You. Phyesalis (talk) 01:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't understand your mind.[edit]

Try to follow my reasoning here:

  • A person restrains another and removes a body part, without consent or a valid medical reason, without concern for that person's suffering. How can it NOT be an assault?
  • A part of a person's body is irrevocably removed. How can it NOT be an amputation?
  • Said body part has important functions, and its removal is a hindrance. How can it NOT be a mutilation?

Try to refute this reasoning. And a "no it isn't" won't do. Refute it in a rational argument, without appeal to traditions or supernatural. Go ahead, try. You can't, no one can, because it simply IS correct... circumcision fits FLAWLESSLY the definitions I've listed before! Now, look, I do not say this as an attack or insult, but an expression of absolute perplexity. It's like I hear someone saying "1+1=3" or "water is not wet". It's unreal. It's absurd. It goes against the self-evident. Seek help, you seem to have some serious issues. -- Stormwatch (talk) 06:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an appropriate place for debating these issues, Stormwatch. You are welcome to contact me by email if you wish. Jakew 13:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)[edit]

The November 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 01:50, 2 December 2007 (UTC)