User talk:Magister Scienta/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
← Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 →

To do list

  • Make to do template
  • Fix Welcome-to-Wikipedia template
  • develop and learn of time-since-template
  • Work on PageInfo template
  • learn about adding Magic words
  • make a page notice for my userpage
  • Work on Magister Scienta Template category (and why it's not showing up)
  • Create a sandbox template for my talkpage
  • Make a revison-month-name template
  • Work on WikiProject Judaism membership list
  • Work on article(s) about Jewish music
  • learn more about parser functions
  • fix "plain option' for raw page size on size template
  • Make cool userpage
  • Add "in the last..." capability to my signature
  • Work on the template ToDoList
  • Work on WP:JUDAISM collabaration

Testing...  M   Magister Scientatalk (16 November 2011) Testing...Magister Scientatalk (Editor Review) 23:53, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Watchlist

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Watchlist&hideOwn=1&invert=&days=14

Testing...  M   Magister Scientatalk (16 November 2011)

Testing Magister Scientatalk (Editor Review) 20:47, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Re: Scripts question...

Please continue the conversation here and be sure to watch that page. Cheers. Gary King (talk · scripts) 03:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, very much appreciated.  M   Magister Scientatalk (20 November 2011)

AfD nav template

Hail, Magister! I had a look at the Template:Recent AfD's and I wanted to just drop a quick line about it. I don't spend much time hanging out at AfD, so I probably can't enthuse appropriately about its usefulness. However it looks like it's (much!) better than what's currently standard, which I take Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2011 November 20 to exhibit. So, good work.

I actually looked at your code, and I see that most of the work appears to be elsewhere, which is too bad, because I was going to make a couple of suggestions. I thought it would be good to use non-breaking spaces (or nowrap) for the dates (something like November 20 (Sunday), e.g.), and I thought that for the small version, abbreviations (e.g., of November 20 (Sunday) to Nov 20 (Sun)) would be handy. But apparently that's generic code somewhere, and probably can't be easily changed (and the abbreviations would probably be a bit of work).

Finally, it looks (to me, no expert) as though you may have an extra pipe before the first "no" in | small = {{#ifeq: {{{1||no}}} | small | yes | no }}. I'm not sure what difference it makes, if any. Anyway, keep up the good work, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:00, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi John, let me just preface my response by saying how much it means that this compliment is coming from you. I'm really glad you like and I immediately got rid of the extra pipe (thanks for calling my attention to it) and am going to explore the nowrap idea. The bulk of the code is found here. Why don't you review that code and, if you still like everything you see, we'll discuss where to go from there. Side-note, I communicated with the operator of the bot which initializes the pages, and he said that putting this template on all the pages the bot initializes would be no problem. Cheers, Magister Scientatalk 02:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
By the way, following your advice, the small template now shows the abbreviations of month names, not the whole name. Cheers, Magister Scientatalk 05:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh, man, I can tell I was tired last night. I looked right at that code, saw (und understood) that there were helper templates, and then ... just forgot. I didn't think to go look at them or anything. At least I found my bed alright. Good thing I didn't try editing the template.
Thanks for the friendly words. I'm glad to help where I can (you know, when I'm awake), although I've only dabbled cautiously in templates. I have much to learn about parser functions and the more advanced stuff I've seen you doing. What I see at Template:Recent AfD's/core though, looks like a (minor, solvable) problem, at least in relation to my no-wrap suggestion: Currently the day-links are separated by series of non-breaking spaces. The only place for anything to break for wrapping is exactly there where I'm suggesting we avoid it.
Partly because I couldn't find an easy way to present the code here on your Talk page (and still keep the code unexpanded), I have boldly made some changes to Template:Recent AfD's/core (it seems to be used on only 6 pages so far). I have changed some of the original spacing (    ) to breakable spacing of essentially the same width (albeit with the semantically silly     ). I enclosed the inner date expansions in nowrap templates.
Take a look and see what you think; adapt or revert as you see fit. I have deliberately left "(Problem?)" "attached" to "More" at the end and "Today" "attached" to "Recent AfD's:" at the beginning; I'm thinking this will avoid funny-looking orphans. Adjust to suit yourself. Also, I have looked at but did not touch Template:Recent AfD's/small core; if/when you like the changes I made, we could do the same to the small version (although it affects only one link). — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 11:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
P.S. Did you do something to remove the [edit] links on the thread headings? I'm not seeing them anywhere on your page. — JohnFromPinckney (talk)
Nevermind; the [edit] links are back. No idea what happened. — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 11:48, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello John, I reviewed the nowrap edits you made and it all looks great, I checked the code but more importantly I checked if it worked, the old-fashioned way, scrunching up the browser window and seeing how the text changes. In fact, all the edits you made look excellent, very much appreciated. By the way you mentioned syntactic silliness, so take a look at this, what the core looked like when I hadn't discovered a work around. Why don't you go ahead and apply the nowrap to the small core, I think it's only one link, and we'll then discuss where to go from here. Cheers, Magister Scientatalk 16:10, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Okay, I've done that, and a wee bit more; take a look. What do you think about my also boldly abbreviating the day name in Template:Recent AfD's/small core to three letters? I used {{#time: M j (D)|-2 day }} instead of {{#time: M j (l)|-2 day }}. Do please revert that bit if you have some objection (you didn't change it before; maybe you don't like it). Cheers, — JohnFromPinckney (talk) 02:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
I agree that making it the abbreviation is probably better, again good call. So, I'm going to wait a few more days for more people to chip in about their thoughts on the template, and iIf there's a positive vibe, as I said before, the MathBot operator is more than willing to start putting this template on all new AfD pages. Any other aspects of the template that you think should be changed or have questions about? Cheers, Magister Scientatalk 02:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Rollback

Wikipedia Rollback.svg

Hello, this is just to let you know that I've granted you Rollback rights. Just remember:

If you have any questions, please do let me know.

GFOLEY FOUR!— 18:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

ACC

Hello, I (Magister Scienta) am requesting an account on the ACC account creation interface. Magister Scientatalk 06:04, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Accountcreators.png

Yes check.svg Done

Magister Scienta, thank you for interest in the account creation process. I have approved your request, welcome to the team. You may now access the interface here. Before you do so, please read the account creation guide and our username policy thoroughly to familiarize yourself with the process. You should also join #wikipedia-en-accounts connect on IRC where a bot informs us when new account requests come in and to get any advice on requests as well as the mailing list. Please note that we have implemented a policy of zero tolerance on mishandled requests, and that failure to assess correctly will result in suspension. I would like to emphasize that it is not a race to complete a request, and each one should be handled diligently and thoroughly. Currently you are allowed to create up to six accounts per day, although you won't be able to create an account with a similar name to that of another user; these requests are marked "Account Creator Needed" by the bot and "Flagged user needed" on the interface. However, if you reach the limit frequently, you can request the account creator permission at WP:PERM/ACC. Please keep in mind that the ACC tool is a powerful program, and misuse will result in your access being suspended by a tool administrator. Don't hesitate to get in touch with me if you have any questions. Thank you for participating in the account creation process. Again welcome! Mlpearc powwow 03:45, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I will use these tool responsibly. Magister Scientatalk (Editor Review) 13:50, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Are you and administrator

Bloope (talk) 15:37, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I am not an admin, why do you ask? Magister Scientatalk (Editor Review) 23:22, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Bot malfunction?

Hi, the BLP bot just landed a BLP sources/delete banner on Daniel Danielis which has category:1696 deaths. I imagine it's because of lack of bio formatting. But you may wish to check. Cheers! In ictu oculi (talk) 01:02, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

No persondata is complete. Moved the template to Talk, very odd. In ictu oculi (talk) 01:06, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi IIO, I got to admit I don't totally understand what your confusion is. It appears that a PROD template tag was appropriately placed on a BLP with no sources, maybe you can clarify what the issue is? By the way, we must share some common bond because we both have Latin usernames. After checking it out, at first I thought your name was grammatically incorrect but then I realized that ictus was 4 decl. Cheers, Magister Scientatalk (Editor Review) 01:11, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Magister Scienta, Hi, yep :) As for Danielis, the problem with a BLP banner is that Danielis died in 1696, therefore he is not a living person. Cheers. :) In ictu oculi (talk) 01:54, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Oh christ, I'm running to a mental institution right now, I don't know how I missed that. My apologies IIO. Magister Scientatalk (Editor Review) 01:56, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
No worries, we all have these moments ;) In ictu oculi (talk) 02:19, 4 December 2011 (UTC)
Good to hear. Magister Scientatalk (Editor Review) 02:57, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Magister Scienta. You have new messages at Wikipedia talk:Request an account/Guide.
Message added 11:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

mabdul 11:32, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:ThingsToDo

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:ThingsToDo has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Bulwersator (talk) 09:03, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Article Shemini Atzeret

Hi, Magister. Can you please help me understand why you felt my upgrades to Shemini Atzeret did not rate B? I'm happy to try to work on it, but to be honest with you, I felt I added all the detail and reference that were necessary.

StevenJ81 (talk) 16:07, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Hi Steven, I think at first I thought that the article was a tad bit choppy, but I reevaluated it a bit more thoroughly. On second look I made it a B article, keep up the great work! Magister Scientatalk (Editor Review) 23:53, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
Hi, Magister. Thanks very much. StevenJ81 16:23, 5 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenJ81 (talkcontribs)
Keep up the good work. Cheers, Magister Scientatalk (Editor Review) 16:25, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Say, Magister: I know I have one "citation needed," and I should probably incorporate something on non-Rabbinic Judaism strains (such as found in the French version of this article). Beyond that, what does this article need to be judged "Good"? StevenJ81 16:49, 5 December 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by StevenJ81 (talkcontribs)
Here are just a few ideas off the top of my head: Add some images (the article has none), try to get a few more citations, and do a little rewording. For example the part that says, "The Torah says..." could be reworded to sound a little more...well, encyclopedic. But again, you have done a lot of good work on this article and GA status is without doubt in reach. Cheers, Magister Scientatalk (Editor Review) 21:54, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Some others miscellaneous ideas are: create more redirects to the page (probably won't help its status, but good to do anyway), see if you can categorize a little more (this is just "icing on the cake"), try to beef up the infobox a little (if you can), try to increase the inline citation a little by using your previous refs (of course only where appropriate), and make sure there is no room for NPOV objections. Magister Scientatalk (Editor Review) 23:31, 5 December 2011 (UTC)
Gotcha. I suppose I can try to find a Simchat Torah image; one of the problems here is that Shemini Atzeret in and of itself doesn't have its own symbols--no sukkah, or lulav and etrog, or shofar, or even a cantor in a white kittel. Well ... maybe the last, for the Geshem prayer ... we'll see. Thanks for the advice. User:StevenJ81talk 03:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
I've slightly cleaned up the page, see what you think... Rory Come for talkies 11:12, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
Rory, did you clean up Magister's page, or the Shemini Atzeret article? (If the latter, I can't find the history.) User:StevenJ81talk 22:00, 21 December 2011 (UTC)
You may want to ask Rory on his Talk-page. Cheers, Magister Scientatalk 22:04, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:TakenPage

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:TakenPage has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Bulwersator (talk) 09:11, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

admin follow up

I ask because an admin deleted a page I made (speedy deletion actually) and i believe that it was wrong to do so and I am trying to get the page revived. The page was called "Bushiroad." could you help me with my problem?

Bloope (talk) 18:21, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

It's a little difficult to help you because I never got to see the original page, but I'll try. The page got deleted because it failed to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines (specifically section A7, which you can read here). In order to have the article meet notably guidelines you need to explain why this article is notable (ideally you can give evidence), this is sometimes called an assertion of importance. To make sure the article doesn't get deleted again you should find some Wikipedia policy that justifies having this article, if not WP:GNG then it will almost certainly be in WP:ORG. If you want to learn more about Wikipedia deletion policies or the nitty-gritty details of how it all works (e.g. CSDs vs. AfDs), or really juts have any other questions, just leave me another message or use the Help Desk. Good luck, Magister Scientatalk (Editor Review) 18:31, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:NoAdd

Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:NoAdd has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Bulwersator (talk) 05:38, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Book of Habakkuk

Thanks for the recognition, but I'm still a long way from finishing my efforts (and secretly plan to continue through all of the Twelve Prophets). If you can recommend good English translations of Jewish appraisals of Habakkuk, or can point out significant Jewish authors who have quoted Habakkuk as a theme for a book, etc. then I'd much appreciate it. Or, if you cannot, then perhaps you know someone familiar with the relevant literature who could do so. Right now, I have mostly Protestant Christian commentary published in the United States, with only a few sources that are either European or Catholic, and just one Jewish text to rely upon. I want to make this the first article on a book of the Bible to reach GA and then FA status (and plan to put in a lot more work over my coming winter break), so I want to ensure that the article's viewpoint is broad. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:34, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Wow, as an ardent member of WikiProject Judaism I am shocked to hear that not a single one of the books of the bible have GA or FA status. As for the Jewish appraisals, I can only give you list of sources (found with JSTOR) that you might find interesting:
  • Habakkuk. T. Johnstone Irving. The Biblical World, Vol. 31, No. 1 (Jan., 1908), pp. 51-61
  • "Poetry" in Habakkuk 1:1-2:4? Robert D. Haak. Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 108, No. 3 (Jul. - Sep., 1988), pp. 437-444
  • The Strophic Structure of Habakkuk. Fred T. Kelly. The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, Vol. 18, No. 2 (Jan., 1902), pp. 94-119
  • The Mythological Background of Habakkuk, Chapter 3. William A. Irwin. Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 15, No. 1 (Jan., 1956), pp. 47-50
  • The Interpretation of the Prophecy of Habakkuk. Walter R. Betteridge. The American Journal of Theology, Vol. 7, No. 4 (Oct., 1903), pp. 647-661
  • The Literary Structure of the Book of Habakkuk. H. H. Walker, N. W. Lund. Journal of Biblical Literature, Vol. 53, No. 4 (Dec., 1934), pp. 355-370

Some of the sources are free to access while others require a subscription to JSTOR. Good luck and cheers, Magister Scientatalk (Editor Review) 05:14, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much. I have indirect JSTOR access, and so should be able to reach those. I've also discovered an on-line Jewish translation of the Bible with Rashi's commentary, which will also help.
I too was shocked by the deplorable state of the articles on the Biblical books. The articles on the Torah aren't too bad, but others (like the Book of Proverbs) have little written about their content or style. Even worse, some (most?) of the B-class articles are only rated that high because they were assessed before the C-class was implemented. Whole sections may lack citations, and some of the articles are written like drafts of high school essays. The articles on the ancient manuscripts and codices have fared much better than the ones about the books themselves. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:12, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, all I can say is that it looks like you have you have your work cut out for you, I look forwards to helping 'the cause' in any way I can. Cheers, Magister Scientatalk (Editor Review) 14:18, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

A closeup view of hundreds of red strawberries.
Your sweet red reward!

Thanks for the star, for that, you may have a punnet of strawberries... though why exactly did I get it...? Seriously though, thanks a bunch! Rory Come for talkies 07:09, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for the strawberries, they look wonderful. As for your question, I gave you a barnstar because of your dedication to improving Wikipedia (which having over 2,000 edits certainly helps to show). Cheers, Magister Scientatalk (Editor Review) 21:28, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


חַג חֲנֻכָּה שָׂמֵחַ

חֲנֻכָּה שָׂמֵחַ
Candleburning.jpg
Candleburning.jpg

Hi Magister Scienta!
Thanks for your message. Enjoy the doughnuts!

Chesdovi 2011

Gam l'cha Mzk1 (talk) 20:50, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

Nuvola apps edu languages.svg
Hello, Magister Scienta. You have new messages at WT:IM.
Message added 05:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

ww2censor (talk) 05:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

File:Peace dollar obverse.png listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Peace dollar obverse.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 00:22, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011–12 Los Angeles arson attacks (2nd nomination)

While I appreciate the compliment about my "many good arguments supporting [my] position" to delete the article, I have in fact not commented at all about deletion. Further response about WP:KEEP at the AfD. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 05:22, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Ikes, I apologize. I was pretty tired when I made that comment and I think I mixed you up with Dori...Sorry about that, Magister Scientatalk 14:44, 9 January 2012 (UTC)
No problem. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 15:21, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Good Articles

For an article to be judged at good status it needs to be reviewed at WP:GAN. I have reverted your classification of Manna. If you do think it deserves to be given good article status I suggest you nominate it by following the instructions at the top of the WP:GAN page. AIRcorn (talk) 00:37, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello, the reason for me adding the GA template to the Manna article was that the talk-page of the article categorized the article as a GA. I assumed the GA template had accidentally been removed from the article and I therefore re-added it. My edit was not an editorial decision to classify Manna as a good article, but simply an attempt to fix what I thought was a minor error. Thanks, Magister Scientatalk 00:55, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
No problem. The article looks in decent shape, if you have a bit of time and want to get it recognised you might want to consider nominating it at WP:GAN. AIRcorn (talk) 01:39, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Also sorry about the brusqueness of my original message. AIRcorn (talk) 01:41, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Don't worry about it, we're all just Wikipedians trying to help out Magister Scientatalk 03:38, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Accountcreator

Wikipedia Accountcreators.png

Hello Magister Scienta, since you are highly active on the account creation interface, I have enabled accountcreator on your account. This will enable you to ignore the normal limit on daily account creations and other checks. Please take note of the following points:

  • This permission does not give you any special status or authority.
  • Be sure that the conflicting account is inactive when overriding the spoofing check.
  • Creation of inappropriate accounts or pages may lead to its removal.
  • Disruptive editing of edit notices may lead to its removal
  • You can display the {{Accountcreator topicon}} top icon or the {{User wikipedia/accountcreator}} userbox on your user page.
  • If, for any reason, you decide you do not want the permission, let me know and I can remove it.
If you have any questions about the permission, don't hesitate to ask me. Otherwise, happy editing! Salvio Let's talk about it! 20:42, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. Magister Scientatalk 20:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Class demotion of Occupy Wall Street

Your demotion of the class level to the article was not appropriate. These are set by the projects and the only acceptable way to raise or lower a class in every project is when it has obviously not been updated from a lower class, like stub or start and even then if someone objects they may simply put it back. Discussion is not required for every edit and if you feel a discussion should be made to gain consensus for your edit...please feel free to begin it. No one is required to discuss a revert or edit, but if you feel strongly we can discuss it on the articles talk page however...the article was just split (by me) and if you took the time to check you would see I am in the process of cleanup. There is no reason to drop the article from B to C over those errors. They are autogenerated and not from a mistake or lack of proper references, although...many of them are bare urls and that too should be fixed. As it stands those erros will certainly keep it from GA...but not B class.--Amadscientist (talk) 02:54, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

While I'm going to drop the issue I stand by my decision to demote the article to C-class. First of all, your claim regarding the illegitimacy of changing more than 1 project grade at a time, do you have policy or guideline that you're referring to or is that your own personal opinion? Yes, my edit was bold, but, as I'm sure you know, WP:BOLD is very clear in allowing bold actions to improve the encyclopedia. Furthermore, the reason why such errors exist is pretty much irrelevant to the fact that they exist. I know you said you were working on it, but truthfully I haven't seen any of the refs cleaned up. And on top of that, there were other issues with the article that I felt made it unqualified for B status, such as its minuscule lead, NPOV issues, instability, etc. Magister Scientatalk 17:59, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Your decision is not really in question. As you said, it was a bold edit and you were within your rights as an editor to make the change. However, in this case your edit overrode the ratings of several projects. Would it not have been better to simply notify the projects of your change first or even afterwards? As the projects do have a say in whether or not the ratings should stand. Look.....I'm with you on this one. It's probably a C class at best, but simply taking it down a notch made me feel you were acting to hastily. How fast exactly do I need to work to satisfy you personally? I just made the split and frankly references being dealt with on the page that was the priority because the errors on the main page can easily be "Removed" as the actual references are not there.--Amadscientist (talk) 19:51, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Fair enough, I recognize that my actions were not the best that could have been done in that situation and I will refrain from making similar edits in the future. In regards to how fast you need to work to "personally satisfy" me, well, just show that the article's refs are being dealt with and are moving in a positive direction and I don't think any editors will give you a hard time. Keep up the great work, Magister Scientatalk 19:57, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Not that you're involved but

Thought you might like to know [1] and

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Occupy Wall Street". Thank you. --BeCritical 03:16, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I am so sorry. I didn't know that canvassing uninvolved editors to a dispute resolution based on their having involvement in a different edit was allowed. Should I do the same? No...I think we should both leave this editor and others out of your dispute. If this editor decides my revert of the class rating was inappropriate I am sure they may take the actions they feel are appropriate. My apologies to Magister Scienta.--Amadscientist (talk) 03:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you

I see you work much faster than I. Sorry. I purposely removed the auto generated list to see where the exact locations were to the commented out references. That has been an ongoing way for editors to "fix" references. But in fact the actual reference is gone with only the group name placed next to prose. I wanted to have a quick reference to fix this problem. I did a save back to the article before my edit to return it at about the same time as you. I wonder though on your opinion of something (OK, besides my being a pain) what do you think is better....leaving the commented out refs alone (which means they are not really referenced) or attempting to find these from the article history? --Amadscientist (talk) 20:09, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Three things. 1) You're not a pain, you're a dedicated Wikipedian who stands up for their opinion. 2) Whatever you ultimately decide, I would wholeheartedly go with. 3) My initial reaction is comment out the refs and, overtime, you, me, and other editors can try to find the original "full refs." To me that seems like both a short and longterm solution. Thoughts? Magister Scientatalk 20:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
My only concern over the commented out refs is if we go through all the trouble of finding them in the history and put them back....would we run the risk of re-adding a reference that was removed for good reason with consensus for it's removal? But...then since it was only the main reference which carries all the information that was deleted....it was probably deleted from the place where is was disputed....so I assume placing the main group ref at the first spot commented out would be safe since it still has the reference in place at that location.--Amadscientist (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2012 (UTC)