User talk:Mark Ironie/Archive 5

Dennis Oliver

Dear Pigman: The deletion of the article about Dennis Oliver was deeply painful to me. It was done with a huge effort and a lot of love, trying to create the best article for a such special place as wikipedia is. Dennis is also a very good well known actor from the spanish community with a good record in the spanish theatre world, all the statements were clearly supported by the newspaper articles linked to it, pictures and several records. I hope you can help me to restore the article. Thank you Ralicia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.202.79.218 (talk) 20:57, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Dear pigman thank you for your answer. I will please ask you to review the article. Dennis Oliver has been part of very important roles, including the one as a director assistant ( it is clearly proved by the link to the newspaper congratulating Dennis). He has also been part of the ACE AWARD WINNER group as you can see in the picture included in the article. Again, I beg you to reconsider in restoring the article. thank you very much RaliciaRalicia (talk) 14:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)Ralicia

• I have restored the article. G4 specifically only applies when the prior article was deleted through AfD and excludes prior CSDs. Thatcher 18:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Jennifer Johnston

You just speedily deleted what appeared to be a good, but recently vandalized, article as I was reverting to the last good version using Twinkle. Please restore the history to keep GFDL concerns satisfied. --Onorem♠Dil 02:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Yep, I was hoping you'd restore the history. Twinkle must have been in the process of reverting while you were in the process of deleting. The result was that I'm the only one in the non-admin visible history...but I've never contributed to the article other than one other recent revert. --Onorem♠Dil 02:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Looks good, thank you...and I'm all for deleting first and asking questions later when it comes to attack pages. --Onorem♠Dil 02:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Why did you delete my page?

I believe that my page should be restored. I have been on a recording album and have been in music videos, and thats just the entertainment side. Please explain further why you deleted me . Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.12.253.66 (talk) 17:56, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have no idea which article you are talking about. You need to give me a name and/or sign in to Wikipedia. Pigman☿ 18:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Copyright Infringement

Who really cares?

Get a life —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goonermike (talk • contribs) 12:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Block of User:Robinepowell

Hey, I happened to notice on ANI your blocking of the above-mentioned user, and then your extension from 1 week to 2 weeks... but looking at the template on her talk page, it still only says 1 week. I was just wondering if you should correct the block template to reflect this (not an admin here, not criticizing the block, just hoping to be helpful to both sides and avoid confusion). Best, --Umrguy42 (talk) 04:43, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Block of User:69.215.149.59

Cheers! Zsinj^Talk 01:41, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Cecily Grey

Pigman, the new title of Cecily Grey is fine by me. Thanks for the message.jeanne (talk) 14:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

David Motari

Hello. I'd like to request that the deleted article for David Motari be made available to me, either via my talk page, or off wiki. I am compiling information for a report in my college, and would appreciate the information that was provided. Thank you. JSD324 (talk) 01:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

HisKids

What? Do you know how long I spent researching that article? It was deleted before because it was just an url (Hiskids.net), but this was a notable well written article with links, references, programs etc. Why do you think that it took so long to be deleted? It was notable in most eyes. Would you consider undeletion (or there went hours and hours of time). Thanks -- AmericanEagle 18:52, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, could you put it here? I could see if I could come with more info and such to make it more notable. I did spend some time on that, and I don't want to have to remember and rewrite it all. Thanks -- AmericanEagle 23:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks -- AmericanEagle 01:29, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Copyediting

Hi! I'm a major contributor to the article Civil Air Patrol, at FAC now at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Civil_Air_Patrol. I noticed you were listed as an active member on the League of Copyeditors, and there have been some concerns raised over the tone and prose of the article. I'm too close to the text to be able to see the issues in language presented. I wondered if you could help make some major copyedits to the article so that it can be made into Featured Article quality. —  scetoaux (T|C) 02:30, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

ANI

Hey Pigman,

I hope you didn't think I was accusing you of bad faith or tendentious behavior. Ordinarily, I would agree that there's nothing wrong with trying to pick out a little cohesion in the process and discussion. What makes it look inappropriate, though, is your heavy involvement in the matter. I know, because I know you to be a good faith and reasonable editor, that you are not trying to "corral votes" or anything like that, but Badger Drink's post highlighted the fact that it might look like that. You are confident in what you are doing, and I salute you for that -- just be careful that the way in which you do it is politick enough that doesn't leave you looking compromised.

Cheers - Revolving Bugbear 16:47, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Ekajati

You may fill me in if you have time, but that's up to you. I suspect it's a long story. I just saw an issue (the copyright red herring) that looked like it needed to be addressed. I am not an admin, but I work with some admins, and I've taken to using the WP:ANI and WP:AIV pages when necessary, and also to monitoring them and discussing issues with admins, so I guess I'm doing some admin activities without actually being an admin. :) The one thing I would like to know is what the relationship is, if any, between that banned user and the guy who tried to canvas via e-mail and got caught. I don't think they're the same guy, but there's definitely some kind of symbiosis going on there, or at least it seems so on the surface. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I saw that stupid "gangrape" comment and wondered why he didn't get a short-term block then and there. That kind of thinking is one reason why it would be risky for me to be an admin. The main reason I don't want the job is because of the obvious drudgery that you allude to. And that would likely give me a quick trigger finger. When I read stuff like that, I'm thinking (and have sometimes said), "Why are you fooling around with this guy?" If someone's being a jerk, slap a 24-hour block on him and let him cool down. And if that doesn't work, double it, and so on, until he gets the point. There are plenty more issues to deal with, and there is no constitutional right to edit wikipedia. There seems to be what I call a "California mentality", or maybe a "liberal mentality" (which is funny, coming from one who considers himself liberal) of giving a jerk every possible break. I'm a midwesterner, and don't suffer fools gladly. It's not that hard to tell sincerity from trolling. I must point out that I've been blocked a couple of times myself - and deserved it, for being a jerk, which few who are blocked will admit to. A short term block is good. It's a weapon that should be used much more often than it is. But as a user, one good thing I've learned is to resist fighting. It's the old adage, "Don't get mad, get even." Give "good faith" a reasonable try, and then take the issue to one of those two admin sites and let the experts handle it. Since I started doing that, things have gone much better. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Enough of my narcissistic rant. Thank you for offering your assistance. :) One more comment about the IP address. I've seen users trying to "help" other users who might actually have been playing the opposite game, of actually trying to torpedo them with too much "friendly" support. If Rosencomet understood that better, he might have said something like, "Friends like that, I don't need!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I have often been accused of "not assuming good faith". Well, I wasn't born yesterday, and I can tell sincerity from fooling around. My usual approach is that if someone makes one stupid change, I might do nothing. If they make two, I issue a warning, and if they do it a third time, I turn them in, on another assumption: that they can read, and that by ignoring a sincere warning, they have forfeited their right to "good faith" assumption. However, as noted above, I'm also in favor of short blocks initially, and increasing the "sentence" for repeat offenders. It gets trickier with shared IP's, but as one admin told me, at some point you can block until "the end of the semester" (as was done recently with Walt Disney). You're right, I shouldn't limit it to California, it can be broadened out to a coastal thing, and it's a culture clash. Meanwhile, there are vandals everywhere, indiscriminately. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:40, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Rosencomet's last entry to this point [1] about a day and half ago, also hints at the thought that "Friends like this I don't need!" Now it remains to be seen whether he has learned anything from all this or not. That will be up to the admins to determine, I reckon. Meanwhile, I would say you're right to leave the IP's comments and my challenges in place. The main thing was that I thought it would reduce the clutter in that megillah. Although I've seen sections much longer than that in ANI, such as those connected with the user called David Shankbone, a useful contributor whose approach has apparently alienated many. That one is a tough call. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your support and encouragement. I've been doing wikipedia for about 3 years now, and finally in the last few months I feel like I've matured as a contributor. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:20, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Possible COI on one's own entry.

Paul,

Got your message. As an old hand at writing encyclopedia entries in print, I will do my best to keep my personal entry objective, factual, and dry.

Whoever created it did not make a bad start, but s/he did not have a copy of my c.v. to check. There are still some small bibliographic errors that need correcting.

cheers,

Chas

Chas S. Clifton (talk) 20:25, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

thanks for the quick response. I am done with correcting the bibliographic stuff for the time being.

I don't know what material could need "footnotes or citations." Am I supposed to link to the department web site to show that I actually teach at CSU-Pueblo??

Chas S. Clifton (talk) 00:05, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Using 'References' sections

You wrote, "My suggestion would be to provide links to articles with substantial info about' you in the Refs section. As I said, I find interviews rich sources for such info."

I added two items, but only one is online. OK?

Chas S. Clifton (talk) 02:33, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

WPSI

Hi there and a belated welcome to WikiProject Scottish Islands. Please don't hesitate to get in touch if you would like any assistance. Ben MacDui^Talk/Walk 07:37, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome, however belated. I seem to be in a Wikignoming period so I'm going through some of the islands with WP:AWB and cleaning up some of the obvious little things about the articles. Perhaps when I'm more focussed I can do some more serious copyediting and writing on them. Cheers, Pigman☿ 01:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Tim Beckham

You declined speedy of the above when the player clearly fails the criteria in WP:BASEBALL. – ukexpat (talk) 00:14, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your confirmation. – ukexpat (talk) 00:35, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

RS?

Hi, can you please tell if this source Main website can be used in wikipedia as RS or not? I am confused. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is some information about the website. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 04:05, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to threadjack with my 2c, but the BMJ is a highly respected medical journal published by the British Medical Association. I don't think you can get a more reliable RS than that. – ukexpat (talk) 15:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

No problem, ukexpat. I came to the same conclusion and left a message on User:Otolemur crassicaudatus's talk page to that effect. Cheers, Pigman☿ 17:18, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for Afghanistan Pakistan People's Friendship Association

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Afghanistan Pakistan People's Friendship Association. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Ragib (talk) 06:29, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for DJBooth.net

An editor has asked for a deletion review of DJBooth.net. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Corvus cornix_talk 19:20, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. Corvus cornix_talk 03:17, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter

This newsletter was delivered by §hepBot around 16:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC). ShepBot (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Threats of Monitoring

Dear Pigman, excuse me for disturbing you, but I am currently being discussed over by other Editors and told I am being monitored due to the content I have stated on my User page. My talk page has also had content removed without my permission by this cabal of editors. It seems that they do not like the fact that I have expressed a belief in God and support monarchy and therefore that gives them the right to monitor me and my pages. I responded to one Editor UserRealist and he has now reported me for "incivility". Pigman, these are all kids who are trying to use Wikipedia as a platform to attack other Editors with opposong political viewpoints. I'm here to write historical articles about medieval women (which you have edited so you probably know who I am). Please I just want to be left in peace to do my work and not be the object of discussion amongst other editors on the Wiki Administration pages due to my support of the political right. Thank you. I chose you because you have a sense of humour and seem kind.jeanne (talk) 06:50, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

She is talking about this thread [4] aswell as posts on my talk page and her own. No1 is monitoring her, it was a suggestion to moniter the situation. She had a racist barnstar removed from her, the barnstar of "Racial purity". That along with the personal attack she left on my talk should amount to her being blocked, but I dont think its in the best interest of wiki. — Realist² (Who's Bad?) 07:44, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Feminism Task Force

Hello! I've seen you around Wikipedia and I just wanted to let you know that you might be interested in this. Hope to see you around more and happy editing! :) --Grrrlriot (talk) 21:05, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

LGBT WikiProject Newsletter (July 2008)

• Newsletter delivery by xenobot 13:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for MyAnimeList

An editor has asked for a deletion review of MyAnimeList. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Kei-clone (talk) 22:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Why didn't you fix the problem?

You left a tag on Whitsett,pa with the edit summary "add wikify, notability, unreference tags". I would have expected an admin to fix the most glaring problem first, the name of the article, before leaving a tag. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 07:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Ettinger, etc.

Thanks for your note. The reason I didn't realise the scope of the issue was that it's only affected Drawing Center on my watchlist. I "solved" it by semiing it because, as you said, whatever the editor's motives are, blanking is not a solution. I'm more familiar with Drawing Center than I am with the artist but they plugged it as a big exhibit and devoted a lot of resources thereto, which you can see via this catalog still in publication some years later as well as here, though there are some false positives. Am happy to help out if I can. TravellingCari 00:33, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Josipa Lisac Article

Hey! Why did you delete the Josipa Lisac article? I contested the deletion, but you still deleted it anyways. You said the article doesn't have any significance of a real person. But did you bother to check to see that the article exists on the German, Croatian, Bosnian, and Serbian Wikipedia?

Josipa Lisac is in fact a very well known musician in the Balkans. I was surprised that there wasn't an English article about her. I was planning on writing a very thorough article and that was just the start.

Ahmadac (talk) 07:00, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Please, Please ...

I spent 5 years in grad school working on Yda Addis and another 4 years with further researching on her, her family, her crazy life and her literature. Please do not vandalize her article. Thanks, ME Chaos4tu (talk) 12:44, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Lords of the North deletion?

In the obscure genre of music referenced as 'stoner metal', there aren't many bands that reach their level of achievement. As such, I'm wondering why, using the other stoner metal category entries as comparisons, there isn't sufficient notability to sustain the entry. Some additional feedback would be great, thanks.

Rochewiki (talk) 03:57, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Yda Addis and Alfred Shea Addis

Please believe me, I am the person who rediscovered Yda Addis. If there are any other persons who have in depth knowledge about her they got that information from reading my Masters Thesis. Addis was totally forgotten. Her father, Alfred Shea Addis, on the other hand, was somewhat known in the photography circles. I researched his life because he was Yda Addis' father. Likewise, I researched all of the people who knew her. ... What I disagree with concerning Wikipedia is having persons like you who just "edit" at their whim someone else's hard work that in many cases took years and years to develope. For instance the literary importance of Yda Addis is that she was the first English speaking person who took the Mexican oral legends and wrote them in English. Yes, I have found some of Addis' Mexican legends written in Spainish, but written in the early 20th century, not the late 19th century when Addis wrote the legends. Because of Addis' efforts, we now have many Mexican legends and ghost tales that would have been totally forgotten. Yes, Addis had a wild life, yes she was somewhat of an "out-cast" for her times, yes, she was forgotten because towards the end of her life she was called "the crazy lady," so crazy that she wrote wonderful stories and got them published. What I'm asking is that you have consideration, understanding and background before you "slice and dice" a well researched article for Wikipedia. Regards, ME Chaos4tu (talk) 10:38, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Bigrebel83

Might want to keep an eye on this guy - he joined up on Aug 7, 2008 and has been inserting unsubstantiated info claiming that various sports figures are guilty of child molestation, etc. Sorry if this is not the right place to put this... By the way, what is the correct way to handle these things? Is there a central repository to complain about people like this or do we just bug folks like you or what? --Marjaliisa (talk) 22:12, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Yda Addis L.A. Times article

You flabbergaste me! The L.A. Times article on Yda Addis was created because the L.A. Times interviewed me and only me about Yda Addis. You wrote to me that the L.A. Times article would help me about Addis. Get a grip! This is why I am beginning to hate Wikipedia. People like you sit at your computer and play God over these articles without investigating or reading. You have no depth, only blah, blah blah. Wikipedia sucks. 76.0.216.117 (talk) 17:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)Chaos4tu (talk) 17:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Changes introduced with Advisor.js

The changes you introduced into the Dublin article do not comply with the Wikipedia manual of style. In fact in some cases you introduced errors where there were none before. Check out "Em dashes" and "spaced en dashes" in the manual. I'll fix up the article.Hohenloh (talk) 19:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Yda Addis references

I agree with you that the Yda Addis articles does not have enough references to support the article. For that reason the article needs to be delited from Wikipedia. I'm not going to work on the article for Wikipedia, let those who have done original research on Addis complete the Yda Addis article. Yes, you are correct that I do not own the article on Wikipedia. But, I do own its organization of the material. By, the way, you have complained that I have treated you uncivily, What is your name? ... Pigman? Chaos4tu (talk) 11:57, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Civility

I can see by your very strange comment that you enjoy hurting, bothering, molesting other people. Leave me out of your vicious circle. Chaos4tu (talk) 13:49, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Sano Sansar

Please can you deletion review of Sano Sansar. Thank you.(NepaliBoy7 (talk) 19:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)).

Much appreciated. I hadn't looked too deeply, since I did not know what the concern from this editor was. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 17:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Shiv Kumar Batalvi (article deletion)

Hey Pigman,

Why was shiv kumar batalvi deleted? I did not understand the infringement it might contain.

The guy was a great punjabi poet, and it is sad to see that his article has been deleted.

User Talk: ManikPathak Manik Pathak 13:00, 30 September 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manikpathak (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is not a Movie, Book or TV Guide

Should Wikipedia become a one stop Movie, Book or TV Guide?
Please make your views known at WT:NOT#Wikipedia is not a Movie, Book or TV Guide. --Gavin Collins (talk) 10:22, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject LGBT studies Newsletter

This newsletter was sent by §hepBot (Disable) at 21:21, 12 November 2008 (UTC) by the request of Moni3 (talk)

Hi Pigman, Is it possible to review an old Wikipedia article that was deleted? Further, I did manage to find the deletion log and other related logs with the names of the contributors and the time of editing, but cannot find the discussion about the deletion -- what am I doing wrong? Regards Ayzen (talk) 23:18, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Not sure where to answer you (I did it already on my page) -- hence, here is it again:

Thanks for your answer! It is not that I find the article particularly important (I guess it was wise to delete this keyword), I am just intersted to learn more about this "topic". The article was about "Ken Rockwell", a guy with a photo website who is quite controversially discussed on the web, and I was unable to locate the deleted article. In the last entry you were mentioned:

22:17, 23 April 2008 Pigman (Talk | contribs) deleted "Ken Rockwell" ‎ (A7 (bio): Real person; doesn't indicate importance/significance)

Ayzen (talk) 23:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick response! I don't care for that particular article or the person described in it, and I think deleting it was the right procedure. Just for me to understand Wikipedia better: Deleted articles are not archived anywhere and, therefore, cannot be inspected later? Is this correct? I ask this because it seems that all other changes or deletions can be compared in the history section of the entry.

Sorry for asking these basic things, but I am not very familiar with Wikipedia technicatilies. Ayzen (talk) 13:53, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Responding on Ayzen's talk page. Pigman☿ 17:43, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for this excellent information!!! Regards Ayzen (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 20:42, 27 November 2008 (UTC).

Ireland naming dispute compromise proposal

You may be interested in an all-encompassing compromise proposal tabled in respect of the Ireland naming dispute at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(Ireland-related_articles)/Ireland_disambiguation_task_force#Appeal_for_an_all-encompassing_solution Mooretwin (talk) 12:59, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

About a deleted article

Hi there, you might want to take a look at Talk:Life mel honey where a user is requesting the page to be reinstated. Regards SoWhy 21:19, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

why have you deleted the LAC Airways page? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.179.37 (talk) 22:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

why was the LAC Airways page deleted? it's a new airline only formed about a month i think it is a shame that it has been deleted i am a user of the airline and i was wondoring why it had been deleted for no reason —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.179.37 (talk) 22:40, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Life Mel Honey

Hi Pigman -- I've edited the article to more accurately reflect what the paper actually states. (As a medical writer, I find the authors' conclusions way overblown, but it's a direct quote from the conclusion.) No one commented re the reliability of the Guardian Science blog at the reliable sources talk page, but I've added it anyway as the best quotable critique I've been able to find. I hope that this answers some of your concerns with the article.

As I said in the AfD, I think Wikipedia should be a resource of factual information on alternative health products, so that patients have somewhere to look other than the sellers, celebrity endorsements and the like. I'm offline now till after Christmas, but I'll keep an eye on the article for a while at least. Solsticial greetings, Espresso Addict (talk) 03:29, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

Ecoleetage (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I should also add that I greatly enjoyed your intelligent, mature and spirited input in the recent AfD on Life Mel Honey. I hope to see you again online in the coming year. Ecoleetage (talk) 03:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Central Bank of Sāo Tomé...

Thanks for the speedy deletion. I mis-created the page by mistaking ā for ã. Acad Ronin (talk) 20:46, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Carbonbase

Hi Pigman,

Thanks for you message regarding Carbonbase. I am new to widipedia and it took me a while to get back to you (didn't know how - sorry). Carbon Base have come up with some very 'notable' ambient music (perhaps not notable to everyone - but certainly in the ambient music scene. Notably 'piano text' which is well known - quick google search could show that easily (for some it's the best ambient record ever. I have been studying your criteria a bit more now, but there is so much of it. My question is if I should supply 3rd party evidence of the 'notability' to you. I made a mistake anyway I should have been Carbon Base, but hey. I am not the artist, I should also mention. Apart from that I am very impressed how wikipedia works.

Thanks for your time.

peterv007 (talk) 05:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Ancient Roman pottery

"editing" image file names is not helpful - please be more careful. Johnbod (talk) 03:22, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for Editorial Assistance

Greetings,

Would you be good enough to provide an independent assessment / opinion in an editorial dispute please? I have outlined the points of the argument on the page Talk:Victorian Certificate of Education, under the heading "Links to related resources".

You write that you are someone who is "fairly good with policy and guidelines". This is what the situation requires. I am hoping you can help to settle the debate before it degenerates any further. Thank you in anticipation.

Nilmania (talk) 05:42, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

St Kierans College

Hi,

You have locked the St. Kierans College page because it is obvious that there has been vandalism of the content. Would it be possible for you to remove the comments regarding that I am a lady-boy!! "cethern ried known as the first "lady boy" to be allowed into an all boys school, sadly this didnt last long as he was found to of slept with the principle and the 1998 senior hurling team. He was expelled from the school and the courtcase is still going on today." In fact the past pupls section should read:

"Notable students to have attended the school include actor Ralph Fiennes, Kilkenny hurler DJ Carey, Wexford hurler Nicky Rackard and most members of Kerbdog."

Regards Ketron (talk) 20:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Prince Mongo

Thanks just ever so much for deleting the Prince Mongo (of Memphis,TN) article, you greasy, slovenly virginal neckbeard you. Now howabout you stop being a retard, play nice and put it back before I sick prince mongo himself on you. Alien bites hurt a lot, I should warn you. http://www.memphishistory.org/People/Characters/RobertPrinceMongoHodges/tabid/297/Default.aspx —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.177.46.53 (talk) 20:00, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

The Prince Mongo article was deleted 11 May 2008 per this AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince Mongo. I did the deletion but it was not my decision. Cheers, Pigman☿ 17:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Fine then, don't play along, I'm trying to get into a flame war with you but noooo you won't play along. you dirty, unkempt, mock turtleneck clad, beret wearing, unshaven, soy latte drinking hippie Mac user you. You said you liked sophisticated flames so there you are. *jab* *jab* ;) - Disciple of the great and powerful Prince Mongo

No, really, I appreciate the effort! Much better than the run-of-the-mill insults! Alas, I can't really encourage you to do so on Wikipedia due to civility restrictions. So I'm not going to return your volley of above-average invective. I'm also far too mellow to get excited by a flame exchange. Been there, done that, upgraded my computer, changed decade, upgraded OS (more than once), passed the millennium, replaced the t-shirt several times, etc. I'm choosy about my online battles these days and WP isn't really high on the list of important conflict areas. Sorry. But I encourage you to practice elsewhere than WP. I particularly liked the word "neckbeard." Remember, an unusually subtle and intelligent insult, offered with good humour and bonhomme can, perversely, sometimes create mutual laughter in a tense situation. Anger and a fist is more likely but I'm an optimist. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 23:26, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Ireland naming question

You are receiving this message because you have previously posted at a Ireland naming related discussion. Per Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Ireland article names#Back-up procedure, a procedure has been developed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Ireland Collaboration, and the project is now taking statements. Before creating or replying to a statement please consider the statement process, the problems and current statements. GnevinAWB (talk) 18:16, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Holocaust

Dear "Pigman": I don't know you and I chose you randomly. We need mediation at [5]. I just want to soft a sentence on the article which is supported by fake references, the position is clear but there are 2 or 3 editors whom oppose to the change for the sake of opposing, no arguments but they turn around the bush over and over again along a month. Please help the editors to get a consensus.--85.144.120.49 (talk) 04:04, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Meera sanyal

Ref. my recent article that was 'speedily deleted' on account of a 'copyright violation'. The article is biographical in nature on an eminent personality and the copyright violation was flagged due to content I'd borrowed from the person in question's website, for which I have obtained prior explicit permission. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shahidb (talk • contribs) 17:23, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

dear pigman,

ref. my recent article on "Meera Sanyal" that was speedily deleted on account of copyright violation. as it happens I have obtained permission to reproduce the text here from the website owner and there was no violation on my part.

Rgds. Shahidb (talk) 17:25, 23 March 2009 (UTC)Shahid

About Editing External Links

Dear Pigman,

I am a bit confused. I added a link to my article "Brigit: Mother of Smiths" to the page related to Brighid. This article is well researched and contains useful information re the Mother of Smiths aspect of this goddess. I do not find a great deal of difference among my link and the links to the excellent articles at Mary Jones (http://www.maryjones.us/jce/brigit.html) and Francine Nicolson's pages (http://www.applewarrior.com/celticwell/ejournal/imbolc/brighid.htm).

I honestly felt I was adding a link a that researchers might find useful. I also felt the other links I had added would prove useful to people looking for information on the subjects in question.

Is it the rule that I may only add links to pages I did not write myself? I write a lot and have an extensive website with all kinds of information on Celtic Shamanism, folklore and traditions. My 'zine has been in publication for thirteen years and the SCS is the original non-profit Celtic Shamans on-line community. We have been around since 1997.

I would appreciate a further explanation of the rules so I do not offend in the future. Thank you for your kind attention.

One hundred thousand blessings to you and all our relations, Tira Brandon-Evans

Society of Celtic Shamans Thecelticshaman (talk) 04:22, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Answered on User talk:Thecelticshaman. Pigman☿/talk 17:49, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank You

Dear Pigman,

Thank you for your clear and courteous answer in re the inappropriate external links.

One hundred thousand blessings to you and yours, Tira —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecelticshaman (talk • contribs) 14:58, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

about Demonologist

as you participated in editing of Demonologist article, you mignt have an opinion for Talk:Demonology#Demonology in fiction (Idot (talk) 02:53, 23 June 2009 (UTC))

WikiProject LGBT studies Newsletter (June 2009)

• Newsletter delivery by xenobot 17:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Requesting an outside opinion

Hi Pigman - I picked up your name from your offer to help at Wiki Assistance Page. I've been editing for a few years but no on a regular basis. Recently, I have been involved mainly with the IB Diploma wiki and talk pages.

One editor User_talk:ObserverNY appears to me to really be sailing very close to the wind on a number of issues. The editor has declared a POV (running an anti-IB website). [6]. However, it is very difficult for me to work with this editor as (to my mind) they are at the very least uncivil. Personally, I find them almost harassing and aggressive on the talk page and unresponsive to questions - they cherry pick statements (sometimes misattributing them to a particular editor) so they can throw in some snide remarks and a little bit of name calling.

In addition, ObserverNY seems to gainsay often and assume bad faith. I'm not claiming my behaviour was perfect (I know I lost the plot a couple of times) and I know I certainly could have responded better at some points. However, there are a number of editors who are certainly behaving very well on the page and yet I feel that ObserverNY isn't really responding to their calls to be calm and reasonable.

I really would like you to take the time to read the current talk page and give me feedback on:

• 1. My behaviour and how I could have helped de-escalate any conflict a lot earlier.
• 2. Your opinion of the behaviour of ObserverNY

Also, I would value your suggestions on what I can do to restore civility on the talk pages.

Thanks in advance, --Candy (talk) 07:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Pigman. I appreciate your response. I should have posted here that I posted on WP:AN that I posted here (hope that isn't too confusing). It seems TFWOR took a different route to mine but I think all parties involved were feeling pretty frustrated so it wasn't a great shock. I'd still like some feedback from you. It shouldn't have got this far. I know I was pretty frustrated at times. Anyway, without internet access soon for a few days ... starting my vacation. When you do make come comments, it may take a while for me to acknowledge thanks ... so I'll say some in advancee .. thanks in anticipation. :) --Candy (talk) 21:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Taken care of. Thanks for the heads up. Soul Crusher (talk) 02:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Requesting assistance

Hi Pigman, have posted a request for editor assistance dealing with possible sockpuppetry regarding user Rodoval, who was dealt with in your investigation of Justice all the way (Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Justice all the way). I believe Rodoval is now the controller account with new sockpuppets, the two cases bear alot of similarities and considering you dealt previously with the last case would greatly appreciate your insights or any help you could provide. Have written more in detail on this here under the heading Possible sock puppetry.
Thanks, --RavensFists (talk) 21:09, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to bother you again, but have found another user I suspect of being a sockpuppet (or at least a meatpuppet), user From Argentina with love. This user was created today and immediately became involved in the Rodolf Valentin article, the user again has similiar user page (comes from Buenos Aires and/or South America, like all the suspected accounts). Though the user's comment appears to support me here, I still feel it has a POV agenda on Valentin article's behalf. Me telling you this may be pointless considering your already checking it out but I just wanted to let you know.

Regards, --RavensFists (talk) 21:38, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Removed prod from Ballard Pool

I removed the prod tag from Ballard Pool because I actually found some sources showing notability, particularly with a nudist controversy. Just leaving a notice as a courtesy, thanks. -- Atama^chat 18:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the help !

This was my first created article really and I made a ton of mistakes . Thanks for the clean up on the links. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DarlieB (talk • contribs) 03:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Article revisions on LaSara Firefox

I have received great concerns about today's revising of LaSara Firefox's article. I am doing so on her request, as she wishes to not be related to The Church of All Worlds or her Pagan past in any biographical way. It is part of her private, not public life, at her request. Her recent activities denote a new description in Wikipedia. It is not simply a career shift as has been suggested in this stream.

I had planned to have this completed with citations and support by Thursday, -- and if I violated a standard there, I apologize and will take rectify ASAP. I of course copied and pasted the previous entries.

It was not my intention to cause any issue with Wikipedia, and will do everything necessary to revise the article within Wikipedia standards.

peace

rogue.papa

^^^^ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rogue.papa (talk • contribs) 23:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Reaven Knight who burned alive then drowned

Pigman, i'd like to know more about Reaven Knight.. Could you please Repost in or something. Please?

thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.56.87 (talk) 20:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks like more additions to a sock drawer

I'm pretty sure I know what's going on here, but I'd appreciate more eyes on this.

It looks to me like Romandrumanagh (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) is probably another sockpuppet of indef-blocked Brunodam (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · rfcu · ssp · SPI · cuwiki). See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Brunodam/Archive. Blocked sock 70.90.59.74 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki), whose comments in the investigation are very revealing, first inserted the material that the Romandrumanagh account, newly-created with red-flag username, appeared to edt-war over (see history of Drumanagh article).

Looks to me like Romandrumanagh is 70.90.59.74, and 209.215.162.17 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki) is most likely the same user. Romandrumanagh suddenly decided to "retire in protest" shortly before the indef-block came down on the other accounts. Has not edited recently, but I think that, if others concur it's the same user, the account should also be blocked and flagged as part of the sockdrawer. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 22:05, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll look into it and tell you what I find. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 22:08, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Also check out Paul0559 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · logs · block log · arb · rfc · lta · SPI · cuwiki), who started the Drumanagh article, and also lobbied for the same content the socks edit-warred over. Per this sock investigation it looks like we have two drawers, and high probability of same puppetmaster. Yow. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 22:39, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure enough, 70.90.59.74 was used by socks in both investigations. Looks pretty clear to me. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 22:45, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Confirmed. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 00:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, this is a fine kettle of sockpuppets! AFAIK, the following sock/checkuser cases are loosely interrelated to some extent or another:

• Rex Dominator
• Brunodam
• Brunodam (2nd)
• Giovanni Giove
• Giovanni Giove (2nd)

Whole lotta sockin' goin' on... Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 00:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

About the deleted page 'Legitemate executables'

Petadaman (talk) 05:04, 28 August 2009 (UTC) Greetings 'Pig-man', just 'peta-da-man' here. i'd like to have a chat about the deletion of the new article 'Legitimate executibles', it was a page including a list of executibles or "exe's" for the Microsoft windows process manager in task manager as i am sure you know of... the list is for users of windows who wish to delete 'harmful virus executibles. unfortunatly, most people are unsure of whether thier process executibles are harmful to thier computer or not and may end a very well needed process, thus damaging thier computer. the list will help windows users to recognise the difference between bad and good processes. the page was at a low standard at the start, but after others adding to the list of executibles, i would have changed the list and making each process a hyperlink to the processes actual discriptive page. I, should have made the page, more "understandible" but instead i typed wrong. Please reply soon. Petadaman

Accusation

Accusing editors of being antagonistic isn't very polite, especially when the attempt is to encourage editors to improve an article. Please expend your efforts on providing adequate sources to the Celtic Reconstruction article, rather than trying to discourage me from making constructive comments, and attacking an editors behaviour rather than fixing the problem. Try to focus on editing wikipedia, not on personalities. Thanks. Davémon (talk) 07:57, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Re: your incorrect information in the deletion of article Rishloo

Just a FYI, on the Rishloo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Rishloo) page you suggested deletion of, I am not a member of the band. My name is Drew Gillett, and you can find me in many other places online to verify that I am not in fact a member or investor or owner in any way of Rishloo's material. Just a followup to your comment which in part lead to the deletion of an Article I started and happened to grow through a community effort to make notability clear to the mods. In my opinion holding the highest play count on Last.fm of any non-signed band on the west coast if not further is a notable achievement.

Aside from that, I'm not sure how the article offended the moderation in such a way that it was allowed to stand for over 2 years and be suddenly taken down. I enjoyed seeing it grow through the band's accomplishments, which included starting a viral campaign called "I Am Rishloo" involving fans from dozens of countries outside the US who all took part.

38.112.225.13 (talk) 23:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC) Drew Gillett (couldn't play an instrument if my life depended on it)

While I nominated the article for deletion in 2007 because I didn't think the band was notable, it was actually deleted because the text of the article was a copyright violation. I didn't participate in the more recent AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rishloo (2nd nomination)) which again resulted in deletion so I really have no opinion on the band or the article. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 01:15, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

POV mess at Triple Goddess‎‎ and war of attrition at Talk:Triple Goddess

Thanks for your work at Triple Goddess‎‎ and Talk:Triple Goddess‎‎. It's clear there is no consensus for it to be an article about Wicca, or to generalize all historical Pagan or Neopagan beliefs into a Wiccan structure. Anyone with experience in the field should know that, so I find the whole debacle very odd. But I am just not in the mood to fight right now. It shouldn't have to be a fight. I may try to get back into it later, but right now it seems stupid and pointless. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 19:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm feeling the same way about it. User:Davemon seems (possibly deliberately) oblivious to his POV pushing. It's difficult to work beyond the semantic quibbling and wikilawyering he puts up as a way of winning his point. He doesn't seem to see it as an organizational issue but one of popularity, I think structuring from the overarching concept down to specifics of particular cultures and creeds is a pretty basic and standard encyclopedic approach. I just hear him saying "There is only one Triple Goddess and she is Wiccan/Neopagan/Graves. The rest are figments of your imagination." I don't think it matters what RS we offer. His mind is made up and nothing shall deter him. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 19:50, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I proposed exactly that (standard WP) structure. And somehow it seems to have gotten lost in the verbiage. The article isn't even flagged for NPOV now. I removed the flag after the header was changed, then Davemon changed the header back to the Wiccan version and didn't replace the flag. Not cool. - Kathryn NicDhàna ♫♦♫ 20:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Nice to see you guys discussing my edits. Of course this is an organisational issue: do we allow wp:fringe theories to dominate a subject, and organise it from within that point of view or do we keep the subject within mainstream academia and organise it from that point of view? There is also a balance issue with the difference between the popularist and academic views of terms such as "Triple Goddess" and ensuring the right balance is met. Wikipedia naming conventions are actually to name articles after their most popular usage, not to impose an ideological hierarchy ranging from the multi-cultural to the specific-cultural. What is 'not cool' is both of your claiming that the article is biased and non-NPOV without actually providing any evidence from reliable sources that your POV is entertained within mainstream academia. Seriously, there would be no 'fight' if a half dozen decent academic sources were provided that supported your position.Davémon (talk) 19:43, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Torpeedoh

I had requested more time to include credible sources to my article concerning musician, Torpeedoh. He is an influential musician in the Des Moines area having performed at some of the top musical events.

I'd appreciate it if you gave me a chance to finish the article rather than deleting it before I can say why it is significant. Your reply would be greatly appreciated. Thank You, Brad Littlebobcat (talk) 02:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

You

Your an un-patriotic fool who still lives with his mother. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Drewprovost (talk • contribs) 18:11, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

for adding your weight to the Ben Anderson problem. He's still at school and showing off, so far as I can tell. I know we're not supposed to bite newcomers, but some of them benefit from a little nip.... Peridon (talk) 20:26, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

suspicious copyvios

I've found that bios like that of Raymond Buck are almost always copyvios. When I see them on CSD I check, & add or change the rationale & delete accordingly. Copyvio is so much more indisputable. DGG ( talk ) 22:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

You Shouldn't Have Deleted Ken Rockwell

I was trying to find information on him and found your deleted page. He writes quite a few insightful reviews, and the Wiki page was really a way to get a quick bio off of his site. His site is well-enough visited, especially by buyers of some older lenses, that the Wiki page is helpful.

While we are on the topic, some editing needs to be done to prevent bias toward controversial figures. This can affect respected tenured professors at top universities (MIT for one) who have published papers that disagree with someone's political view. I've seen meaningful overviews of pivotal research deleted (you don't get to be a tenured professor with an endowed chair at MIT by accident) while discrediting rumors about conversations get added. These people can't impact that and shouldn't have to.

Anyway, to the best of my knowledge Ken Rockwell is just a photographer who writes lots of hands on reviews with a broad insight that extends beyond analysis software.

David —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.115.221.146 (talk) 11:03, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

An AfD had already been opened on the article here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Rockwell. The article had been on Wikipedia for over a year and still lacked reliable sources as well as remaining rather promotional. Nothing in the article at that time indicated why Ken Rockwell is notable by Wikipedia standards so I deleted the article on those grounds.

As to Wikipedian bias towards "controversial figures", I can only speak generally and hypothetically without a specific case. Sometimes I have seen respected and tenured professors in one field (archeology for example) speak as if s/he is an expert in a completely unrelated field (linguistics). In this hypothetical, a judgment might be made by Wikipedia editors that the professor's opinion about theories and evidence in the second field, where s/he lack expert credentials, fails the test of credibility or peer review in the second field. Again, this is just a hypothetical on my part. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 21:12, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Userfy speedy-deleted article request

Hi, Pigman, I was wondering if you could provide me with a userfied copy of Testing Recall About Strange Happenings. The article was speedy-deleted, in spite of my placement of a hangon tag. Robert K S (talk) 23:15, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I won't say that the article doesn't lack good-article quality sources, but an A7 speedy delete is entirely inappropriate. A7 is for articles that don't even give a hint as to why the subjects are important. The threshold for A7 is not verifiability or notability. This article, if it should have been deleted, should have gone through the proper discussion process. What happened here was a subversion of the process in a conversation that seems to have taken place on IRC or through some other backdoor channel. Robert K S (talk) 00:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd politely disagree with your assessment of notability in this case. Nothing in the article as I saw it indicated its importance. I'd say it was a judgment call about whether to speedy delete it or send it to AfD. That's my personal opinion on this particular article; other admin's mileage/opinion may vary. I don't use IRC myself but most accusations of backchannel conspiracy are much more easily explained by individual admins taking actions based on using their own good or flawed judgment. I'm not saying such conversations never happen, just that speedies, in my experience, almost never involve such discussion between admins. Because of the length and detail of the article, I probably would have AfDed it rather than speedy but I can certainly see a justification for speedying the article instead. Sorry to say so but, again, just my opinion. I really recommend trying to find better WP:RS and WP:V sources: Blogs and message boards are almost useless as substantial sources. I view it as practically having no sources at all. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 01:21, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not saying this is a conspiracy--although it may have been, I've no idea what the relationships between the parties is--I'm suggesting the process was subverted. The encyclopedia is founded on the concept of consensus, the idea that disagreements are evaluated in ways that have evolved to become defined, rather than one person sending a buddy with the admin tools to delete things even when such deletions are contested. As to the importance of the article subject, it's an international competitive tournament that involves thousands of people each year, and has been around for over a decade. It's not some flash-in-the pan one-off event, or something made up overnight, and its trophy is a notable object by itself. Again, sources are not and should never be the issue in a speedy. A7 is not for evaluating sources. Robert K S (talk) 01:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind also userfying Game Show Congress? A7-nommed and insta-deleted by the same tag team. This is another prima facie A7-non-qualifier. Game Show Congress is the industry trade show/conference. A7'ing it is like A7'ing E3 or Comic-Con or SIGGRAPH. Robert K S (talk) 03:38, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice on the other userfied pages. I have no way to keep track of those and so they tend to get lost. I haven't looked at all of them but some of them can probably go. That said, I would appreciate if you not delete them within the week. I will be inactive on the encyclopedia until after December 5 and will not be able to consider any of these until then. Cheers, Robert K S (talk) 04:54, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

The "Trebek effect" one was an article which I nominated for deletion. You are welcome to zap that. You are also welcome to delete the Black McCains one. The others, please give me until after Dec. 5 or so. Robert K S (talk) 04:58, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Sure, no problem about waiting til December. I've deleted the User:Robert K S/Trebek effect and User:Robert K S/Black McCains subpages per your request. You can see all your user subpages here: [7]. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 06:52, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Denialism

An article that you have been involved in editing, Denialism, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Denialism (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Unomi (talk) 06:23, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Davemon

Hi Pigman. I ceased regularly contributing to Wikipedia nearly a year ago for the same reason: Davemon's wikilawyering and slow-revert war in which he found any excuse to remove large quantities of well-cited information, often without giving time for proper discussion. I tried to get mediation and outside opinions from expert groups and found these hopelessly inadequate, since no-one seemed willing to spend the time required to understand what was happening on more than a superficial level. He's well enough read that he can put together a superficially plausible but imprecisely phrased argument, and keep people arguing on that for a while. Once you start to hone in on what the essence of his argument actually is, and demonstrate its lack of substance, he switches to an entirely different argument based on different WP policies, and again without substance. The trouble is, none of the outside help seemed willing to follow such long chains of debate and so came to no real conclusion. When on occasion they did come to a conclusion, he simply refused to accept it.

I found him a real pain to deal with, and I'm not surprised other long-term contributors have left the community because of him. The fundamental problem is, when an experienced contributor is asking for mediation and expert outside advice, failure by these outside editors to give sufficient attention is going to leave that editor feeling abandoned and disillusioned. Perhaps where inexperienced editors are involved solutions may be simple, but when the conflicting editors are experienced and well-versed in policy that would suggest that very careful attention is required to solve the issue. I also felt hounded, since Davemon started following me to other articles I was working on and doing his hatchet jobs there too.

I don't really have a lot of time to get embroiled in an editorial debate regarding an individual article, but if you want to start a user-RfC at any point I would be willing to get more involved; I could certainly pull together some useful information out of the Horned God article debate which would demonstrate his tactics and show how long he has been acting in this way. If you do so, it's probably best to contact me by email, since I don't log into Wikipedia very often now; nor do I check my watchlist.

All the best, Fuzzypeg★ 21:13, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and the book

Hi, and thanks for cleaning up my misspelling. The Burgess book, if you don't have it as yet, there are lots of copies on Abebooks.com. You probably know of Abebooks, but if not, you're in for a wonderland of print. Advanced Search seems the most fun. Thanks again. Aleister Wilson (talk) 20:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Userfy Chali (slang)

{{user recovery}} please userfy Chali_(slang) page for me.It was a funny pice and i dont intend to repost it on wikipedia... may be uncyclopedia Thanks User:Sunwheeler 14:30, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Adding a null template

Out of curiosity, what does this do [8]? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 19:13, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Response to your message re. deletion proposal: Cevanne Horrocks-Hopayian

Hi Pigman

Thank you for your welcome to Wiki and for your comments on my first article (Cevanne Horrocks-Hopayian), which are very interesting and useful to me. I kept this article in draft form for some weeks in the hope of advice before publishing it; obviously I did not trigger the correct procedure for help.

You are incorrect in assuming that I am the subject of the article. You are correct in deducing that I am a novice encyclopaediarian: although I studied Diderot in my youth, this is my first contribution to anything in the style of a hypertextual collection of fact-sheets; I trained as an academic and consequently tend to be tediously thorough, nervous of 'facts', and over-subtle.

I understand your concerns about the performance element of the subject's entry and propose deleting them; the nominations and awards, however, are significant (in the UK, in any case) indicators of emerging talent and are what triggered the article for me. I'd welcome any other guidance from you before I spend much more time on it or even try to halt the deletion .

I have another concern, however: the 'google test' you applied to the subject. As a tedious academic, I have been used to offering evidence that is not on the web and that normally claims a higher status (for obvious reasons — and bravo to you for trying to clean up Wiki). In fact, the next article that I am preparing has no web references and would not pass your google test. Perhaps you could clarify Wikipedian views on the weight assigned to a google test. Thanks for your time.

RiverStreet (talk) 08:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)River StreetRiverStreet (talk) 08:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

• Replied on user's talk page here. Pigman☿/talk 18:02, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Issues with Isaac Bonewits BLP page

I've noticed you've been the most active on the talk page regarding this issue, even before I brought it up on the BLP page.

here is the discussion I began and the responses to it [[9]]

I'm honestly not sure how to progress. I don't have the time or resources to devote to finding decent sources (via web or print) on this topic, but I know this article needs to be placed in a more NPOV rather than reading as a promotional spiel.

I don't feel the article should be deleted, however I feel that there should be some motivation for people reading it and using it to improve on the quality and meet WP standards. Since you're an Admin I'm pretty sure you have more resources to do such inspiring and more experience with such situations than a part time gnome like I do.

Hope this helps some and hope you are the right person to mention this to. Thanks! Der.Gray (talk) 22:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

There are a few pretty good sources for reliable info on Isaac. I seem to recall Rosemary Ellen Guiley's The Encyclopedia of Witches, Witchcraft & Wicca (Facts On File, 1989. Second ed. 1999. Third ed. 2008) has a substantial biographical entry on him. I would also think that some info could be found in Adler's Drawing Down the Moon (book), although that source will be more historical than current (last 10-15 years). I'm sure there are more WP:RS's out there. He's had a long and storied career in the Neopagan/occultism community and his influence is quite far-reaching.

I've been meaning to try to scrub the article of PR spin and improve the citations but have had other things on my plate. If you want to take a whack at it, please go for it. If you have questions about how to do it, ask me. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 00:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of IceRocket

An article that you have been involved in editing, IceRocket, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/IceRocket (2nd nomination). Thank you.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Woogee (talk) 00:14, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

deletion

hello sir

i work for an airline that had a page of here it had got deleted after a few days its not a very big airline on the whole but where working as a team to get it up and running if another page is made about it please dont let it get deleted thanks lj —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cplcurtis1451 (talk • contribs) 04:17, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Final discussion for Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

Hello, I note that you have commented on the first phase of Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies of living people

As this RFC closes, there are two proposals being considered:

1. Proposal to Close This RfC
2. Alternate proposal to close this RFC: we don't need a whole new layer of bureaucracy

Your opinion on this is welcome. Okip 03:23, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

You know what you are?

You're a pig, man. 68.218.205.114 (talk) 02:05, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

AWB problems with marking orphans

Sorry to bother you, but you may not be aware that there is a fault in AWB that tags articles as orphans when they are not. Regards Motmit (talk) 19:41, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Urg. No, I did not know that. I thought problems with that had been worked out. Stupid me. I'm sorry I trusted AWB's advice and I'll steer clear of that issue with AWB from now on. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 20:52, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Looks like there may be an option that addresses this: "Restrict orphan tag addition to linkless pages". I didn't have that checked. I'll double check the articles AWB adds an orphan tag to with this option on. If it seems to be consistently accurate, great. If not, I'll just jettison all AWB orphan tags in the future. Sorry for any inconvenience. Pigman☿/talk 21:07, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Munro articles

Thanks for your contributions to Clan Munro and related articles. I hope you like the articles. I have worked very hard on some of them. mjgm84 (talk) 08:56, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Stubs

Hi, I just undid your edit removing the stub tag from Richmond County, Nova Scotia, which I have watchlisted. You seem to be going through articles on Nova Scotia communities removing the stub tag with AWB. I appreciate smaller articles aren't necessarily stubs. That one's under 150 words of prose and <1kb though. I don't understand how it needed to be removed? –Whitehorse1 16:21, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

The Worry Trap

Noticed the orphaned tag tonight and added a link from Acceptance and commitment therapy under See Also. Linked a few words to other pages and added another Category at the bottom. I'll check back during the week to see if these edits will clear the tag or if it will need some more effort. Tinkermen (talk) 07:01, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if a single link is really enough to remove the orphan tag. But, really, the tag isn't any slight to the article or subject. It's more a functional working notice advising editors (not readers/non-editors) to integrate the article more into the 'pedia with links. There's no firm number quota that has to be met to remove the tag but I personally would like to see more than one link. If you can find a way to appropriately add at least one more link in different article to the The Worry Trap article, I think you could remove the orphan tag. If you do so, would you mind dropping me a note here? I'd just like to double-check it. Thanks. Pigman☿/talk 15:05, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Um, in case it isn't clear, an article being an orphan is different than wikifying an article. Orphans really aren't fully integrated. I believe that's an important aspect of the 'pedia, being able to click into articles and learn more about a specific bit of information. Pigman☿/talk 00:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Learned alot from this thanks, I noticed my other two articals I've completed have the same issue. I'll be addressing them to, I wasn't aware of this until now, eye opening. I also linked the articals worry and anxiety under See also, back to the artical tonight. What's appropriate or not seems to be a learned experience it looks like, which I kinda lack having only completed three articals thus far and probably the reason I hadn't linked more. But I will do my best now that I'm starting to understand 'pedia, some what better now and why it's so important. The book's content is very similar to the topic mindfulness as well, but I'm not sure if that's appropriate or not, because of how both artical's are written, would they fit right linked together? Tinkermen (talk) 05:39, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Yes, "appropriate" is sort of a learned judgment about such links. The main issues are over-linking an article (that is, wikilinking every possible word and phrase in the article) and what might be called over-linking to the article (that is, putting links to the original article in other articles, even when there is little or no reason to do so.)

I think putting a link in Mindfulness (psychology) is borderline. I note that most of that article is about mindfulness and specific psychological schools of thought/techniques (most very well established). A single book like The Worry Trap (as I understand it from its article) might be considered a kind of link- or wiki-spam because it doesn't directly bear on the subject. But, as far as I can see, it's a judgment call for an individual editor. If another editor doesn't like it, they might take it out. Welcome to Wikipedia where nothing is permanent.

The approach I would take: look at the major concepts and techniques embodied in the book, make sure these are explained in the article, wikilink those concepts/techniques in the article to their Wikipedia articles, then go to those articles to see if there is a way of integrating a link to The Worry Trap into those articles. Fair warning: other editors may disagree with your judgment and remove the link. If you need more help or advice, please ask. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 15:07, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Eliogarty - Tipperary geo-stub.

Why was the Tipperary geo-stub removed from Eliogarty? What's the criteria for the stub? Thanks, Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Articles are marked with a "stub" label and category when they are very limited, bare-bones articles with much more information which can be added. While there is no firm size limit for whether an article is or is not a stub, AutoWikiBrowser removes the stub label/cat from articles when they are over 500-600 words in length. As a rule of thumb, articles longer than that are generally no longer stubs. If you want to revert my removal of the stub label on Eliogarty, please do so. I won't take offense. In my opinion, however, the Eliogarty article isn't a stub. Your opinion may vary. ;) If you have any other questions, don't hesitate to ask me. Pigman☿/talk 21:06, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion for The_Book_of_Blotar

An article that you have been involved in editing, The_Book_of_Blotar , has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going here, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. GeezerBird (talk) 23:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Reverted addition of ibid. tag

Hi. Just dropping in to let you know that I've reverted this edit, which added an {{ibid}} tag to an article. The addition of the tag was apparently prompted by an occurrence of Op. cit. in the article. Op. cit. is less problematic than Ibid. and, IMHO, in this case the related work was adequately identified in the relevant citation. If you disagree with the reversion, please let me know. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

The revert is fine with me and not a problem. Personally, I prefer the "ref name= xxxx" version to aggregate the references together but that's me. I think it makes the refs easier to read when the same ref is used multiple times. Everyone has their own preference and obviously AutoWikiBrowser sticks to a rather strict version of the Manual of Style with this kind of tagging. I'm not overly attached to its recommendations. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 01:19, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

My preferences align with yours. I normally collect up duplicated refs, using separate cites only where different pages in a work are explicitly cited, and only using Op. cit in articles which combine shortened footnotes and full cites together in one section. Your response sent me back to American Empire article which started this, where I've now done some more cleanup work. Cheers. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:22, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Why bother

putting "orphan" tags on articles? What possible use could it serve? A case in point is the tag you put on Knocker-up. It is highly unlikely that editors of other articles are going to find a encyclopaedic reason to put in links to the article since trying to put a sentence in (say) an article on the history of Manchester such as Writers in the 19th century noted the prevalence of indigent aged persons engaged as knocler-ups in order to earn a small income (as indeed they did) would be removed some other lunatic deletionist-patroller as un-encyclopaedic. However the article is nicely indexed by Google etc and people who came across the term would be able to find out what a knocker-up did regardless if it is by one or a 100 other articles here. Why don't you do something that has a point such as actually improving articles? Silent Billy (talk) 00:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

Simone Tomassini

Hi, you deleted the page about the singer Simone Tomassini, allegently for copyright infringiment. The page was created by the singer itself, and we were actually about to add some new interesting things on it. How can the page be reinstated? Thanks Simone —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.86.160.119 (talk) 18:44, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

I deleted the article Simone tomassini on 6 Dec 2009 because it was a copyright violation, the text taken from here. It looks like the article was recreated on 9 Dec 2009 under the name Simone Tomassini. I'm unclear about the copyright status of the current text but there is a debate on whether to delete it is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simone Tomassini. I suggest you participate in the discussion there. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 21:09, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

• I am a little concerned with what's going on here with the user names and identity claims. At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simone Tomassini (and above) 69.86.160.119 claims to be Simone Tomassini and the creator of the current and deleted articles on him. Yet both were created by User:Simonetta70. Note also that both here and at the AfD, the IP refers to Simone in the third person and above says "we were actually about to add some new interesting things". Is this person not actually Simone, but his publicist or a member of his fan club? If so, they should not be claiming to be the man himself. Any thoughts? Voceditenore (talk) 09:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

This is one of the reasons editors (and admins like myself) tend to treat usernames with skepticism. Whoever the actual person(s) behind the IP, User:Simonetta70, etc. accounts is/are, at the very least they probably have some conflict of interest. Even if they said they are Simone Tomassini (or his representative), there is limited credibility unless they go to Wikimedia Foundation and formally register their complaints, issues or copyright release. Arguments on WP, including AfDs, are judged on merit alone, not on who is making them. It looks like you have a pretty good handle on the issues from your comments on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simone Tomassini. Let me know if some kind of editwar seems to be brewing with the IP or a named account. I'll watchlist the article but be aware that my watchlist is fairly extensive and I often miss things. Drop a line here if there's a problem. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 16:13, 23 April 2010 (UTC) (PS: Also let me know if there appears to be sockpuppeting going on. For the moment, it looks like the multiple accounts could be ignorance, not deliberate but if you see a pattern, mention it. Thanks.)

Thanks! I'll get back to you if there are any serious shenanigans. I have no illusions about what's going on. In my view there's a big conflict of interest. See also [10] and [11]. Fortunately, there's been no attempt at votestacking or editwarring in the article itself. Hopefully, the deletion discussion will have sufficiently discouraged it. I also left this message on the talk page of Simonetarantino (aka 69.86.160.119 aka ??) I usually edit articles on opera and have long experience (unfortunately) of dealing with attempts by publicists or the artists/composers/opera companies themselves (notable, marginally notable, and utterly non-notable alike) using WP for publicity. Rampant copyvio, attempts to control the article, flaming PR hype, you name it. Ah, the joys of Wikipedia. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 17:48, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Complementary color

Hi: Hate to bother you, but User:Architecture and Interior Design made extensive changes to Complementary_color which are essentially personal, unsourced opinions and I cannot revert this to the original because there were subsequent edits, and I don't know how to revert a bunch of edits. Can you do this? Thanks --Marjaliisa (talk) 23:14, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Wow, that was a mess. The article could certainly use more development and more sources in particular but that huge addition by User:Architecture and Interior Design did not clarify anything. It muddled the focus and confused various color models. Since none of the edits after that were significant, I just reverted the whole thing to before those edits. I'd offer to help with the article but admit my knowledge of color theory is rudimentary at best. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 00:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Using same reference multiple times

How could you use the same reference many times so that the reference can say a and b and so forth with Wikipedia when citing sources? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.41.88.144 (talk) 16:56, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

This is very useful when you have a lot of repeats of the same reference in an article. Look at Referencing for Beginners, particularly the section Same reference used more than once. That should get you started. A much longer and detailed explanation of various types of citation on WP can be found at WP:CITE. Let me know if you need more guidance. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 00:39, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jeffner Allen

The article Jeffner Allen has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-notable, unreferenced article: requested deletion on behalf of subject, see otrs ticket 2010052210021416

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 14:33, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

What a memorable article... I was surprised to find I was the one who started the article on Jeffner Allen because it made no impression on me at all. I even noted at the time I began the article that I didn't think she was notable. Three publishing credits does not WP notability make. C'est la vie. Pigman☿/talk 18:23, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

The Secret Circle

Why did you delete the wiki page for 'The Secret Circle' by L. J. Smith?????? I wanted to know more about the trilogy before i read it and you went and deleted it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.179.50.20 (talk) 01:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Hi,

I note from the editors' list that you help with policy and guidelines. I'm having a problem with an incipient edit war on two related articles (Greg Caton and Cansema) and would like to ask your assistance. I've posted an RfC on the talk pages of both articles that I think is self-explanatory. I give more details on the other user's talk page (linked from the RfC description). If you could look them over and comment, I'd appreciate it.

Thanks, Mark L 96.237.170.36 (talk) 01:28, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Feminism

Hello, Feminism Task Force Member! Please accept this invitation to join a discussion on creating a full-fledged WikiProject Feminism. If you support this idea, please register your support here. All feedback is appreciated! Thanks!

The Secret circle

Why'd you delete 'The Secret Circle'?? brogananne 14:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brogananne (talk • contribs)

I deleted The Secret Circle because it had a Proposed Deletion tag on it for seven days. Anyone can remove the tag during that week. When that time is up, the article is deleted if there are no objections. You are welcome to recreate the article if you think it's important. I recommend finding some newspaper articles or reviews to help provide verifiable sources and include them if possible. Otherwise, it might be deleted rather quickly. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 03:07, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Request for use of your admin status

Hi, mr pigman. I think you might remember that I'm a prominent Formula One editor. I also like to edit cricket articles. I have a request for you as a cricket fan. basically the cricketing country Ireland needs a flag. And it's flag is on wikipedia here's the ireland cricket team flag File:Ireland Cricket Flag.png and can you put this in Template:Country data IRE

Sounds like an unusual request but do you think you will be able to do it. Wiki id2(talk) 17:34, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

Tunnels (novel) disputes

Dear Pigman, Disputes on page Tunnels

I wonder be grateful for your help with a complex and now prolonged removal edits by Wikipedian susanne2009NYC, who assessed the article as GA status. The re-write to attain GA status introduced numerous factual errors. I have repeatedly corrected these, including all four edits in the last 24 hours. Yet despite endless comments on the discussions page, no consensus has been agreed . I believe the actions of user susanne2009NYC contravene Wikipedia policy. Problems are namely:

1. Myself and other users have been informed that this page does not need any further editing. We have also had our own choice of critical reviews removed and she consistently reverts to the incorrect Cover Artist - I have even emailed the correct person (David Wyatt) so know it to be correct. However, she will not permit my source of the Authors own Website on the technicality that it doesn't say it's an 'Official' website - see:

David Wyatt is the cover artist - as on authors website, with link to David Waytt's site where Tunnels features

 http://www.mathewandson.com/stop_press.htm - July 2007

2. My four edits last night were again removed within a few hours - namely I added the Japanese Manga edition with verifiable Amazon source, book published in 40+ countries and over a million sales figures. Susanne2009NYC also refuses to accept any of the following sources:

• Re:40+ foreign language editions

http://www.childrenslit.com/childrenslit/mai_gordon_roderick_qa.html 

AND http://www.canada.com/story_print.html?id=b528986f-0233-4da1-98df-ad44cc7f2427&sponsor= AND authors site http://www.tunnelsthebook.com/the-books/ And http://www.williamsontunnels.co.uk/view.php?page=news And Publishers site http://www.doublecluck.com/who-we-are

• Manga (2 part) version published in Japan

http://www.amazon.co.jp/%E3%83%88%E3%83%B3%E3%83%8D%E3%83%AB-1-%E3%82%B4%E3%83%9E%E3%82%B3%E3%83%9F%E3%83%83%E3%82%AF%E3%82%B9-%E3%83%AD%E3%83%87%E3%83%AA%E3%83%83%E3%82%AF%E3%83%BB%E3%82%B4%E3%83%BC%E3%83%89%E3%83%B3/dp/4777190897/ref=sr_1_21?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1287185162&sr=1-21
AND

http://www.amazon.co.jp/%E3%82%B3%E3%83%9F%E3%83%83%E3%82%AF-%E3%83%88%E3%83%B3%E3%83%8D%E3%83%AB2-%E3%82%B4%E3%83%9E%E3%82%B3%E3%83%9F%E3%83%83%E3%82%AF%E3%82%B9-%E3%83%AD%E3%83%87%E3%83%AA%E3%83%83%E3%82%AF%E3%83%BB%E3%82%B4%E3%83%BC%E3%83%89%E3%83%B3/dp/4777190994/ref=sr_1_10?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1287185029&sr=1-10

• Re: Million+ sales - she also says the copies not is not relevant on Wikipdia, but the Harry Potter page clearly states this information!

http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118015432.html?categoryid=13&cs=1&ref=vertfilm

Susanne2009NYC claims Publisher and Author sites are not reliable sources as they tell lies about sales figures etc. I was planning on writing to the Publisher asking them to update their website confirming David Wyatt as cover artist, but Susanne2009NYC has rejected my other citations to the Publishers site, as unverifiable (bit let me use it as the source for the sequel book details)??

On the discussion page myself and other users have been asked not to correct what I know to be inaccuracies with any further edits. I have irrefutable evidence that my changes are accurate. Reading Wikipedia policy it looks to me as if she is contravening policy in - Taking Ownership - Preventing/dissuading other authors and editing - Ignoring consensus reverting changes to ensure her choice of critical reviews is maintained - Refuses to acknowledge Publishers/Authors/major newspapers and industry publications etc. Making changes knowingly reverting to inaccurate statistics e.g. The Highfield Mole 2,000 paperbacks published - Myself and other users have had to change this so many times from the incorrect 200, citing the Authors and other sources. Even now she says she "will let it go for now". Myself and others have 'no' say in editing this page - she will not even let me add a sentence on the Manga edition and has totally removed my latest edit, regarding incorrect references in the AbeBooks article - that she is happy to accept as reliable.

I am one of the passionate people Wikipeda policy makes reference to - about this book series. I am an administrator on the UK fansite TunnesDeeper.com - which has the support of both the publishers and the authors. I have read and own all the books, including one of the 2,000 Highfield Moles and know my subject matter well. This whole experience on here has been very upsetting and I feel irrelevant and excluded from this page. Stewardship does support retaining a users version where it is felt further editing would be detrimental to the existing quality. However, this is not the case here. Sorry to make this so long and rambling. A few months ago I was unhappy that on old version of this article was replaced by an inferior version without discussion or collaboration - surely a cornerstone of Wikipdia ethos. I have spent many hours on numerous occasions sourcing the references to ensure they are meet Wikipedia verifiability standards and my only interest is to help make this article an accurate and informative read. If this matter should be dealt with elsewhere on wikipedia, please advise me. Your expert opinion would be greatly appreciated. {Lifesawhirl (talk) 17:58, 16 October 2010 (UTC)}

List of The Simpsons Treehouse of Horror episodes

Please weigh in on Talk:List of The Simpsons Treehouse of Horror episodes#Inclusion of episode segment links, so we can generate a consensus. Thanks, Fixblor (talk) 09:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Why was the starwind aticle deleted ? Deleters destroy wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.219.21.32 (talk) 11:06, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Samhain & Halloween edits

Clicked on Halloween discussion, one German editor Bakulan is trying to rewrite the article how he sees it (German view of having absolutely no celtic origin whatsoever) and has done so to Samhain article, and with no concensus. Having looked at edit history, you have contributed to Samhain page so i thought i'd notify editors of this (if you haven't already got it on watchlist of course). --Xavier 21 (talk) 06:40, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Dacia

Hi, I saw that you collaborated on articles related to Dacia and thought this could be of interest: WikiProject Dacia is looking for supporters, editors and collaborators for creating and better organizing information in articles related to Dacia and the history of Daco-Getae. If interested, PLEASE provide your support on the proposal page. Thanks!!--Codrinb (talk) 04:31, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Editor assistance list

Hello. Since your account has recently not been editing very regularly, on the page Wikipedia:Editor assistance/list you name has been moved to a list of editors who are willing to give assistance, but may not always be available. There is an explanation at Wikipedia talk:Editor assistance/list#Problem with inactive accounts on the list. You are, of course, welcome to move yourself back to the other list if you wish to. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:19, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Question Re: A piece of Info in the Jimmy Durante article on Wikipedia...

Hi Pigman -

Hope you are well.

This message is a repsectful question - and not a challenge to the accuracy of content.

Under the Cultural References section, in the Jimmy Durante article on Wikipedia, the paragrph about Maritin Short's impression indicates that Marin Short based his Irving Cohen character on the late Jimmy Durante

While this info may be accurate, my impression was that Martin Short's character of Irving Cohen was based on the late Irving Caesar. Irving Caesar is known for his work on Tea-for-Two, I'm Just a Gigolo, and collaborating with George Gershwin on Swanee.

I seek your most highly valued and respected opinion on this matter.

Thank you so much for your time.

Sincerely, Alan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.56.157 (talk) 03:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Alan: If you think the basis of the cultural reference in the Jimmy Durante article is wrong and there is no reliable source, you can remove it yourself. I know of Mr. Durante but I'm not familiar with the specifics of that particular popular culture reference to him. Wikipedia is the encyclopedia anyone can edit. So have at it! If you have other questions, please ask. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 02:09, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello Pigman -

Thank you so much for your time and thoughtfulness in responding. I would have to research the matter before possibly editing.

Be well, Alan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.117.56.157 (talk) 02:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Please edit the 1990 page for meTafdom (talk) 20:27, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Hello, I notice you do much work for Wiki. I was looking at the date SRV died and I think it should be there. On August 26, 1990, Stevie Ray Vaughan played at the Theatre, with his group, Double Trouble and other blues greats Robert Cray, Buddy Guy, Eric Clapton, and his brother Jimmie Vaughan. After the concert, Vaughan left the theatre area in Eric Clapton's helicopter to return to Chicago, and he and four others were killed when the helicopter crashed into a ski hill within the Alpine Valley resort. Thanks for all you do, Terry

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_26

Bon mots

Hi, while working on Faggot (disambiguation) I've stumbled upon your subpage. It occurred to me that besides being funny, it has an encyclopedic value. Does wikipedia have anything towards psychological foundations of insult expressions? Lothar Klaic (talk) 19:58, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Not that I'm aware of but I certainly think there should be something of the sort on WP. The subtext (or psychological motivations if you prefer) of insults has been studied academically. I'm unclear about how thoroughly or whether the results are easily accessible. For instance, Maledicta covered a wide range of subjects related to insults, curses, profanity, etc. I don't have any academic credentials in this respect; I'm just an amateur who regularly reads about slang. I'm in a WP lull period so I can't commit to helping. I could recommend a few books if you want to pursue it. Cheers, Pigman☿/talk 22:48, 22 June 2011 (UTC)