User talk:Relata refero/Archive 4

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Not NOR (and other boolean fallacies)

How would you improve Wikipedia:These are not original research? Feel free to improve away if you feel the urge. Cheers! Vassyana (talk) 06:11, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy delete of Image:Parisprotests-olympictorch.jpg

I'm confused as to why you tagged the image for speedy deletion, entered an edit war over it, and didn't bother to discuss with other users about it at all. You tagged it for CSDI7, which is definitely illegitimate considering the reasonable fair use rationale given. You then said that it is one of the two images being used to illustrate the same incident, and that it is the second to be uploaded - both false. It is uploaded first, before I uploaded the other one, and they are two completely different incidents. It tells us how you didn't even bother to check for the slightest bit before you decided to tag it for speedy deletion and entered into an edit war over it. Pay some more attention next time. Herunar (talk) 06:32, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

No, it says thay they are identical incidents that can't be told apart by looking at two photographs. Which kind of means the FU rationale fails.

As for an edit war, you're not supposed to remove the tag until the rationale is fixed. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm giving you some time to attempt to answer this question/update the rationale. If that doesn't work, I replace the tag. --Relata refero (disp.) 07:26, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

They're not identical incidents. Those are very clearly two persons. I can't see any doubt in this. As for BLP, comment on a living person is not the same as unsourced, contentious statements. Anyone can make a comment on a living person anywhere in the world. It's simply libelious material - say, if I claim he said something racist - that needs sources or removal. Herunar (talk) 18:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

I added a disambiguation to both images. Nonetheless, I feel that it is completely necessary given the clear difference in background. Herunar (talk) 19:23, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Mosley

• [1] is this so complicated to go on the talk page first when there is a controversial issue ? Ceedjee (talk) 09:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Kudos

This comment made my morning. Ouze Merham, eat your heart out. Erm, maybe that's a poor choice of words, but you get the idea. <eleland/talkedits> 12:35, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

RFA thanks

Thanks for your support in my RFA, that didn't quite make it and ended at 120/47/13. There was a ton of great advice there, that I'm going to go on. Maybe someday. If not, there are articles to write! Thanks for your support. Lawrence § t/e 17:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

SSP links

Fixed the links, thanks for bringing it to my attention. Cheers, Daniel (talk) 00:33, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for ur support in lifting my topic ban on Sathya Sai Baba

thx. Andries (talk) 13:13, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

No problem! The best thanks is to keep things neutral there, and to remember to be careful about RSes so as to avoid any further trouble. If there's any doubt, bring it to WP:RS/N for an opinion. --Relata refero (disp.) 13:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Talk page topic ban lifting only, but it is better than nothing. Andries (talk) 13:22, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Please consider taking the AGF Challenge

I would like to invite you to consider taking part in the AGF Challenge which has been proposed for use in the RfA process [2] by User: Kim Bruning. You can answer in multiple choice format, or using essay answers, or anonymously. You can of course skip any parts of the Challenge you find objectionable or inadvisable.--Filll (talk) 14:16, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

What if it turns out I'm a grumpy old bastard?

Well, lets give it a shot. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:35, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Hadith

Did you confuse hadith on Jizya with Bostom for jizya on Dhimmi? If so, I'll strike my question, the thread is already pretty long. rudra (talk) 16:44, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Looking for Helpful Oldtimers

But I don't even know where to begin looking! Sarah777 (talk) 19:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

I was looking at your comments about this article over at AN/I - I've often thought that when an article has been so degraded that it needs to be placed in "special measures" - this means that it comes under the control of a small team of uninvolved editors and they are the only people who can edit it for say the space of a week. Their job is to bring to "version 1.0". Yes the POV pushers will return after a week, but the rest of us then have a version of what the article should look like that can be used as guide for further alterations. When an article is as far gone as expelled is, I'm not sure that otherwise it can be saved in the "normal" course of editing because it's just too big of a job while POV-pushers are constantly working against constructive changes. --Fredrick Dayton (talk) 20:47, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Ping

Check your mail, please, I think there was a transmission problem. rudra (talk) 10:21, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

My RfA...

Thank you...

...for your participation in my RFA, which closed with 85 supports, 2 neutrals and 1 oppose. I'm extremely grateful for all the the kind comments from so many brilliant Wikipedians I've come to respect and admire, as well as many others I've not yet had the pleasure of working with, and I'll do my best to put my shiny new mop and bucket to good use! Once again, thank you ;)
EyeSerene^talk 17:06, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

2008 Summer Olympics torch relay

I must say, how does this edit screw up the formating? —Chris! _ct 21:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. —Chris! _ct 21:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

WP:RS

Can we discuss things on Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources#Questionable_journals.? I think that Itsmejudith has a point, but at the same time, thinking about it, I can think of a lot of counter-examples that might need to be discussed as well. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 13:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Profitability

Please check Profitability. Is there an easy way to take care of this?

The anon reverter has a history of TA edits and a previous block for npa.

I've also answered you on the TA talk page. I'm very serious - there are no published quotes in any academic journal about any psuedoscience that say "{Any pseudoscience} is a pseudoscience." But there's lots of stuff that's quite close to that idea about so-called Technical Analysis. Oh, and the idea that TA doesn't claim to be scientific: what about the name itself - technical analysis?

Happy editing (and I hope some direct dialogue isn't taken for personal criticism), Smallbones (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Joan Robinson

HI RR. In chat mode, and going back to a message you left on my talk page a couple of months back. Did you ever read Ronald Meek's Studies in the Labour Theory of Value where he in a very friendly and scholarly way takes issue with Joan Robinson's reading of Marx and the classical economists? I found it really clear and interesting. Cheers. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

On SS and the Ignoble Savage. Before I had really learnt to edit properly I added the ref to Historical materialism, where attention to referencing is still needed - and the undisputed merge should be done too. Looking forward to looking up your links now. Itsmejudith (talk) 13:41, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Clarification

I was just looking at the edit history in WP:V and realized my "please read the second sentence in the first infobox" was probably the wrong thing to say, people might think it was addressed to you instead of to Pedant. Sorry! (Standard disclaimer: feel free to reply here, or on my talk page, or not at all.) - Dan (talk) 12:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Sock farm

Thanks for letting me know. I half-suspected something like that was going on, but I'm surprised at the scale of it. I'm going to do a little more investigating; I'll post something to WP:AN/I shortly. -- ChrisO (talk) 17:46, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Terrorism in Russia

Could you please look at the article Terrorism in Russia where misrepresentation of source is going on. The concept of Red terror has been included as terrorism in modern sense. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 02:23, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Bhavishya Purana

Dear sock, may our tribe increase. Peace. Abecedare (talk) 23:24, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

"Policy" help, please

Context. How to handle a wikilawyer? You're better at this than I am! Advice appreciated:-) rudra (talk) 13:59, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, it looks like you missed the ruckus. WP:FTN is in the loop, and we now have the usual sort of fringe-warrior alert. rudra (talk) 18:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

You are not too late; you can still read the discussion at WP:FTN#User:Wikidas and join the discussion. I think this case illustrates how wikipedia is so much better at dealing with conduct and civility issues, than with users who habitually use unreliable sources, selective cite sources, or outright misrepresent them. Abecedare (talk) 22:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your FTN comment. If the editor simply follows your advise the whole issues will be resolved. Abecedare (talk) 00:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I just wanted to say, that because you followed WP:5P your input into WP:FTN#User:Wikidas was very helpful and gave me a balanced view on the situation. I do not pretend to represent the majority, I just represent a particular tradition and culture that has place in WP. WP:COOL Wikidās ॐ 00:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

RSN - UCLA study question

Relata, I posted a question to you at the end of the RSN discussion about the UCLA media bias study, but I think you most probably haven't noticed it so I thought I'd give you a heads up. I am curious about the particular weight being attributed to a, be it very prestigious, economics publication in regards to a subject like "media bias." I feel that what you wrote is so strongly worded that it lead an editor at the Fox News entry to claim that you had called this "the" study on media bias, on the grounds that it was published in one of "the" economics publications. What perplexes me is how "the" study on media bias comes to be published in such a publication as opposed to one from the fields of media studies, communications, political science, and/or other social sciences with more of a natural relation to public opinion and the production of culture. From what I can gather media bias has been a growing interest in economics, or perhaps amongst political economists of certain ilks--is that correct? However, from what I can also gather, other social scientists don't think particularly highly of these studies--studies exactly like this one which seem to be more about devising clever ways of measuring "anything" than really discovering how best to measure something in particular. Anyway I was wondering if you could address this issue on that RSN, since as I said, currently people seem to take what you said as an endorsement of the UCLA study as the unassailable word on media bias across the academy.PelleSmith (talk) 19:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. That is quite a mess indeed on ANI, good luck.PelleSmith (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

To satisfy my own curiosity could you also explain to me what exactly you meant by this: "I should add that it is also definitely true that this imperial notion of economics has been strenuously objected to, though it appears those who did have lost the battle." No need to explain this on the RS/N unless you were planning to, but I'm personally curious what you mean exactly. Granted I've only been able to get an assessment of this from blogs and/or various online forums, but from what I can tell outside of economics and political science, and inside the academy no such "victory" is visible. Do you mean that these types of studies, and the results they garner, make it into the press more often, however indirectly? Again, I'm actually curious here as I come from an anthropology, and less so cultural sociology, background. Thanks again.PelleSmith (talk) 20:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again. So this is particular to the Economics-Political Science continuum you were referring to. I seem to recall about a decade ago as an undergraduate that the rift between the "political science" and "political theory" people in the government department at my university had gotten so nasty that they had to import a department head from the psychology department. I think some of my confusion stems from the fact that I at least imagine the topic of "media bias" to span many other disciplines, well outside this continuum, particularly throughout the social sciences and related fields. In other words economics certainly has not taken over media studies, communications, cultural studies, sociology, anthropology, etc., but that wasn't what you were saying. Thanks again.PelleSmith (talk) 23:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Papa II

A tag has been placed on Papa II requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Ziggy Sawdust 20:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about misplaced CSD

I just got the tools and haven't fully adjusted to using them yet. I'm working pretty fast and lapses in judgement happen occasionally, but I will try to be more careful in the future. Thanks for the heads-up. Ziggy Sawdust 20:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should slow down. Perhaps instead of trying to destroy the work of others, you should instead spend your time actually doing something productive. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 20:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Papa II

Sorry -bad revert using the lupin tool. Toddst1 (talk) 21:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

1066

I take your point. But maybe you have better access to the books than I do. Have ArbCom made a decision today? I'd like to read it. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to have dragged you into the melee. When I need to chill I go back to Nabarangpur District or there are lots of French villages that would like to see you ;-) Itsmejudith (talk)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents/Wikilobby campaign

Logging in late in the evening, I've just now noticed a post you made a couple of days ago.[3]

Hadn't seen that yet when I posted these later in the thread.[4][5] Let's talk; it looks like our wires have crossed. Durova^Charge! 06:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Just for your information, I posted a -- hopefully correct -- answer here.
NBahn (talk) 10:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

re: Hi

Hi Relato, I read your message at Aadal's talk page. But, I don't have the context. Is it related to Chola dynasty? In any case, I don't have those books. Will try to ask my friends in universities to look up if we need anything in particular. I may not be online for another 9 hours, so I may not be able to reply immediately. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 16:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I'll try to see whether I can get those books. Will get back to you. --Aadal (talk) 17:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I've access to Burton Stein and I'll have it by tomorrow or day after tomorrow. The other book by James Heitzmann - is it City in South Asia ? It is not yet available. The 1997 book, entitled, The Gifts of Power Lordship in an Early Indian State is also not accessible to me now. I'll explore other ways. .--Aadal (talk) 18:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll try through my friends, but not sure if I'll get access to any of them. Thanks Relato. -- Sundar ^{\talk \contribs} 03:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

thank spam

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 194 supporting, 9 opposing, and 4 neutral. Your kindness and constructive criticism is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers, Anthony and Acalamari for their nominations. Thank you again, VanTucky

New Antisemitism

Thanks for the fix, deletion was unintentional. Shortly after that edit my PC crashed and rebooted itself. Just love Microsoft.--Cberlet (talk) 12:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Badgering?

To address your concern, I simply asked if he realized that he was posting extremely personal information about himself that could be derived from the link. The rest is games and immature behavior where William asks what could be found in the link, and I provide the info. In the future should I just assume that any link that leads to personal information is perfectly fine? I know Wikipedia has a policy on protecting identities, it seems what has erupted from a single question addressed to William, and answered by many people that are not him, has all been in excess of what was required. --I Write Stuff (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

I do not email people I do not know, which is why if you look, the original posting is so vague, so William would know, and others would not follow, in case he choose to have them removed. I also did drop it, which is why I stopped posting on the page, sometime before yourself and another admin thought it prudent to mock me. --I Write Stuff (talk) 20:19, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

SRK biblio

Please feel free to contribute to this page: User:Goethean/SRKbiblio — goethean ॐ 15:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Afghanistan - OEF

Found my way to this, browsing from Afghanistan. Chwyatt (talk · contribs) seems to have reorganized the "Allies" page in a less than optimal fashion. Best to look at his edit history for this, it's a mess. what with redirects, recreations, moves(?), and one redirect of a talk page to itself(!), which I reverted. I also left a note on his talk page. I'm not sure what was intended here, or if it had consensus, but I noticed that you had some edits there, so you're probably in a better position to sort it out. rudra (talk) 20:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can work this out:

1. [6] new page created as retitled copy of old.
2. [7] redirect old page to new copy.
3. [8] created new talk page as copy of old.
4. [9] botched redirect. (I've reverted this; reverting #2 would leave two independent copies of the same pages, modulo his additions to his new versions.)
5. [10] link from article modified appropriately.

It looks like what he really wanted to do was to rename the article. But whatever the reason, his new versions clearly can't stand because they have lost the edit histories. And if the name change really is consensus, then his new versions will have to be deleted or otherwise gotten out of the way first. rudra (talk) 23:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you're right. It looks like this will need admin attention for the deletion: I'd suggest copy-and-pasting the above to ANI. About the actual content, after he made the move I gave up, as I really don't know what's going on. I'm sure there are some problems with sourcing, but I'm too intimidated by long articles with flags in them. --Relata refero (disp.) 23:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Thanks. rudra (talk) 23:58, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Rfa thanks

Thanks for supporting my recent request for adminship which was successful with 89 supports, 0 opposes, and 2 neutrals. Unfortunately all I can offer is this lame text thanks rather than some fancy-smancy thank-you spam template thingy. I was very pleased to receive such strong support and to hear so many nice comments from editors whom I respect. I’ll do my best with the tools, and if you ever see me going astray don’t hesitate to drop a note on my talk page. Thanks again for your support!--Bigtimepeace | talk | contribs 03:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Bombay Establishment

Thanks! Replied on Geogre's talk page. Carcharoth (talk) 09:33, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the ref desk answer. Very informative! Carcharoth (talk) 01:47, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Sangam

If you have the time, I'd be grateful for your opinons on Talk:Sangam#Are sangams a hoax? in re the wording of the first sentence. -- Arvind (talk) 20:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Nair

I noticed that in your revert of Nair, you messed up the cquote, and in addition, seemed to have removed the entire Marriage section. This leads me to believe that you didn't actually look at your changes or see what it is you were reverting. Absurd comparisons and OR indeed? I guess citations aren't worth anything... I assure you that Nair marriages occur exactly as they are described in the article. So instead of engaging in a silly revert war, how about we address whatever concerns you have in the talk page? Thanks! --vi5in^[talk] 00:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

What was the rationale for adding all nonsense, crufts & monkeysms? I also reverted it because WP is not the collection of all ridiculous informations. You may take-off some time & read WP:NOT. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 05:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

oops

Sorry ... Ive added it to the next one Victuallers (talk) 12:02, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

DYK

On 27 April, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Papa II, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Royalbroil 16:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Before any more tags

You have crept into a quiet project which sometimes takes time to awake from its slumber - perhaps you have a particular view of the world - dear me is not much help - could you be so kind to go straight to the indonesian project noticeboard if you are going to have problems with a collection of articles - or at least venture into the talk pages and state your case - otherwise there is a smell of fly by tagging - thanks SatuSuro 08:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - but as i said it takes time for the very few members of the project to keep up with things so a short notice of further tagging is in fact showing no agf - the project eds sometimes might not be on for a while - cheersSatuSuro 08:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

We do not have to rely on projects to do everything; tags alert the casual reader and encourage her to contribute. Further, there is no deadline. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

(ec) Further, you might want to drop the attitude edit summaries. No one is pretending these articles are perfect and we need extra hands, but looking down your nose on a drive by snark fest doesn't create a good atmosphere. thanks. --Merbabu (talk) 08:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If they're bad, they're bad. Don't be protective or personal about people's opinion of articles you're involved in, this is a wiki. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The Indonesian project does not attract high quality well read (especially indonesian history) random editors - it is usually non english speaking indonesians trying to sneak poorly written and unsourced info in from the indonesian language wikipedia - the few editors who do the hard work usually rely on the indonesian project noticeboard to actually keep up with what has been brought up (like your comments) - so there is a point to take it there rather than the chaotic flow between your merbabu and I talk pages - it is a simple and quite obviously thought out process to bring this sort of thing where you have chosen a few articles to take issues with. It has nothing to do with own or anything like that alluded to - its simply a way of trying to alart the few others who otherwise dont know its going on - specially while it is in user talk pages SatuSuro 08:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, nothing to do with "own" or being protective. It's about showing some good faith and working with people in a productive manner, rather than uncivil edit summaries and useless article wide "pov" tags. Please give use something we can work with - even though we're already stretched thin.--Merbabu (talk) 09:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If you object to article-wide tags, as some people do, this isn't the place to argue that. You are not required to work on these articles, if you're stretched thin; I will be happy to excise the uncited material and replace it with cited modern scholarship at some point. I don't have much of an opinion on Indonesian politics, so you need not worry about my POV.

As written, the articles are unbalanced and most of the more judgmental sentences are uncited and unattributed. This isn't good practice, and it is not bad faith to indicate that in edit summaries. I seem to recall having come across User:Merbabu before, with a similar reaction. That is not the sign of a healthy approach. --Relata refero (disp.) 09:14, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

thanks for reminding me. You removed Robert Cribb as an inappropriate source for an article on Indonesia, and then got all huffy. Nothing more needs to be said. --Merbabu (talk) 09:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

No, I removed a counterpunch citation, i think, and Cribb was removed in the process. And the huffiness wasn't started by me....--Relata refero (disp.) 09:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Enough - take it to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Indonesia and get it out of user talk pages - thanks SatuSuro 09:21, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

You know, it really isn't considered compulsory to use wikiproject noticeboards..... --Relata refero (disp.) 09:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Academic notability

I'm puzzled. After you tagged Janaki Bakhle I went and looked at what makes a professor notable. Whole bodies of work. origininal concepts htat are widely cited. stc. then I looked around wikipedia. Single episodes of Buffy the Vampire slayer have pages. Newly-published novels. Novelists with one novel out. Art-house movies. Really insignificant Hollywood movies get whole pages. Apparently every actor who has every appeared on screen and every player who has walked onto a major league field seems to have a page. But professors have this long list of qualifications. Obviously, I have a bit of an ax to grind. But hear me out. Professors write things that matter, even when those things appear exclusively in academic journals. It can be useful to watch the young up-and-comers. Useful for them to have pages so that when they pop into the news people can look them up. And hten there is the double standard. Professors are public figures. Why do one-game ball players get their own pages, and people like Bakhle who is doing work that people pay attention to do not? Can we talk about this?Butler stacks (talk) 00:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)Butler stacks

Abbey Mills Mosque redux

Hello, Relata. You may be interested in Wikipedia:Peer review/Abbey Mills Mosque/archive1. I am trying to bring the article up to featured status, and I know you had some concerns. I maintain that evrything in that article is sourced six ways to Sunday (I started with it due to the Mosque's PR firm contacting m:OTRS) and I think that it's even better now than it was. However, it would not be fair to let ths go through without my pointing it out to you when I know you have legitimate concerns . See you there :) -- Avi (talk) 07:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Marxism/marxism

You wrote extensively in a discussion on marxism and Marxism. I am wondering if you could possibly recommend some reading for myself, some one just wading into the pool. --I Write Stuff (talk) 16:28, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi there. Sorry I did not get back to you sooner. I was trying to think of some favorite books, but with a topic this big, its hard to find one. Some are good in some respect but confusing and lacking on other respects that do not do justice to Marx. For me, I started with the Manifesto (still quite impressively condensed and I still get insight every time I read it), but then did the hard work of reading all classics written by Marx and Engles himself. A quote from Marx himself is apropos here: "There is no royal road to science, and only those who do not dread the fatiguing climb of its steep paths have a chance of gaining its luminous summits." Recently I decided to take a look at wikipedia's article, historical materialism. I made some improvements there last month, and now it does a decent job at explaining the basics of it (although I intend to go back to fix it up and add references in later, etc). But that might be a good place to start. Here are some links, too:

• http://www.cla.purdue.edu/English/theory/marxism/

  http://www.anu.edu.au/polsci/marx/intros.html

  http://www.hewett.norfolk.sch.uk/CURRIC/soc/MARX/introM.htm

  http://www.marxist.com/Theory/what_is_marxism.html

Feel free to ask me any questions you may have, too.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:09, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Opps, I just realized, that I Write Stuff asked you the same question, and I thought I was replying to him. :) I'll go leave this message on this talk page. Btw, thank you for your supportive comments on arbcom and elsewhere regarding Ultramarine's allegations. Its appreciated and I hope your voice of reason resonates as such.Giovanni33 (talk) 06:13, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Speedy deletion of Starting a wiki on wikipedia

Was a legitimate move to Jennifer Williams. Starting a wiki on wikipedia (created by User:MikeSmalls ) was the original name of Jennifer Williams. I just moved it to Jennifer Williams. Please see the history of Jennifer Williams. That's not a test edit. User Dœ _αT^ΩC 19:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Yup, inaccurate rationale, correct process. Unfortunately we don't have a "test title" option. --Relata refero (disp.) 19:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Academic bios

My assumption is that any academic at a major university with more than 2 books by major academic presses is quite possibly notable, as that is more than the requirements for tenure anywhere. Not necessarily notable--I didn't say that, but notable enough to require checking carefully for reviews and library holdings and citations and the other things that show someone's work is considered notable by his or her peers. I have deprodded these. I have tentatively not deprodded those with one book, unless I see something really significant otherwise. Two? that depends. Just wanting to let you know how I think as a preliminary screen. You might want to consider whether it isnt enough to remove the clearly non-notable ones. There is so much worse junk to deal with, and so many articles to improve that I'm not sure its worth the time considering the medium level. Your call about what you want to send to afd. DGG (talk) 22:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/CAMERA lobbying/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 22:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

User:Vivin's support on Nambiar’s thrust

Do you think that the rv is reasonable in Nair? It is noted that three editors including me and you are fighting against vandalism push by vivin & Nambiar. But Vivin, no way listening at all. Do you also think is there any consensus reached in talk pg on adding this nonsense by Vivin. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 05:59, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Human Rights Watchdog

Please give your vote at Wikipedia:RSN#ihro.in if you beleive that Human Rights Watchdog is a unbiased organization.

Please remember that several number of crimes committed by Indian security forces in Punjab will go un-referenced on wikipedia if www.ihro.in is declared POV site. Reason this is among extremely few unbiased sources available online. Eventhough some of the north-Indian newspapers always published govt crimes in Punjab, but unfortunately they do not have this old data archived. For example, The Tribune (a 125 year old newspaper group), one of north-Indian newspapers does not have any online editions prior to year 2001 and Ajit, a regional newspaper of India etc did not have any online editions untill very recently. Also, India’s National magazine, Frontline does not have archive records prior to 1997.

Please read "Amnesty International", "Amnesty International, "Human Rights watch" where it says that "Thousands of mothers await their sons even though some may know that that the oppressor has not spared their sons’ lives on this earth. A mother’s heart is such that even if she sees her son’s dead body, she does not accept that her son has left her. And those mothers who have not even seen their children’s dead bodies, they were asking us: at least find out, is our son alive or not?" and "ENSAAF". As per HRW, Indian security forces arbitrarily detained, tortured, executed, and “disappeared” tens of thousands of Sikhs in counterinsurgency operations. Please remember, Amnesty International was not allowed to enter Punjab during these troubled times, hence Amnesty can not provide records of most of the crimes committed by Indian security forces as an India based Organization IHRO.

So please vote at Wikipedia:RSN#ihro.in ASAP .Singh6 (talk) 07:23, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Fan613 and socks

I saw the section on Thatcher's page there, was that "confirmed" tag in reference to this fan613 person, and if so does that mean they will be banned? I kinda had a suspicion that it was a sock of someone else, never heard of this "Evidence-Based" user til now. Tarc (talk) 14:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

When I saw Fan613 show up at some of American Clio's "favorite" pages, I suspected it was a sock, but Fan613 has focused a lot on the Jewish theatre, which is an area none of the other socks had edited before.

160.39.35.32 (talk · contribs) is an IP that has been used by Evidence-based in the past. I don't know if anything can be done about a public IP. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 20:04, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

160.39.35.14 (talk · contribs) is an IP sock of Fan613. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 23:55, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Bath Abbey GA review

Hi, On 9th April you put "This article is currently being reviewed" on the WP:GAC page entry about Bath Abbey. Although I didn't nominate this article I have done significant work on it & am waiting for reviewers comments so that I can help to improve it. I was wondering whether you are still undertaking the GA review and when you thought you might be making any comments?— Rod ^talk 12:29, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

While I put the template on, intending to review it, I notice somebody else had already put the template on the article talkpage before me, so he or she gets precedence.. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:31, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't quite understand as on Talk:Bath Abbey there is nothing to say it is currently being reviewed.— Rod ^talk 12:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah, it seems [the offer to review it was withdrawn, but Redtigerxyz didn't update the GAN page. Thanks, I'll have a look at it in a bit. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:36, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

RSN discussion

Hi RR,

Regards this discussion, could you provide a link to the actual EER citation that develops the ideas of the thesis? Alternatively, do you know the title and author so I could track it down? A journal article is a better source than a thesis I think - more accessible, more reliable, and probably more recent. Thanks, WLU (talk) 15:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Very useful context. I've added the K&K (1985) citation to the types of unemployment page. WLU (talk) 18:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi again RR, I have one final question. Would you mind giving me an opinion on the following?

The imperfection of the labour market is sometimes graphically presented with a UV-curve, a hyperbolic or similarly shaped curve that shows a fixed relationship between the unemployment rate on one axis and the vacancy rate on the other. If the economy changes, the labour market will move along this curve. Factors that affect friction will shift the curve inwards or outwards. It is possible to derive this curve mathematically by aggregating (infinitely small) submarkets of the labour market, if it is assumed that these submarkets follow a probability distribution. Formulae have been derived for the normal distribution and the Weibull distribution; the latter has the hyperbolic UV-curve (U x V = c) as a special case.

Specifically, do you think the citations and statements found in the part in bold are adequate, do you see any problems with the citation or the text it accompanies?

My apologies for the vagueness, I'm trying to get an opinion based purely on the sources. Thanks, WLU (talk) 14:54, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

OK, I guess I lied, a final question - would this publication serve as a reference in addition to, or as a replacement? WLU (talk) 14:58, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi RR,

I promise you this will be my final post regards this, I just wanted to follow-up to be sure this hadn't slipped through your busy talk page. If you have read it and would prefer to not provide an opinion then thanks for your attention and I shan't bother you about this again. WLU (talk) 17:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Sex symbol

Copied from User talk:Aditya Kabir:

Avoid the phrase if your only sources are random articles from the cinema section of regional papers, please. The phrase means something specific with sociological connotations, and in other film articles is placed only with care. Remember that some Indian papers tend to use phrases without that much care; for example, I can google pretty much every major female Bollywood star and discover dozens of references calling them a sex symbol. That basically renders it meaningless and unencyclopaedic based on that quality ref.

--Relata refero (disp.) 11:26, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

That may not be the case with Riya Sen. In most, if not all, films that feature her the focus is on her physical attributes and provocative actions, and that by critiques' judgments. Her public persona, which is bigger than her film success, comes very much from the fact that she has a big draw in popular media as a sex symbol. I have tried not to cite insignificant sources, and the regional papers you mention are some of the world's largest circulating newspapers in English.

It is a commendable effort to expunge the very word "sex" from the intro, but it doesn't conform to the reality. People like Marilyn Monroe and Jayne Mansfield will always be regraded as sex symbols, and that isn't necessarily degrading. The word has been used carefully enough, as the article has gone through a long process of scrutiny, reviews and edits. There still are kinks in the article, but "sex" is not one of them. If you have any concern about the appropriateness of the sources, you may state that. I promise to improve upon your suggestion.

Thanks for putting that note to my talk page. A lot many experienced editors are not as courteous. I shall be even more thankful if you could go through the article in more detail. I have high hopes for the article (working on it for so long), and every help will be highly appreciated. I again promise to be good and respond to all your suggestions as best as I can. Unfortunately removal of a mention of "sex" in this case would probably be unencyclopedic, as it would not reflect neutral and verifiable facts. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 11:49, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

O I see! You met the article in the middle of long trip that took you to the articles on Rakhi Sawant‎, Sonal Chauhan‎, Urvashi Sharma, Sunny Leone, Mallika Sherawat, Aarti Chhabria, Parizaad Kolah, Niharika Singh, Preeta Rao, and Nandita Das. I can perfectly sympathize with your exasperation and the somewhat unexplained and unwarranted edit summary ;mdahs& "yeah, yeah, they're all sex symbols" (link). Seriously, you need to judge the article on its own merit, not a context of other crap or whatever. Let me assure you that the use of the word "sex" in the article has been given a lot of thought already, and that by multiple editors. Now, if you don't mind, I would prefer to put back what you took out of the article. If you want them to be really removed, please, discuss first. We wouldn't want a silly edit war on our hands. Would we? Cheers. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 13:53, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Updating now. I have put back the sex comedy bit into the intro to have something specific to say abut all three notable films (year of release, maker, genre and language). But kept the sex symbol bit out of it. It seems to be a bit too much for the lead section. The request to review the article is still on, please. I know my copywriting skills are bad, and the last time someone from the LOCE took a look lies way back in the past. Aditya^{(talk • contribs)} 14:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Dalai Lama, China, etc.

This is to acknowledge your memo about the edit war. I was disappointed to note that you did not leave similar messages on the talk pages of Binguyen and Yunfeng.

I also wanted to ask about the comments you left at WP:ANI. It appears that you want to restrict the editing of Wikipedia by Chinese editors, or the use of Chinese sources. I was surprised, because I have seen your comments on other talk pages and they generally seemed reasonable. I have concerns here about systemic bias, a problem that I have noted on several occasions. I have seen comments on other talk pages arguing that Xinhua and other Chinese media are not WP:RS, because they are controlled by the PRC. On the other hand, English language press are controlled by powerful private investors, most prominently Rupert Murdoch. If I were forced to choose, I think I would be more likely to trust the PRC than Murdoch to give me unbiased information. --Terrawatt (talk) 14:39, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I note that since the last time I edited, other editors have attempted to add sourced criticism, which has been immediately removed without explanation by Yunfeng. It seems abundantly clear that the article has a neutrality problem, so may I ask why you removed the tag? --Terrawatt (talk) 22:44, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it might be appropriate for you to warn Sunray about edit warring, as you warned me. --Terrawatt (talk) 07:20, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

CSD G4

Hi Relata, just wanted to let you know that the food related articles such as Pique verde boricua that you tagged for CSD under criteria G4 were incorrectly tagged. The AFD'ed version was a recipe and was rightfully deleted, but these recreated stubs are merely descriptions of the food (acceptable food stubs) and thus G4 doesn't apply. Thanks! ~Eliz81^(C) 00:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Well yes, I made the apparently erroneous assumption that a recreation of all the articles deleted at an AfD last week, by the same newbie user that created the first set, were likely to be recreations in content.... what a joy it must be to be able to see deleted revisions. :) --Relata refero (disp.) 07:38, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

3RR on Jin Jing Article

Please have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/3RR#User:Zhenqinli_reported_by_User:Oiboy77_.28Result:_.29 as you were an editor on this article your input or comments would be invaluable. Thanks Oiboy77 (talk) 09:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Giovanni33/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Anthøny 23:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Jin Jing, once again

Hi, could you have a look at my proposal at Talk:Jin_Jing#Proposal_to_keep_the_article_as_is and weigh in with your opinion? Thanks, Novidmarana (talk) 17:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Bath Abbey

You've had a tag under Bath Abbey at WP:GAN since April 9, but a review was never placed on the article's talk page. Are you planning to review the article? If not, can you remove the tag so someone else will review it, and we can get rid of some of the GAN backlog. Thanks. Nikki311 02:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

See above, #Bath Abbey GA review. I have read it once, and will make a further statement in a bit. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

James Tour

G'day relata - and I hope you're good... I'm just catching up with the Rosalind Picard stuff that seems to have been going on today, and thought I'd drop you a note on a related matter; I think this article is unbalanced, but am unable to edit it because of an arbcom sanction preventing me engaging with 'BLP's in any way.... your thoughts would be most welcome.... Privatemusings (talk) 07:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

in fact - the existence of Category:Signatories_of_"A_Scientific_Dissent_From_Darwinism" is in many ways problematic to me.. I think I'd be allowed to discuss that further, and regardless would be interested to see what you think.... cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 07:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

in the spirit of continuing to bother you with un-asked for work, I thought I'd ask one more favour! - the talk page at the picard article contains 4 boxes at the top relating to the IPs the subject used, and referring to User:Moulton who ran into hot water at the article and was subsequently banned, and it's also contained within the category 'notable wikipedians' - none of which makes much sense to me, and I have a feeling of disquiet around the possible political angles (which I mention without the intention of prejudice, not really having examined the situation fully - it's just a thought) - your thoughts would be appreciated! cheers, Privatemusings (talk) 12:35, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

If the arbcomm banned Privatemusings from BLPs, wouldn't that also include requests for meatpuppetry? At the very least, you should know better than to help someone evade an arbcomm ban, shouldn't you? Guettarda (talk) 14:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Evade? How? He asked me to take a look. Take it to WP:AE if you think its ban evasion. I'd look forward to them banning Lar, Alison, Guy, and a ton of such people. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

He's asking you to edit articles he is forbidden to edit. It sounds like ban evasion to me. Your replie - "other people are doing it too!" and "Take it to AE!" don't sound like someone who is acting in good faith. If someone is banned from BLPs, they are banned from BLPs. By helping them work around that ban you are undermining the ban. Ruleslawyering isn't the point. The fact that what you did isn't technically bad enough to invoke sanctions from the arbcomm shouldn't be your only motivating factor. The spirit of the ruling matters as much as the letter. And I'm not some silly child who runs to the "grownups" every time I see someone breaking the rules. I thought you were responsible enough to appreciate a "word to the wise". Your response says otherwise. Guettarda (talk) 15:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Read WP:BAN, OK? Come back when you know what policy and precedent in this area is, and not when your argument is based on what it sounds like to you. Sheesh. --Relata refero (disp.) 15:52, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I see. Rules apply to Guettarda and not to you. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:34, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

(Sigh) Would you care to explain that? It really doesn't make sense in context. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Civility

If you don't want to be constructive in your comments, at least be civil. Guettarda (talk) 08:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Eh? I am unfailingly constructive and civil. Perhaps you'd better point to exactly what you mean. --Relata refero (disp.) 08:49, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

No, your comments at the Picard article are insulting, rude and unconstructive. I can't stop you from being unconstructive, but I'm asking you to lay off the insults and uncivil behaviour. It might be a nice change. Guettarda (talk) 14:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Guettarda. I beg to differ with your self-characterization.--Filll (talk) 14:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Dear me, they appear to have got worse between comments 1 and 2. Could you point to which, of those, perhaps? Even one? The one where I hinted darkly at your CoI would be OK. Or perhaps the one where I called either of you a sockpuppet. As for unconstructive, any of my points that rambled on about motivation and the history of the page without discussing particular points of the wording. That would be fine! I'd revert myself. --Relata refero (disp.) 14:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Y. S. Rajasekhara Reddy

POV problems spanning (at the time) fifteen months. At the time, I felt that stubbing was the only way to present a neutral and sourced article. Sceptre ^(talk) 14:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI (came to post about sthg else, saw this). If you look back at the history of Reddy a long time ago I had to remove huge chunks of BLP violations. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Warning

Consider this a civility warning. I have had my fill with your rude and insulting behavior. Raul654 (talk) 16:15, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I never, of course, need a civility warning, since I always keep civility in mind. For a detailed response, see this. May I point out that Raul is in no position to threaten someone with blocks when he is in dispute with them. --Relata refero (disp.) 18:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Sci dissent from Darwinism

Hola,

Were I you, I'd add the external link that sources the statement as well as the original statement as well on BLP/N. It's useful for the people reviewing I think. I might also include a link to the wikipage for SciencBlogs, as that's more context as well. I would normally do so myself, but you asked that others not comment on that page and I agree that it's in the best interest of a neutral commentary. You're not obliged of course, but I think it's a good idea. WLU (talk) 00:09, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thomas Kuzhinapurath

You have edited the article Thomas Kuzhinapurath and deleted the external link to the Italian article. Then you added it: Thomas Kuzhinapurath along with the categories. But it doesnt appear with article. Is it improper to have an external link to an article in another language? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon Cheakkanal (talk • contribs) 16:03, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind reply. 202.164.132.70 (talk) 14:17, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Namecheck in an AN thread

I seem to have given four people, including a current arbitrator, a former arbitrator, and a steward, a public ticking off. <looks worried> So I thought I'd better let each of you know about it. See here. Thread is here. Apologies in advance if this irks you, but I feel strongly about how some of these threads end up poking fun at individuals. Carcharoth (talk) 16:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Dorje Shugden

Following your note on WP:FTN I waded in but it is like wading through treacle. I can't rv to the last good version coz none of them have been any good. What can most quickly be done? Itsmejudith (talk) 11:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Ha! I just came down on an editor who suggested forking to a controversy article, telling him it would be a POV-fork. I know a bit about Buddhism, nearly nothing about the Tibetan variety. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be at least one good quality academic source, the one quoted at tedious length in the article. I'm sure something could be written up sticking closely to that. I have proposed a simple structure with the description of the deity and its veneration first followed by each side of the controversy. Would that life were as easy as that. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Amartya Sen

Under heading Amartya Sen addressing the seminar on "Education in Kerala's Development: Towards a New Agenda", read the 8th paragraph. You will find the word 'Hindu' in it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agnistus (talk • contribs) 16:43, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I assumed that since they asked him a question regarding Hindu right, h probably is a Hindu. Additionally, you can find in other articles and on his Wikipedia page, his dislike for Muslims. So that means he's non-Muslim - therefore most likely a Hindu (or a slight chance of Atheist).Agnistus (talk) 07:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Famines

Hi there, Could you give me the names of the papers of Bagchi, and others? I probably won't reply on the BR page. Too much headache. Plus my family is getting upset: I was late in feeding the cats this morning! But thanks for your clear replys! I might ask questions here from time to time. Regards, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 15:54, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

PS I went back and looked at Sen's book Poverty and Famines and also at some papers it is based on, but couldn't see what connection his main thesis (that famines are entitlement failures) had to do with the Raj. He does of course analyze the reaction of the Raj in 1943, but there is really no discussion of the 19th century. Also, his model of exchange entitlements explicitly assumes a monetized economy, which much of rural India was not in the 19th century. But maybe I missed something. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 18:07, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi

User:Tinucherian has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and happy editing! .... Hope you have forgiven my immature behaviour during this some time ago... Keep in touch -- TinuCherian ^{(Wanna Talk?)} - 07:36, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Good catch

Thanks for putting the time into finding those links. It just seriously frustrates me that core articles are barely referenced and have serious issues and so much fuss goes into something because the shoe size of a source compiler used as a reference in articles isn't listed. Priorities seriously need to change around. In the time wasted in discussing that tens of core articles could have already been made up to a bare minium referencing standard. But I'm certain the issue still won't rest whatever we do Dear Lord!! Buenos Noches ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 22:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

User:Abhilekhvirdi

I see this user has returned after his block and is continuing to make disruptive edits without any discussion on the talk pages or edit summaries. I have warned him again, and will block him again if he continues. I note he used an IP account while blocked too. I keep an eye on him, but you got to him before me this time. --Bduke (talk)

Your thoughts?

Thanks for clearing up the BOI matter. But I see at RS talk that you are still interested in the more general matter of citation arguing for reliability. I've also been worried for a long time about well meaning editors adhering too strictly to arbitrary Wikipedia-centric pseudo-objective criteria and interpretations of criteria for sources etc. I wrote a long post last night on the citation matter.[11] , at the bottom of the first break section, "54.1 break on Boxofficeindia.com: special invitation for broader input." I'd be very interested in your thoughts, especially if you could expand on the history of "being extensively quoted elsewhere" being a criterion of reliability here. The only ones who seem to have seen it are Blofeld, and Shahid, who called it looong and liked it, but said it was misplaced so no one would see it - I guess he was right, I was very tired when I was done. John Z (talk) 01:02, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I strongly recommend cross-posting it to WT:RS. I'll join the resultant conversation there--Relata refero (disp.) 07:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC).

Tollywood -> Move

Hi there. I noticed you moving the Tollywood page to Telegu film industry. The language is Telugu and the industry is Telugu film industry. I tried moving to Telugu film industry, but in vain. Can you please do the needful? Cheers! Mspraveen (talk) 16:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

educational publisher in Kerala

Hi, I think the tags are in place in these articles [12], [13], full of weasel, substandard stuff. What do you think? You removed some tags earlier. Uzhuthiran (talk) 13:11, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I saw this just now. Uzhuthiran (talk) 13:16, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

• I reverted Uzhuthiran's edit beacause I dont find anything wrong about it. It has been edited by many. About Santhosh George K (space tourist & Sancharam author), the article was created due to high media attention & in fact, he is a well known person in Kerala. I don’t know why User:Rashtrakooda and User:Uzhuthiran is talking about COI. Every article is created with a kind of COI by editors. Sometimes a national, regional or religious COI might be the reason (For eg. I am primarily interested creating articles related to well known persons/companies/music artists in Kerala since I am a person from here). We can’t blindly charge editors for that. I also think that Relata refero's revert was correct & requesting User:Uzhuthiran to listen to the rationale. Thanks. --Avinesh Jose  T  04:39, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

RFA Thanks

Thanks for your support at my recent Request for adminship. Let’s hope there aren’t many protected pages that need copy editing, but when they come up, you can count on me. I hope you find I live up to your expectations. Best, Risker (talk) 16:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea what you think is a parody, however

You might look here. I had earlier versions still I believe.--Filll (talk) 21:32, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

My talk

Haha. :) Nishkid64 _{(Make articles, not wikidrama)} 22:56, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your request

Posted screed to wt:rs. Regarding the other matter at RS/N:

Our organization has carefully examined and discussed your request in the appropriate committee We regret to inform you that this must be our reply:

NO NO NO NO NOOOOOOOOO. WAAAAAAAHHH I doan wanna I doan wanna I doan wanna (running around in circles, flapping arms) NOOO. YOU ARE A VERY BADF MAN. You can't make me You cant make me Im noty afraid of yuou NO NIO NOThat is A VERY BAAADD PLACE. MY MOMMY wioll get YOU fior this!!!!!

What the heck, added to my watchlist, #1,678.John Z (talk) 07:16, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Operation Passage to Freedom

I've fixed teh things. Thanks, Blnguyen (bananabucket) 04:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

WPPP

You are being recruited by the WikiProject Political Parties, Emphasizing consistency, global perspective, and neutrality, the WikiProject aims to create good articles about political parties worldwide. Join us!

--Soman (talk) 16:22, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Donald Bradman

Thanks! Incidentally, you may consider archiving some of this page... it's getting quite long. --Dweller (talk) 19:18, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi. How are you getting on? Unfortunately, no I don't have access (I'd never even heard of it until just now) Cheers! --Dweller (talk) 13:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Ah well

So sensible! Xn4 01:13, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Terrying

That was quick. Were you watching the game, or did you use your purported paranormal powers to see that PK before it happened? Heartbreaking. MastCell ^Talk 03:41, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Facebook

Hello. You gave your support to the FAC of Facebook a while back. About a week ago, I reviewed the article and found troubling sourcing issues (as well as prose issues, but those are less salient). While the nominator has been active on Wikipedia the past week, he has not made an effort to address the issues I raised. Would you mind revisiting the article in light of the sourcing issues I've raised? BuddingJournalist 23:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi

I'm finally beginning to make some headway at Bradman's PR. I'd like to bowdlerise (sp?) User_talk:Dweller#Bradman to the relevant PR. I hope you don't mind. Please keep an eye on the PR a) in case you feel I miscontrue your comments and b) for my (eventual) responses. --Dweller (talk) 10:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Mantanmoreland

You know I agree wholeheartedly with the siteban, but isn't it a bit early to mark the thread closed? Less than 24 hours after it began. Dissent is inevitable, and I'd rather not give any an excuse to cry "lynch mob" or lodge procedural objections. Durova^Charge! 19:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I personally think that this has taken up a lot more community time than it should, and I don't think that any of those who objected earlier are likely to turn up to either continue objecting or to apologise. Sam Korn, for example, who's on arbcom-l and was the first to object last time, has been active on the noticeboards, and would have objected by now if he intended to.

That being said, if anyone who disagrees with the ban comes here to object, I think I will undo the closing, to ensure it sticks. I just didn't want it to turn into a bait-the-banned-user-and-those-who-backed-him festival.

I'll also hold off adding him to Wikipedia:List of banned users, which I was just about to do when I got the orange bar... --Relata refero (disp.) 19:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Although the prospect of any change in consensus may be remote, I vowed after my own arbitration case to speak up for fairness and give editors who were facing potential sanctions a reasonable chance to defend themselves. Doing so has long range benefits:

1. When an editor needs to be shown the door, they leave with less discontent if they know they've had a voice in the process.
2. When an editor abuses the opportunity of defending themselves, their own bad behavior is easy to block/revert/delete and the example makes the community's decision simpler.
3. Sometimes consensus does change as new information comes to light.
4. Since political animals exploit any exploitable precedent, giving a fair term for rebuttal in every case makes it harder for wikipoliticians to railroad a good editor off the site.

Best regards, Durova^Charge! 20:27, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I think those are all four excellent points, with which I completely agree. It does appear that this one is going to die quietly, which is a relief. As I said, if anyone wants to say anything reasonable to add to the conversation, I will certainly de-archive it myself. --Relata refero (disp.) 22:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Comments on DL by Living Buddhas

This discussion started 10 days ago, and no one has opposed that section on the talk page. So, please state your objections. --Marvin Diode (talk) 21:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

RCC FAC

Relata, I appreciate your (and many other reviewers) frustration and exhaustion, and had hoped to avoid a restart (see User talk:Raul654#FAC followup); a brief summary of outstanding previous Opposes is needed to render your Oppose actionable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:35, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Stuck. What shall I now do?

I had nominated 2008 attacks on North Indians in Maharashtra at WP:GAN. Sadly it failed the nom as the reviewer felt it was a POVFORK. Now I do not seem to know what should I do? What changes should be made to article? Can it ever attain GA status? I would be glad if you could guide me. Thanks. - KnowledgeHegemonyPart2 (talk) 10:02, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

... for your last edit to Holocaust, that was careless of me. --Relata refero (disp.) 12:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

No problem, these kinds of things happen some times.--Caranorn (talk) 17:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Honorifics

Please provide some insight to the inane discussion on Talk:Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi about the name change. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 23:56, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

tl|cherrypicked

Thanks for mentioning cherrypicked. I added it to WP:TC, hopefully it will get some more exposure. It looks like the perfect template for POV edits. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs)/(e-mail) 23:33, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

do not redirect

Do not redirect the article to Caste system among christians, since it hardly makes sense. it is like redirecting a "catholic" article to faiths in christanity. Moreover Roman Catholic Brahmin is a valid community in south-west India with ads in matrimonial sites. Please help in expanding it rather that redirecting it which does not make sense. --Gururaj 007 (talk) 07:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk:talkorigins, BLP issues, and self-published sources

We've gone though this about Talk:Origins, and this, comment on work, is considered acceptable. Check the archives, the consensus was that it wasn't a BLP issue. Note that I was arguing against that use, but was out-shouted.

— You

I looked at the talk page and don't see any archive...could you point me in the right direction? ImpIn | (t - c) 22:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:VP Singh.jpg

A tag has been placed on Image:VP Singh.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I8 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the Wikimedia Commons under the same name, or all references to the image on Wikipedia have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:VP Singh.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. BJ^Talk 13:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The Hindu

Hi there, can you please comment in Talk:The_Hindu#Inaccurate_edits. A recent edit war is started in the article and I am bordering 3RR. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 14:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Archiving assistance

Relata, hi, can I be of assistance with archiving? Your page is currently running over 180K, and some browsers start having trouble with anything over 32K. May I set up an archivebot for you? Then you wouldn't have to worry about it. :) --Elonka 23:05, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

{{archive-bottom