{{unblock|Help I am being Blocked as I sock. Please Unblock me in in lieu f an Unblock at least take it to SPI to sort all this out. I cant access my old account WeaponBB7 thus I have this one now. Please either unblock me so i can go to SPI or Take it to SPI thank you for your time}}.
Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s):
No apparent signes of sockpuppetry. University IPs are often used by many people.
Can we get the university range block up as well? I can't even edit anything becuase the unlying ip has been blocked! The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:40, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh 44,000 people are blocked as collateral RangeBlock.... the entire UT system uses Ips registered to the Space institute in Tullahoma....The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:55, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
{{unblock-auto|1=205.152.162.36|2=Autoblocked because your IP address was recently used by "ResidentAnthropologist". The reason given for ResidentAnthropologist's block is: "Abusing multiple accounts: See [[User:|3=Jehochman|4=2079992}}
You are not currently blocked. -SelketTalk 21:01, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can the userrights of the old account (if you want them) be transferred over to the new one? I've asked his question here and on Avi's talk page. —Soap— 21:12, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am sure they can be. The only one I really care about is autoconfirmed at this point which i think i soft ware based so I just have to have enough edits. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:36, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've given you "confirmed", which is the non-automated version of the autoconfirmed permission, and which can be removed in 4 days when autoconfirmed takes over. I'll wait for outside confirmation on the other user rights. —Soap— 22:20, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderful, I can the bar is so low for Reviewer and roll back I am not to concerned about going through the extra trouble of getting those expedited. If you able to give them thankyou. If you not able to I'll go through the normal channels once i build up my edit count and be done with it. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:23, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why not just go back to your original account? Everyone knows it wasn't you, they (assumably) haven't got access to your e-mail account, so you can just create a stronger password and even if you've got a secondary account, you're still leaving them with the impression they can just hack someone and the problem goes away. HalfShadow 02:33, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I dont have the password as its been changed to something I am unaware of. The JIDF knows how our system works, Mr. Apple tree proved that with his stunts after Einstein Donut was community banned. He gamed the OTRS system, Jimbo, SPI, CheckUser, is now creating a Sock army he knows we can only identify through the duck test through his Twitter and Facebook pages. Trust me this guy knows I am still here. I have been using the WeaponBB7 mantle across the web since i was 13 and have grown and Changed alot since then. Its Time for a Change. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:47, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping we'd hear back from you soon. It's quite a harrowing thing having your account compromised like that, and I'm pondering how to make my internet passwords even harder... Grandmasterka 06:14, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to hear about your account being compromised, but glad you came back.— DædαlusContribs 06:34, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise. This was an extremely unpleasant business (par for the course with the character responsible - I'm thinking of a previous escapade where they forged an admin's post then posted it online). I can't help wonder if sooner or later this is going to backfire on him or his organisation? Regardless - it's good that you're back! TFOWR 11:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, but at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Talk:Twelve Tribes (New religious movement)/Archive 1, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot.
Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Note that human editors do monitor recent changes to Wikipedia articles, and administrators have the ability to block users from editing if they repeatedly engage in vandalism.
Cluebot produces very few false positives, but it does happen. If you believe the change you made should not have been detected as unconstructive, please report it here, remove this warning from your talk page, and then make the edit again.
Thankyou for Vigilance cluebot, it was only a typo in the move...... why am i talking to a bot? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:51, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to hear about the unfortunate business with your old account. I've given you reviewer and rollback (I'll remove it from BB7 in a minute since you're not using that account). If you need anything, let me know, otherwise, I'll look forward to seeing you around ITN. Best, HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 21:36, 18 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain the revert of Haystack (software)?[edit]
I admit that I'm new to editing Wikipedia articles, but I couldn't find an explanation for the reversion of my recent changes to the Haystack article.
If I understand Wikipedia:Reverting correctly, I think that my changes were a good-faith attempt to update the article to reflect notable events which have been widely reported in Newsweek, The Guardian, Slate and Wired. I think I cited them correctly.
If you could explain what the problem was with my edits, I'd be willing to improve them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.191.200.223 (talk) 07:45, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Adding a Criticism was unnecessary as more NPOV was could have been done The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:01, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The mid-term elections section is being deliberately put in list format for ease of reading and because there is no need for additional commentary. The section is designed to just show the outcomes.Malke 2010 (talk) 18:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, thanks for doing the merge; it probably needed to be done but I wasn't feeling WP:BOLD enough to pull the trigger :-) It would be nice if you could expand the "origins" section with some of the content from the old Keep Fear Alive page--I probably won't have time to get to it for at least a couple days. (see my comment at Talk:2010 Stewart-Colbert Rallies). Thanks, MildlyMadTC 18:26, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, your addition of one or more external links to the page 2010 Stewart-Colbert Rallies has been reverted. Your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove links which are discouraged per our external links guideline from Wikipedia. The external link you added or changed is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. I removed the following link(s): http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=118856078167623, http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=154317524597618. If you were trying to insert an external link that does comply with our policies and guidelines, then please accept my creator's apologies and feel free to undo the bot's revert. However, if the link does not comply with our policies and guidelines, but your edit included other, constructive, changes to the article, feel free to make those changes again without re-adding the link. Please read Wikipedia's external links guideline for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! --XLinkBot (talk) 21:07, 20 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you speedy close this AFD? Also, if you want to get rid of it, you can probably tag it with {{db-author}}. Mind if I do that? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Otters want attention) 03:59, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No delete it, I saw obvious spam and sent it to AFD only to find that it was the third such AFD.The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 12:44, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Aside: Wow, I just now see that it was you that put Colbert's image on the left in that image file, which is cool. Good work, by the way!--Hodgson-Burnett's Secret Garden (talk) 13:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On 23 September 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Kosmoceratops, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.
I have removed the prod you placed on Beena Sarwar, as the article was undeleted on 7 September 2010 and therefore cannot be deleted via prod. Compliance with policy/procedure is the only reason I did this; I have no prejudice to opening an AfD. —KuyaBriBriTalk 17:49, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You suggested we should discuss changes I've made here, rather than there. However, I don't really have anything to say - it sounds like an article I'd best keep away from. Best wishes Pol098 (talk) 18:47, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am currently on Lexis Nexus currently formating some citations, CIrt has takes seriously his charge to protect the article after the AFD and bit you. He probably should have taken a less aggressive stance but after WP:ARBSCI its hard to blame him. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:05, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't feel particularly bitten (or that I made a Wikipedia mistake as such - in an uncontroversial article my edits would have been appropriate), no problem. Have responded on article's talk page. Pol098 (talk) 19:18, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to answering your question at the Help Desk, I thought I might let you in on how I found the answer. I first went to the {{Notability}} template and hit the "What links here" link. I pulled up one of the articles at random and looked at the categories. Because I have "hidden categories" turned on, I saw the "Articles lacking notability since September 2010" category or whatever it was. I went there and then there was a link to the parent cat.
If you don't have hidden categories turned on, you can do that in your preferences under the Appearance tab. Dismas|(talk) 23:44, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I figured it was something like that. I just remembered finding goofing off. SO when the organized me tried to find it was nowhere to found The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:48, 28 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was writing my reply on the talk page while you reverted my edit. The sources Topsaint cites clearly contradict his edit. They actually support the original version of this sentence. Should I wait for someone else to come along and agree with me, or am I forced by Wikipedia guidelines to let this serious error remain in the article? Thank you for your attention. Ltwin (talk) 18:56, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've declined your G11 nom, as the article does not look like blatant advertising (although it is in poor condition). Maybe you could go through AfD or PROD instead. Regards, Airplaneman ✈ 04:06, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've started a discussion on Talk:Rick Sanchez for the section on the allegations of anti-semitism. We should discuss this topic on the Talk page, rather than just reverting changes back and forth. 0x539 (talk) 20:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. I just wanted to follow up on this. I think your edits on this page are becoming a little heavy. You're right that we have issues with sourcing, but merely removing the text isn't really all that constructive. And you've also technically passed 3RR on that page, so be careful. Discussing this on the talk page is the right way to go. — HelloAnnyong(say whaaat?!) 22:37, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixing, WP:3RR does not apply when BLP issues are present, i appreciate your heads up though. We have to be very careful here with what facts are and what pundits are saying The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:41, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! Just wondering what qualified my edit to the article on Orson Scott Card indicating that he supports racial profiling for Muslims as a consequence of the War on Terror as "vandalism" par these comments:
I can understand why you might have reverted the edit (edit done under IP not account, edit could be interpreted as a criticism), though the edit was merely intended to underscore a clear political belief of Card's as indicated by his writings and not as an attempt to slander or misconstrue. This is a sincere message - I'm certainly not complaining though if I breached any Wikipedia etiquette I'd love to know (I've only made minor edits in the past). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Helpmeimarobot (talk • contribs) 16:42, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
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 - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page 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 page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 02:39, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just found this today on my talk page, and went to look at the article considered not notable and subject to a speedy deletion, and it's gone! How long was it up there, was there any discussion, and why is the subject of Showcase Theatre not worthy of inclusion? This is a large part of current theatre in this economy, free to audiences, and a practice platform for actors to show off their wares. Many people attend showcase theatre, and may wish to know more about it. You say it may be contested by placing a tag "hangon" above the article, but it's too late to do that. JohnClarknew (talk) 05:22, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It failed to assert any nobility, unreferenced and such. The Speedy deletion process is usually pretty quick. One user and another agree Admin is all thats needed to Speedy delete it. If you feel it was error and can provide references we can see about it being Wikipedia:Userfication for it and see about it getting put back in the mainspace The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:55, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So how does one get to see the article? It's gone! JohnClarknew (talk) 04:58, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there. There is a thin line between teaching newbies and others about our mores and rules, and being gruff, but this comment appears to be on the wrong side of that line. Tduk may be to be an overenthusiasticly inclusionist editor, but his contributions are not completely off the wall. Can you please take it easy on this editor? He's not exactly a newbie, but still needs mentoring. Thanks for your cooperation. Bearian (talk) 18:49, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If an editor is creating Poorly sourced BLPs than of course I am going to ask them if they understand our policies on the issue. Especailly when they do there are Easily found RS on the person. I dont care whether he is adding articles of Questionable notability we deal with that all the time. I was going to encourage him to Sing up for the mentoring program with somebody becuase it is increasly clear look over his contributions that he does not understand our policies. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that he needs mentoring, but I also think that his choices of BLP are not bad, e.g.Darren Barrett was an ugly stub, but it can be improved. Bearian (talk) 19:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More onesAllan Schwartzberg, Rob Mastrianni, Darren Barrett. Show failures in competence of using sourcing. Mentoring is much needed here. He has alot of potenital and should Join WP:NYC but his creations of poorly refeenced BLPs is worry some thus I whacked him hard and perhaps a little harder than i should have but when it come to BLP we arent playing with marblesThe Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, OK, I'll take him under my wing. But, at least with Darren Barrett, the end result is good enough. Bearian (talk) 19:31, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thats Very kind of you, I was going to go over to WP:ADOPT and talking to people there about some one willing to take him. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 19:37, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Resilient Barnstar
Thank you for being "big enough" to take my comments in the good faith they were offered. Bearian (talk) 19:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see you got to DC's edits before me, thanks for taking care of that. In terms of trout I'd recommend hmmm.... Rainbow, something big, maybe taimen? Cheers! Cwill151 (talk) 22:17, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The image for the XENU article is not a random act of vandalism, it is an artist's impression of a comparison by the founder of the religion of Scientology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.209.241.193 (talk) 13:29, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the proposed deletion tag you placed on Lapidus cottages, as the article was prodded on 20 October 2007. Compliance with policy/procedure was the only reason I did this; I have no prejudice against opening an AfD. —KuyaBriBriTalk 13:46, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello ResidentAnthropologist. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Poetry International Web, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. Kimchi.sg (talk) 23:02, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 21:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Was there somehting specific about this edit you took objection to? The bot seemed to be doing exaclty what it was supposed to, or am I missing something? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:18, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It deleted everything! Was suppposed to only archive the 3rd instead it when I arrived it was only the 8th showing The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:19, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It looks fine to me. It added the new day, removed the oldest. at least, that's what's showing now and I dond;t do anyhting but revert your revert. How does it look to you? HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 01:24, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That is highly bizzare I Am looking at the diff at it but the diff looks fine to me now... It might be time for bed The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:28, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
aH OK, its easy done, I mostly avoid the vandal bottom, so as not to mess up. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 22:32, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Replaceable fair use File:Shane&friends-intro.jpg[edit]
Thanks for uploading File:Shane&friends-intro.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information or which could be adequately covered with text alone. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:
If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 03:43, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the external links you added to the page Talk:Shane Dawson do not comply with our guidelines for external links and have been removed. Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. 117Avenue (talk) 18:48, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed a file deletion tag from File:Shane&friends-intro.jpg. When removing deletion tags, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. 117Avenue (talk) 14:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see you are making a bunch of edits suggesting that linguistics is "part of" anthropology and the two are redundant ([2][3][4][5][6]). This is patently false; while the two fields have areas of overlap, they are widely recognized as separate fields. In the last diff listed above you cite a single source that doesn't even make the claim you are trying to make (it lists linguistic anthropology, not linguistics, as one type of anthropology, and the sentence about US anthropologists receiving training in linguistics doesn't mean that linguistics is a subfield of anthropology; that's like trying to say that, if lots of mathematicians also have training in computer science, computer science must be a subfield of mathematics). rʨanaɢ (talk) 00:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken a crack at the one. It is truly notable, would ask you to withdraw your AfD nomination. Cheers.--Milowent • talkblp-r 15:40, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On 20 October 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article 2008 Mumbai attacks, which you recently nominated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.
Why does it need to be there? Rothorpe (talk) 22:45, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your reply. I am not religious, but I dislike the politically correct BCE and CE as ugly, repetitive and lengthy, compared with the traditional AD & BC; and with a span that goes backwards, like 2332–2283, 'before the Christian era' (whatever that means, wasn't much of a Christian era when they crucified him, I don't suppose) is superfluous anyway. 'The comet may have been observed by ancient Egyptians during the reign of pharaoh Pepi I (2332–2283)' has no ambiguity. Rothorpe (talk) 17:35, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry I had to revert your close of this AFD as I did non admin closures for 2 years before becoming an admin and I use to hate it when this was done to me. However, the AFD was not a candidate for WP:SNOW due to several SPA !votes and the fact that the article is a BLP. --Ron Ritzman (talk) 23:36, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have new messagesHello, ResidentAnthropologist. You have new messages at Chzz's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{user:chzz/tb}} template. File:Ico specie.png
Have the courtesy to come into the talk page and comment before you revert proper edits of mine. You have a problem with this article: you keep insisting that it mention nontheism as well as the FICTITIOUS "Way of Shao-lin". Where did you learn the "way" of Shao-lin? Did you even read the pertinent comments on the talk page? Without citations or specific writing, you should leave those alone. I will report you if you do this again, unless you explain yourself on the talk page.75.21.159.227 (talk) 16:55, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
RA, see also User_talk:Chzz#Jediism. Some calm would be nice here, I think; hope it can happen without need to protect the page, etc. Chzz ► 17:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wiki piece announcing bush's memoir one-sided. Why can't reporter Cohen balance it with his version?[edit]
Ted Cohen responds, "I would like to know why Crown Books is listed in a Wiki piece announcing bush's new memoir, with an attendant link to the publisher's website. I edited the Wiki article to include my book with a link to my website. I do not understand why what I have posted is considered out of bounds and would appeal to others to make their own judgments."
Hi RA, the {{Uw-advert3}} you gave to Ted Cohen, may have been a little bitey, could I suggest you try to explain in your own words why you reverted an edit if you see one like this again? (I realise you said you don't have much time, but I can see from their POV how your edit may be seen as an attempt to censor them if they don't know how things work around here). SmartSE (talk) 23:19, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your Probably right, I found it pretty blatant advertising from my POV thus I probbly went over the line. I'll remember that next time. My interest is the not in censorship as that is my least favorite concept. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:10, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Of course I didn't think you were trying to censor anyone. I hate any spamming too, it's just that noobs might act in good faith, without knowing about or rules. SmartSE (talk) 10:40, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, ResidentAnthropologist. You have new messages at WP:ITN/C. Message added 16:23, 2 November 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
On 7 November 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article 2010 eruption of Mount Merapi, which you created. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.
Curious how you came by to show up at this discussion??? Would appreciate a response. Thank you, -- Cirt (talk) 16:12, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Its happens to be on Watchlist, as are alot of the NRM articles on Wikipedia. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Curious, as you had never posted there before. When did you add it to your watchlist? Why? -- Cirt (talk) 16:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because, NRMs topics are an area I am interested in and its an almost Iconic phrase of the 70s and 80s. I dont remember, I was to say its been within the the last month and a half. Probably mid october or so I added all alot of NRM topics to my watchlist. I frankly havent posted anything because a lack of things to talk about on the talk page. This is really the first thing I have had any comment on. Just as a note I have all the the articles that FA, GA, HIgh and Top importance articles that are part of the WP:NRM on My watchlist. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:43, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Understood. Thank you for the response. Most appreciated, -- Cirt (talk) 16:46, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Would love to learn more about your concerns, and generally about WP and editing.
Mediation, Yes, that was suggested. I am attempting to disuss the issues, and we will see how that goes first. But I am learning, and I didn't think I a block would have been handed down when editors were section blanking referenced additions from major news sourses. I engaged in talk on article page, warned about them blanking my info on user pages, and I guess it was all me getting baited into a 3rr block, well played on thier part HAHA. That is if we move past assuming good faith. Frankly, I thought my references and edits met WP:V and were equal weight to the pro hannity anecdotes that the past editors chose to include. I thought WP:Well Known would have applied as well. I referenced this on the pages of the editors reverting my work, and on the talk page. The fact that they are writing "waterboarding' was a non issue, and nobody watched it" shows bias IMHO, and the fact that they want to include a rebuttle to an allegation (but not the facts themselves) shows the same, again IMHO. That is why I chose to edit the article, and investigate the issue. I have additional references no to support my changes and additions. The undue weight given to rebuttals to editors inclusions to the page, as well as the fast reverts and undo's smacks of "ownership" and scrubbing to me. I don't know if those are the right WP slang phrases though. Looking forward to your input. On both my edits and theirs.Thanks Bluebadger1 (talk) 03:31, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, ResidentAnthropologist. You have new messages at Graham87's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
On 12 November 2010, In the news was updated with a news item that involved the article Pakistan CID building attack, which you recently nominated, created and substantially updated. If you know of another interesting news item involving a recently created or updated article, then please suggest it on the candidates page.
This is typical of his misbehavior. I suggest that JJBulten is the one who really needs to be "reined in." His editing has made Wikipedia articles on longevity less reliable and a bigger mess than they would be if he were not allowed to continue editing on Wikipedia. This is something to think about.Ryoung122 20:31, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, RA-- I am looking for people with interests in folklore (editors I’ve encountered on folklore/mythology articles as well as elsewhere) to visit talk:Folk etymology, where there is an ongoing edit dispute. One view (three people) holds that the term is exclusive to linguistics, and another (just me) finds that the term has been formally defined within folklore, and used in academic journals in that sense for more than a century. The page is currently locked. I ask your input not in support of either view, but because discussion seems to have come to a standstill, it seems to be a page few stumble across, and needs fresh viewpoints to get unstuck. Thanks! DavidOaks (talk) 18:05, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Linguistics is typically My weak spot, I'll look over the dispute but no promises in being able to help. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 18:07, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, ResidentAnthropologist. You have new messages at Tofutwitch11's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Per THE RULES, Duplicate question - the same individual question should not be posted en masse onto candidates' pages, so removed the most recent instance from NYB's page because you asked the exact same question to Sir Fozzie. Feel free to come up with a specific question for NYB. JehochmanTalk 15:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the notification I missed that rule though think will revert you removal of NYB and Strike the question at SirFozzie. Would this be acceptable? The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 15:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure! Whichever you prefer. JehochmanTalk 16:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A) thanks for doing all those reverts yesterday - I got a bit distracted after a few! B) Chris Gair (talk·contribs) has carried on adding references to the same website. I've dropped them another note to try and encourage them to discuss it at COIN, my AGF was maybe misplaced. SmartSE (talk) 20:26, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, ResidentAnthropologist. You have new messages at Jacksoncw's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Please do not collapse discussions like that[edit]
ResidentAnthropologist please do not collapse discussions on faulty premises. There is a lot of content discussion in that thread. Cirt started making it about other editors and not about content. Great, bring that up with Cirt. The content discussion cannot be teased out of the general discussion because they are intertwined, but it is there. Do not hide content inclusion rationales I've made because another editor made the conversation personal, especially after I asked them to drop it several times before they did. Cheers.Griswaldo (talk) 15:00, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your helpful attempts at redirecting discussion back to content, at Talk:Werner Erhard vs. Columbia Broadcasting System. You are right, we should all go back to discussing content. I will strive to do that myself, hopefully others will as well. Much appreciated. I hope you are doing well. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 15:37, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have not mentioned anyone new, I don't think, but please let me know if you think I should notify anyone else of the canvassing complaint. μηδείς (talk) 04:58, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I used to photoshop album covers and band logos for a band-manager game that's since gone under, and decided to see if still had what it takes. Here's a sample of the stuff I did:
Thank you for your support at my RfA last week. I'll do everything I can to live up to your expectations and if you ever need help from a janitor please feel free to drop me a line! Good luck with your exams and hope to see you about after the 10th. PanydThe muffin is not subtle 21:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Collapsing ANI discussions where you have already ventured an opinion can give the appearance that you are attempting to stifle discussion. Please let the discussion take its course. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:34, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Collapsing Out of scope discussion seemed appropriate. Note I did not collapse everything with WP:POINT rationale which to me would seem equally appropriate The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have no standing to be collapsing anything on ANI. Please just leave it alone and let others decide for themselves. Thanks. Delicious carbuncle (talk) 01:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Every editor as a right to make move that seem appropriate to one self I need no standing to make any move at ANI. It has been reverted I am not protesting have a nice day. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 01:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is Jamyang-Dolkar. I am really Catherine Wessinger. I removed that photo from my Wikipedia entry, and you put it back up. Please remove it. Thank you, Catherine Wessinger, wessingloyno.edu
Jamyang-Dolkar (talk) 03:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
Could you give me an idea of the meaning of "removing what appears to be nonnotable blog in further reading"? I've seen that you use it like a comment on editing.
Thanks in advance!
Rough Melody (talk) 23:29, 17 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, ResidentAnthropologist. You have new messages at Rough Melody's talk page. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
The Grammy nomination would not save the article; he was Grammy-nominated at the time of the AfD. I'll double check the old revision.
Regardless, the article must be deleted, because it's a copyvio. —C.Fred (talk) 00:07, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected. The Grammy nomination was not mentioned in the old version of the article or the AfD discussion. Accordingly, it's not deletable under criterion G4. It is still a copyvio and subject to deletion on those grounds. —C.Fred (talk) 00:12, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you get a source for the Grammy nomination and rewrite it, let me know. Per my comment at WP:Articles for deletion/Zamora (musician), that's a far bigger assertion of notability than was made in the article then. If it's a well-written article and meets WP:MUSICBIO, I'll back it for recreation, including at DRV if necessary. —C.Fred (talk) 00:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I outside the nomination on Grammy Website, I cant find any thing on Zamora himself. As i dont feel conformable doing a BLP with only a single source. So he meets WP:MUSICBIO but any WP:V has it dead in the water. New age musicians do not generate much news attention. Sad The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:47, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even though it's not secondary, the Grammy press release would be a valid source for the nomination. You're right, though: if that's the only thing that can be sourced, that's not really enough for a BLP. —C.Fred (talk) 00:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I have published the artist's biography using my own words without removing facts like "He has released several instrumental albums, or he has published several books", so can you tell me what is the problem now?
Please look to the AFD, as my google-foo is in great spirits today. I will be myself expanding and sourcing this one, as I see a nice DYK in th near future. Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 05:12, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this. It will look much beter in a few hours. Best, Schmidt,MICHAEL Q. 05:44, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have my abject apology for having created an article before nominating it for the front page. μηδείς (talk) 06:24, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, no problem, and I certainly don't hold grudges. It did occur to me that people might think it pushy of me to submit the DYK, but it would have been even sillier for me to suggest DYK and then simply leave the article uncreated. I do think DYK's a better route, but am not possessive or not at all mind if the article goes ITN - although again, I think it's just rewarding a ploy by a press agent to do so.μηδείς (talk) 23:57, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What a mess, but it is a not really a hoax. Send it to AfD. Bearian (talk) 17:39, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you havent seen the related ANI thread this entire thing is a original synthesis WP:SYNTH To push a POV. The Term is Neologism to suit the Authors Creationist agenda from the FAQ the author created I'll add wikilinks to spell it out:
"Yes, Interpretive Science is the study of how preexisting philosophy influences the development of certain scientific models to the exclusion of alternatives"
Sorry to spam, I am putting together a workgroup to review all Scientology related content. You may like to participate: Wikipedia:Neutrality in Scientology.--Scott Mac 21:44, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It occurred to me that if they won't let anyone delete the page, maybe if everyone starts adding their name to it, it will lose whatever significance it has. ←Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc?carrots→ 17:42, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bugs, I know you well enough i figured something like that. I was unsure and figured it would be taken the wrong way by some body. Merry Christmas and thank you I look forward to you comments at ANI every morning. As much grief for as you get for it remember the moment we cant laugh at our selfs is the moment Wiki dies The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 22:45, 25 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Did WMC request the page to be deleted? Just looking for clarification, thanks and have a happy, healthy New Year, --CrohnieGalTalk 18:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, well you got reverted by an editor, so maybe the best thing for everyone is to redelete the page to stop all the silliness going on. It's your call of course, enjoy, --CrohnieGalTalk 23:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am unsure what you mean, I got reverted when? As for the sillyness I really dont hold any grudges against WMC nor have i ever disliked him.I saw what looked like to me to be clear violation of WP:UP#POLEMIC and i sent it to MFD. It its astonishing though how much flack I have received. User:William M. Connolley/For me/Things people say#Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Climate change exaggeration is clearly a list of people who voted keep at an AFD of an article that he didnt like. Of the list above it I did a random sample and the four diffs i looked at seems to be simlair of people disagreeing with him. Its at MFD now thats all i can really do. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! That's my first Barnstar in almost 8 years of editing Wikipedia. Also, thanks for being understanding and not biting me for biting the n00bs. I usually get tackled by 2 or 3 admins when I jump the gun like that. Today has been a pretty laid-back day, aside from an edit war with an 11 year-old girl on an article that had been CSD'ed and deleted multiple times. Her talk page is worth a chuckle. Grand High Poobah of Western Bastardia (talk) 03:08, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I myself have jumped the gun in COI cases, So I am not one to judge you for that. Just take it easy, try not to be so aggressive. Try explaining policies of why stuff is getting deleted rather then merely linking to it. That tends to diffuse situations rather than upsetting people. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good suggestion. I'll keep it in mind. After awhile, all those links kind of get ignored, don't they? Grand High Poobah of Western Bastardia (talk) 03:44, 30 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
ResidentAnthropologist has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, so I've officially declared today as ResidentAnthropologist's Day! For being a great person and awesome Wikipedian, enjoy being the star of the day, ResidentAnthropologist!
On the project page purporting to deal with "neutrality" of Scientology articles, I posted the follow comment.
"This user, who initiated this project, claims that he has no involvement in editing Scientology-related articles, yet his user contributions seem to suggest otherwise. He has been involved with many of the articles and while he may not be an active editor of the texts, his editorial function seems to be more of a self-appointed meta-editor of the entire scope of articles on Scientology, including the initiation of this project. I think it is false for him to claim that because he may not edit the text of articles he is not an editor concerned with the subject matter. The effort he appears to be making is to challenge any and every article about Scientology. It seems that his goal is deleting as many as he can and putting the entire subject matter back under "review." The arbitration on Scientology was extensive and is now closed. I'm concerned that this project is a way to re-open the entire can of worms again. This entire project seems designed more to "keep the controversy alive" rather than anything else. It reminds me of the tactics used by the tobacco industry when it was fighting against medical science on health-related issues associated with use of tobacco. In my opinion, this entire "project" should be deleted and a renewed effort to reopen arbitration be nipped in the bud. Calicocat (talk) 21:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC) "[reply]
You removed this comment with some references to a few policies which seem misplaced. I don't think I was soapboxing or mounting a personal attack on the editor in question, but simply challenging a few factors about his editorial neutrality on this subject as revealed by his user contributions and some concerns about the project itself. I think what you did in removing the comments was censorious and not in keeping with the general nature of wikipedia talk pages, which are meant to be an open forum for discussions of relevance to an article or, in this case, a project. I would ask that you not censor my comments and legitimate concerns. Thank you. Calicocat (talk) 23:40, 1 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Polemic discussion of an editor is not permtted, civil discussion of an editor is permitted. YOu crossed the line in attacking Scott thus removed I have suggested alternate venues where you concerns would be better expressed ButBeware the WP:BOOMERANGThe Resident Anthropologist (talk) 00:00, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would like you to point out where what I said crossed the line. My tone was not at all uncivil or rude. I gave links to his contributions page that demonstrated the basis of my concern. I think your removal of the material was done in a hasty manner and demonstrated a disappointing lack of willingness to discuss legitimate concerns about the project the editorial objectivity of the editor who began it. Calicocat (talk) 00:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comparing Scott to Tabbacco Company is generally nor is calling some one a liar. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 03:03, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't compare him, personally, to a tobacco company, I said that the project itself reminds me of what tobacco companies did to keep a controversy alive. I used that as an illustration and I stand by it. I didn't call him a liar, but apparently he is, since he claims to have not edited Scientology articles in his project, but in fact, he has. He has called for numerous articles to be deleted and started a whole project -- without proposal for such -- and that is a form of editing in wikipedia. I still object to you taking this action in removing my comment from the project talk page. I'm so put off by this little episode that I won't even bother to comment further about it nor will I participate in the project. Calicocat (talk) 05:55, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Exscientologykids.com until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Corvus cornixtalk 02:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, ResidentAnthropologist. There's been a request for comments recently at Talk:Ganas. Your further involvement and contributions there would be appreciated if you get a chance. Have a nice day! :) WikiDao☯ 10:21, 6 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
l have never vandalized Wikipedia nor do l plan to do so. [User:George696969|George696969]] 20:55, 8 January 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by George696969 (talk • contribs)
Thanks for pointing that out. I didn't think through that adding that page to requests for protection could be violating my topic ban. I wasn't editing it, but since topic bans are construed broadly, I'm removing the page from my watchlist. I appreciate your help in pointing that aspect out, and if any other of my actions seem in violation of that please help me know, because I honestly do not want to go through any more conflicts. I've moved the edit bar so that weird formatting does not mess with the talk page. Thanks again.--NovusOrator 23:25, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to Wikipedia:Editing restrictions: Terra Novus is indefinitely banned from all articles and discussions relating to the topics of Creationism or Pseudoscience broadly construed. (emphasis mine). The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:29, 9 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so look at the Harrisburg News website--and enter my edit, please--it's accurate!----majorimstab — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majorimstab (talk • contribs) 01:49, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so look at the Harrisburg News website--and enter my edit, please--it's accurate!----majorimstab — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majorimstab (talk • contribs) 01:51, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What is the point I am missing on the Ganas article? This is the second time you've removed the Controversy section that we've already agreed we are going to have. PLEASE STOP DOING THAT. I am re-instating it and will try to address your other changes one at a time. You make that very hard to do when you make these major revisions without discussing them first. Can we get some agreement about this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eroberer (talk • contribs) 20:59, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Your inclusion of material several users agreed was improper is the heart of the removal and I advise you to stop putting material in against consensus. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 21:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Who agreed what was improper? Please be specific. I remind you that you are making major changes without consensus yourself. Eroberer (talk) 21:37, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Its time for ANI, Running around changing templates due to "marxist colors" is absurd behavior and a new level of disruption even for him.WP:Wikipedia is not therapy this guy needs help we cant give time to ship him off to ConservapediaThe Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:27, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
highest GROSSING INDIAN FILM - LIST STATISTICS NEEDS TO BE ADJUSTED - NEW FILMS IN THE LIST - RAJNEETI IS LIKELY TO BE AT NO 11.
Ne film has to be added at no 6
Hi, thanks for your warning about the article "Handicap Scuba Association". Probably it is difficult to understand but if you make a quick research you can note that the HSA is the most important organization in the world who teach and give certification for all the levels of scuba diving to disabled person like the PADI or NAUI do in the world to normal persons. Every body know about in the SCUBA DIVING world. The difference obviously and fortunately the disabled person are not so much like normal persons! So I think if you can will be nice if you give collaboration to expand the article instead to ask to cancel. Thanks very much.--Abyssadventurer (talk) 10:50, 15 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
RA, note [8], [9], as well as this case Anthony played a key role in. --JN466 05:09, 18 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Deary deary me, does this look like an obvious attempt by Jayen466 to provoke someone into violating an unofficially expanded Arbcom block? Jaylen466 wasn't without his/her own restrictions in that case, as I recall. I decline that trap, thanks. However, that doesn't change the fact that the edits are bogus. Tag-team with Jayen466 much? AndroidCat (talk) 06:54, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What did you mean by that 3RR warning? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the rule (and your message!) talks about "Making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period". I have done 2 (that is not "more than three" by a margin of 2) reverts and that was for enforcing a well know policy. Please, retract you misplaced menace. --Damiens.rf 19:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, very much, for your concerns regarding what you referred to as the "methods" of the "targeting" against me by a Wikipedia Review user. Your comments are most appreciated, especially in light of recent offsite attacks. I hope you are doing well. It is unfortunate that despite multiple warnings ([10][11][12][13]) the user has continued their obsessive compulsive crusade against another Wikipedian. Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 11:22, 1 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi ResidentAnthropologist. Thanks for this post. There's absolutely no "baggage" that should have possibly resulted in such a ban, and I could prove my words, but I do not believe you have a time to listen to me. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think its an Extremely unreasonable Editing restriction, it seems a basic wiki-right to defend yourself at ANI. I think based on your block log the resictions on Paritpating in ANI and such seems reasonable but if {{subst:ANI-notice}} hits your page you should be able to speak at ANI on your Behalf. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 16:16, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! This restriction is very unreasonable, and I have done absolutely nothing to deserve this particular restriction, but to tell you the truth, I love this restriction. Why? Because most of the time, when I tried to defend myself in a past, I only made the matter worse for me, which is partly due to my English. So, the restriction is OK. I need to behave that way that nobody would have a reason to file a post about me on AN/I. I was wrong yesterday, and the post was valid. BTW I saw you defending Cirt, and although I do not know what's going on with Cirt, I'd like to thank you for doing this too because it is a noble thing to defend the people, who need to be defended. Regards.--Mbz1 (talk) 16:46, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I defend people when I feel they are being unfairly treated and I criticize those same people when I feel they're is outa line. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 17:00, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Okie-dokes; userright now removed. Regards, Ironholds (talk) 19:44, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, ResidentAnthropologist. Please check your email; you've got mail! It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.
Hello, ResidentAnthropologist. You have new messages at HJ Mitchell's talk page. Message added 03:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.[reply]
I came across this while stub-sorting but could see no reason why it had been stubbified. There seemed to be no cleanup templates, no recent edit-wars, no recent discussion on talk page - so I reverted to the version prior to stubbification. If you need to stubbify it again, please explain what the problem is before removing such a lot of content, much of it referenced. Thanks. PamD (talk) 20:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Classic WP:NOTHOWTO, material also appears to be a Good faith violation of no original research using unreliable sources. Stubifying seemed more appropriate rather than WP:AFD as it strikes me as a valid topic for us to cover just not the way we were doing it. Probably should have left a note on the talk page but didnt think to. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 20:50, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A few cleanup tags and a pause of a few weeks before more drastic action might have been the way to go, rather than removing almost all the content of an article which was created incrementally by a large number of editors over a period of 7 years. PamD (talk) 22:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Really there is really nothing worth salvaging that doesnt violate policy. Tagging it would just cuase some one else to do the same when eve people got around to it. If you feel I am in error take it to WP:NORN. The Resident Anthropologist (talk) 23:11, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
By all means take it to WP:NORN, but I've reverted pending that discussion. I think the default position is to leave the accumulated edits of many editors over the years in place, until you have discussed the article on its talk page or tagged it as needing cleanup. PamD (talk) 08:45, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
loyno.edu
Jamyang-Dolkar (talk) 03:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)
