User talk:Slp1/Archive 8

Your recent edits

Seriously, what is your problem? You keep reverting my edits, then expect me not to do it back? You're effectively goading me into reverting so that I get warnings here! What is it about the statement that isn't supported by the source? The guy faked an injury and the source says he "feigns an injury." It is supported! Instead of reverting constantly, why don't you talk about instead? Paralympiakos (talk) 21:44, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I expect you not to put your preferred version back, since you are adding back poorly sourced negative material about a living person, as you have been told by multiple editors. Unfortunately since you didn't listen to the warning and have been edit warring on multiple pages, I have now reported you to the appropriate administrative noticeboard. I recommend that you self-revert your last revert of the IP if you want to avoid a block [1] Then I suggest you go to the talkpage and start discussing the wording of any addition you propose to Daley and the knee, and the point deduction etc. --Slp1 (talk) 22:02, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Why do I need to self-revert the stuff done by the IP? That's irrelevant to the point deduction stuff! Also, it's been done by a bad faith editor who has stalked me for about 6 months. Paralympiakos (talk) 22:14, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Look, please take that report down. It's meant to be a preventative measure. I won#t be making the changes again, so there's nothing to worry about. I disagree with the way this has been handled, but I'm just going to drop it now. The last thing needed is for a ban. Paralympiakos (talk) 22:32, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

You're invited!

Hello, Slp1,

You are invited meet with your fellow Wikipedians by attending the Montréal meetup scheduled on Sunday, June 27, 2010; between 1500 - 1700 to be held at the Comité Social Centre Sud (CSCS), located at 1710 Beaudry, in Montréal. You can sign up at the meetup page.

The meetup is happening in concurrence with RoCoCo 2010, a free, bilingual, weekend unconference including many people involved with Wikis both within the Wikipedia/Wikimedia Community and abroad. You do not need to attend the conference to sign up for the Wikimeetup, but you are certainly welcome! Bastique ^{☎ call me!}

(PS: Please share this with those you know who might not be on the delivery list, i.e. Users in Montreal/Quebec)

Delivered by SoxBot (talk) 00:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Please check

Hello Slip1,

On June 14 you deleted a criticism section related to a living person that was poorly referenced. Much of the the criticism has returned using references that are clearly from prejudicial sites. Could please check again and remove if appropriate. The site is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eido_Tai_Shimano Thank you. Zenquaker (talk) 20:06, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

comment

I fully support your comment from this diff the reapeated and seemingly unending cries for a lengthy block have been the worst case of not dropping the stick as I have seen at wikipedia. Off2riorob (talk) 23:33, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Your libelous comment

I object vociferously to your libelous comment.

In no way did I ever communicate with GreekParadise in a manner that constitutes canvassing. Your untruthful allegations are despicable.

I ask that you request of the closing admin that he allow you to cross-out your inappropriate and untrue comment, even though the thread has been closed.

If your disruption was the result of wikihounding -- which I cannot divine here, but gather the case in the past with you -- then that is of course another violation of wikipedia rules on your part.

If you continue to make libelous comments, I will take appropriate action, up to and including having the most serious penalties accorded by wp:admin. Please consider this a formal non-template warning to desist in your disruptive behavior.

As it is, I request politely that you clean up your most recent mess, by retracting your aspersion, and that you tread more carefully in the future.--Epeefleche (talk) 14:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

No, I will not be removing my comment, because it was neither untrue nor libellous. There is "evidence of .... apparent off-wiki solicitation regarding the block".

"Canvassing is sending messages to Wikipedians with the intent to inform them about a community discussion" (see WP:CANVASS). It is clear that you did contact GreekParadise about Threeafterthree during the block discussion, and based on the statement "I want to stay semi-retired", and his/her reluctance to be "drawn into another long dispute", it seems likely that an invitation to join the discussion was included. Now canvassing is not, in itself, problematic. Where it may become inappropriate is if the invitation is non-neutral in tone or content, if off-wiki means are used, or if editors are selected for notification based on their likely views on a subject. It is evident that you did contact GreekParadise off-wiki. Whether s/he was selected for emailing based on a previous conflict with Threeafterthree is something only you would know, as is whether the content of your message was neutral or not. (Actually I suppose GreekParadise would also know about this one).

Still, while there is evidence suggestive of canvassing, I will be happy to do as you ask, striking my remarks and posting a correction that no canvassing occurred if you will permit GreekParadise to forward your email to me (or another administrator, if you prefer) and it contains no mention of the community's discussions about Threeafterthree and/or invitation to get involved. If this is the case, you would be correct that according to the guideline definition no canvassing has occurred. If the email does mention the discussions but is neutrally worded and you confirm that you also emailed editors with whom Threeafterthree had had purely positive interactions, then I will also post a clarification stating that the message and audience neutrality aspects of emails were unproblematic.

Yes, you have in the past accused me of wikihounding and disruption. I'm not sure why your post would seem to imply that it was somebody else. As I explained then, it isn't hounding, harassment or disruption to address problematic editing practices. So, no, I will not be ceasing to make interventions where and when these seem required and appropriate. Hopefully for us both there won't be anything to comment on in the future, but that's not in my hands. However, if you feel you have a genuine complaint about my editing or that I have been disruptive or in violation of other policies and guidelines, I encourage you once again to post to the administrator's noticeboard about it. The prospect doesn't scare me in the least.

By the way, it is recommended that editors refrain from using the words 'libel' and 'libelous' in posts, per the "no perceived legal threats" section of the harassment policy. I would appreciate it if you would do some refactoring. Thank you. --Slp1 (talk) 00:56, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

• Your statement was pure libel. Let me be clear -- this is not in any way a legal threat. It is only a characterization of the elements of your statement.

I made no solicitation whatsoever. You added two more violations of wiki rules to your growing list. You failed and continue to fail miserably to assume good faith. And you libel a living person -- another editor. As with BLP considerations, you should tread especially carefully when you feel yourself inclined to state mistruths as to another editor.

Of course, as you know, I am allowed to communicate with an editor off-wiki in a manner that is not solicitation. And of course, as you know, this editor -- who was not asked to participate -- in fact did not participate in the AN/I.

And kindly don't play word games with us. You said very clearly: "This raises the question about who else was canvassed". That is a statement to the effect that this editor was in fact canvassed. Which is untrue. And therefore, libel.

Further, you seek to mislead other editors as to what ZZ said. He didn't say that there was off-wiki solicitation. He clearly said that editors were campaigning within the ANI discussion. Your effort to misstate the facts, to mislead other editors, is reprehensible -- especially for a sysop. That's another point I would suggest that you correct, to show that you are a good faith editor.

What you are doing is pure wikihounding. Following me, and editing disruptively -- as in your two mis-statements, failure to follow AGF, and untrue attack on a living person, are all disruptive violations. They would be so for a mere editor. Under WP:admin, your violations are especially egregious, as you are supposed to model proper behavior. Not, as you have done, improper behavior.

It is not your right, btw, to turn AGF onto its head, and turn this into the Spanish Inquisition of SLP. You seem to misunderstand how uncivil your comment is, and not appreciate how it violates AGF. Let me ask you though --would you be interested in putting a little skin in the game? In other words, would you be willing to step down as a sysop if the underlying email were to show that solicitation was not involved? (Of course, your violation would have been as strong whether that were the case or not, given your failure to AGF).

Frankly, I think this raises questions as to whether you deserve to wield the mop any more, as you seem intent on using the wrong end of it. Just because I pointed out months ago that you were misinterpreting U.S. law, and questioned whether your were licensed to practice it or simply a layperson seeking to construe it, is no reason for you to follow me around, !vote against me at every turn, and engage in violation after violation of wikipedia's rules.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:25, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Shimano Archive valid site

You have tried to remove source citations to shimanoarchive.com. I have brought this up for discussion on the BOLP talk page concerning this entry. Please do not template blast my talk page, and do not edit war. Please also review guidelines against whitewashing article in favor of POV. The info is there in hundreds of sources online, reflecting the revalence of these issues and their need to be reflected in entry - we should work together to find the best most reputable sources to reflect it. You instead seem mostly driven to remove info that offends you first, and discount sources later, losing sight of our goal here.Tao2911 (talk) 20:09, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Corrections

Hello Slp1! I was encouraged to contact you this way when I sent e-mail to Wiki. This is my first try... Today someone posted at Eido Tai Shimano site a new reference which a personal comment at personal blog. My understanding is that this is not acceptable source. Please remove it. I have not learned yet how to do it myself.

Also, I have a copy of page 135 from Tworkov book, and there is nothing there about Stewart.

Thank you, Spt51 Spt51 (talk) 17:40, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Will respond at editor's talkpage.--Slp1 (talk) 17:47, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello again!

In Tworkov book chapter about Maurine Stewart is from page 155 to 197. On the bottom of page 192 and top of 193 she explains why she left Zen Studies Society. It was due to "misuse of people" as she says, and due the "being burned by her own delusions..." In fact later she states that leaving Eido Roshi was the best thing which happen to her...

I am not sure how to refrase the paragraph in Allegations sections, or weather this should be there at all, but definitely not in present form. Footnote 15 - page 153 is wrong, and paragraph is a misrepresentation. I could e-mail you entire chapter in pdf form so you can see but where?

Thank you, Spt51 (talk) 22:02, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi, can you post this at the talkpage of the article? It will be important to bring this to the attention of other editors. Thanks for the offer of the article, but I really don't want to end up being an arbitrator of content here. If it isn't in the source given, it needs to come out, pronto, especially as two living people are involved.--Slp1 (talk) 22:15, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi again! I did it and removed the paragraph too. I am trying to learn as quickly as possible. Thank you very much for warm Welcome! Spt51 (talk) 23:49, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Hello Spl1, if you have a moment please check user talk: Tao 9211 page. Conversation between Kobutsu and Tao will be no surprise...Thanks Spt51 (talk) 02:55, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

"Kobutsu" wrote something on my talk page. I responded, in fact informing him that his apparent desire to use shimanoarchives site is not kosher. End of story. I am annoyed by the insinuation of some sort of collusion. However, I only came here to ask what you mean by "other poster at RSN" who is against use of Tricycle Magazine as source. Where is this?Tao2911 (talk) 12:51, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I saw your response to Kobutsu and appreciated it. Well said. What is concerning to me, and probably to you, is that editors who are obviously involved in the external dispute are trying to influence the article in these kinds of indirect ways. On the other hand I appreciate that Zenquaker actually added the first well-sourced information about the allegations (even though I gather he is something of a Shimano follower or whatever) [2] and that Kobutsu has chosen not to edit the article for a while, since he has a conflict of interest in this matter. Anyway, the RSN discussion about the Tricycle blog is here. It is early days, and consensus might change, but the material should stay out till it does given the initial responses. --Slp1 (talk) 13:07, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Olivia Manning

Hello! I am Mel 23 from Spanish Wikipedia. A few months ago, I've translated Olivia Manning into Spanish; right now, it is being evaluated to get the FA status there (artículo destacado). I have to solve one thing: it says "Her father, Oliver Manning, was a naval officer who rose from naval trainee to lieutenant-commander despite a lack of formal schooling". Where did you find that? I cannot find the book in Google Books and I need to check it. Thanks in advance. Regards, Mel 23 (talk) 15:27, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mel, I saw in the past that you have translated dear old Olivia into Spanish. I was amazed and impressed. I can't imagine she is very well-known in hispanophone countries. Good luck with getting FA status!! The sentence you mention comes from Braybrooke & Braybrooke 2004, pp. 2–7. I tend to put refs at the end of every few sentences where the info comes from the same pages in a book etc. --Slp1 (talk) 17:15, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. :) Mel 23 (talk) 17:21, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Huljich brothers

User:Independentobservernz is apparently not an auto-confirmed user, as he has only been registered here for two days, so I don't think a six day/one week full sysop protection is required. Could you please turn down your page protection of that article to "edit=autoconfirmed" users? Thanks, /HeyMid (contributions) 22:32, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I would rather that all the editors to stop editing the article, without the disputed material in the article, so we can hear what the Independentobservernz has to say about it. Once we hear what the problems are, we can calmly decide what, if any, changes should be made. --Slp1 (talk) 22:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The discussion is about the topic Wikipedia:Ani. Toddst1 (talk) 22:49, 18 July 2010 (UTC)

Eido Tai Shimano

Hello Spl1, I only want to leave a message that the person named tao2911 again reverted your edits. He uses links to the same sources which were decided as not reliable. I posted a note on BLPN about it but I do not know how to insert links to pages within Wiki.I am afraid I did not do a good job. I am very troubled by Tao22911 actions and his tone when he communicated with me and also others. What can be done about this? Thank you! Spt51 (talk) 20:56, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Edit Warring

Please stop the edit warring on the Richmond Gang Rape article. I see you have been actively reverting without discussing on the talk page.

Richmondian (talk) 05:48, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

You might want to review what edit warring is. It isn't edit warring to revert once, to clear consensus on RSN [3], especially given obvious BLP concerns. --Slp1 (talk) 11:21, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, I have reviewed what it is and your tag-team reverting of a new user is inappropriate. Richmondian (talk) 19:34, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess we will have to agree to differ then. Personally, I think that it is quite clear that using "the bold, revert, discuss(BRD) cycle... is not edit warring" nor is it inappropriate, especially when we are talking about the removal of poor or unsourced material about living people, introduced against consensus per the BLPN.[4] In fact I am 100% certain my one edit wouldn't be considered edit warring. And it appears others agree.[5]. Still, if you want to take it further, there's always the edit warring noticeboard where you could make a report and see what other administrators say.--Slp1 (talk) 22:47, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

New source for Eido Tai Shimano page

Hello Slp1, I would like to share with you this link: http://www.daibosatsu.org/ethical.html It looks to me that ZSS posted statement about resignation on their own site now. It contains two more paragraphs than the statement published in Tricycle blog. I wonder if this is maybe better and more reliable source to include as footnote 15 in Eido Tai Shimano page. It is posted on their own (ZSS) site and signed by trustees. Could you please, bring this question with other senior editors and if they agree replace note 15. Thank you.Spt51 (talk) 01:02, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I have added it to the article. I think it is right that both sources are included. I don't think the tricycle editors' blog needs to be deleted, now that there is confirmation, and indeed (sadly) amplification.--Slp1 (talk) 01:31, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Please , help

Hello Slp1. Could you, please help me. I added the sentence in Nyogen Senzaki page about the meaning of his name, and have two references for this. However I tried to insert citations in the text and am not able to do it right. Could you please insert them for me. Two citations are: In Shimano book on page 5, In Nordstrom book on page 14. Thanks! Spt51 (talk) 20:57, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Spt51. It took me ages to figure out footnotes etc, so I am glad to help. I added the references for you here! You need to use the codes <ref> and </ref> at either end of the citation. The <ref name = > thing is only useful/used when you want to use the same reference several times: you give the first citation a ref name and then after that you can simple type in <ref name = XXXXXX /> rather than the whole shebang. You can read more about the complexities of footnotes here WP:FN.--Slp1 (talk) 21:54, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much! Now I can see how you did this and will study the link.Spt51 (talk) 01:39, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Slp1, I have another question. After adding Bibliography and improving consistency to the same form as in Eido Shimano page how do I add links to titles of books in Bibliography and References section? Thank you! Spt51 (talk) 17:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not exactly sure what you mean. What kind of links are you wanting to add? This might help, but if you can give me some more information I can be more specific --Slp1 (talk) 17:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

I see that in Bibliography and References sections in Eido Shimano's page the title of each book is linked to URL. Is it necessary to do the same in Nyogen Senzaki's page, where I added bibliography and references? If yes than how and to what URL it should be linked? I hope I am clear. Thanks. Spt51 (talk) 21:20, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Okay, now I understand. Thanks. Well, first off it isn't really necessary to add the urls to the books, but it is a kindness for people who would like to check the original. If you decide to do it you can use several methods. Here are two of the easiest:

• Simply put [ before the booklink, then leave a space before the title, then close with ]. I've demonstrated in the article here
• Use the cite book template. Template:Cite book. You can copy and paste the template and fill in the parameters you have, including the url to googlebooks etc; or you can use this excellent tool [6]. Simply select isbn instead of pubmed at the top left, paste in the isbn number of the book. If you are lucky it will fill in most o the parameters (not the url to the book, though, unfortunately). But all you have to do is add |url= and the link to googlebooks and then paste the whole thing into the article. That's what I did here. I hope that helps. --Slp1 (talk) 21:54, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your time. I appreciate your help very much. I will struggle to add URLs. So much to learn to be fluent in editing Wiki. Spt51 (talk) 23:50, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

You are very welcome. I agree that wiki markup or the conventions here are not that easy to master. It took me ages to figure out things, and I am still learning, of course!!! Please get back to me if you need further help.--Slp1 (talk) 23:52, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I have another question, if you do not mind. How did you changed the bold "See also" to normal fonts in the bottom of Nyogen Senzaki page? I cannot find how to do this. I would like to do the same on Eido Shimano page and move this section to the bottom. Thanks.Spt51 (talk) 14:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by bold, but in fact I did not mean to make the references and "see also" small; I've now removed the code that made it so. I also see that I've made a mistake moving the "see also" section down, and will be moving it up again! BTW you did a great job adding the urls Slp1 (talk) 14:22, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much! It looks great now. What I meant by bold is that each section's headings were in bold fonts but suddenly "See also" heading was not. I could not figure out how this happened. It looks better to have them all in bold fonts. Thank you.Spt51 (talk) 14:47, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Can I ask for you advice? I am looking at page of Robert Aitken Roshi. He was the one who posted the "infamous" letter to Eido Roshi on his blog. He died on August 5th. His page had several banners before asking for improvements. I see that the same information are on the top of page, than again on the bottom of Biography section, and again in Diamond Sangha Section. I would get rid of Diamond Sangha section, /it looks like advertisement to me/ and simply add the link to Honolulu Diamond Sangha at the top of page. Also is the Gallery necessary? Someone questioned this in Discussion page earlier. What do you think? Thank you.Spt51 (talk) 20:34, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to hear about Robert Aitken. I'm guessing he was a fine man.

In articles, some limited repetition is to be expected, particularly as the lead section is supposed to summarize the full article. But I agree with you about the advertising quality of the section about the Diamond Sangha at the bottom, which needs to be rewritten for tone. The info would also probably be best incorporated into the body of the text, rather than having a separate section at the bottom. Personally I don't mind the gallery, but it is true that some of the pics are a bit repetitive.

One of the main rules here is Be bold!. If you see something wrong, you are encouraged to just go ahead and fix it. It is important to use good edit summaries, explaining what you have done and why, but you should feel free to just go ahead. If others don't like it, they can always revert your actions, and then you can start a discussion about things. On the other hand, if you want to test the waters first, you can always write a little section on the talkpage of the article, and ask what others think about it. --Slp1 (talk) 20:58, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for encouragement. I condensed this section into two sentences, and would like to add citations, but they all three are external links, listed below. Do I have to move them into references section first? Thanks.Spt51 (talk) 23:46, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Looks good. For what it is worth, I'd move it higher, where it talks about the founding of the Diamond Sangha. It should lose the "Today" which seems very much like advertising to me. References. Well, the best references would be a secondary source such as book or a magazine or a newspaper writing about it. You could also use Diamond Sangha's own website if push comes to shove. Other self-published sources (ie blogs/websites) should not used. See WP:RS. --Slp1 (talk) 01:03, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. First, the references I included are external links of their own websites, except the Buddhist Peace Fellowship. I do not think there are any written books about it, or maybe I do not know. It looks this page was written by students of Aitken and they did not include any references for long time. To be honest, I do not think this part should be included at all. This is about the group of people and centers and their agenda and not about the man himself. Perhaps the best would be just include their website's link to Honolulu Diamond Sangha in the second sentence on the top of page, end erase the part at the end. If not where exactly do you suggest to insert this? It will look as advertisement anyway. How can I connect external link to the words Honolulu Diamond Sangha in second sentence? On the other hand, I see the banner in discussion page that the section Diamond Sangha should not be removed, but I did... What do you think?, Thanks!Spt51 (talk) 14:17, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

As you can see I moved the last two short paragraphs to the middle of Biography text. It looks a bit strange, but it maybe the only way if we want to have anything about Diamond Sangha.

The only links for references I know is their- Diamond Sangha - website. I hope this is acceptable. This is all I can do for this page. I do not have better references to include. Please, take a look. Thank you.Spt51 (talk) 01:34, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Having had a quick look, it looks like you've done a great job. I've deleted some info that seems a wee bit promotional and more about the sangha than about Aitken per se. Sorry for the delay in responding. I've been busy with real life (work!!) and distracted by other editing interests! Congrats and keep up the great work. --Slp1 (talk) 01:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much!Spt51 (talk) 02:43, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Philip Kapleau

Hello Slp1. I looked at Philip Kapleau page. Perhaps? it is well written but there is no notes section and no references and no citations included. Also someone pointed out few peacock terms. Can someone paste couple of banners there so it will inspire authors to complete the page. I do not know yet how to do this. Thanks.Spt51 (talk) 20:30, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding. I've been busy with real life. You can add the templates in various ways:

• Look at this list WP:TMC, and add the relevant template(s) {{xxxxx}} to the top of the page; they will expand to the full text when you save.
• One another way is to use WP:TWINKLE. You can do this by going to "My preferences" above, beside your WP user name, then picking the "gadgets" tab and following the instructions after having checked Twinkle. This allows you do add these kinds of article improvement templates automatically using a TW tab that will appear beside the read, edit, history etc tabs at the top of an article. It also automates various other things too, but be careful as it makes it easy to do some rather drastic things!

I hope that helps.--Slp1 (talk) 16:09, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Slp1.Thank you very much! You are an incredible person, helpful and thoughtful! I am not feeling confident to use the Twinkle yet but I will try to install banner using the first method.Spt51 (talk) 15:20, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Slp1! I have another question. How one dales with pages like this one [7] and this one [8]? There is and advertising and promoting feel and grandiosity to both of them. The page RZC has again too much info about Kapleau himself, it is the same situation as it was with the page Diamond Sangha. The reference number 1 is from book where on page 150 there is reprinted "information leaflet" made by RZC as a source! Is this acceptable? I have included few references and citations but there is a request for citations there for long time. Tags does not seem to help to encourage authors to provide citations for facts. If you have the moment, could you please look at this. Thank you.Spt51 (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I've had a very quick look, and I agree that there is a promotional feel and a lack of references. You can do a variety of things, or a combination of them. The tags look good, but this will likely take time to have effect; adding sources yourself is an even more positive step. I also think that you could prune out some of the more obvious promotion and weasel words, by rewording or deleting if it is unsourced or unnecessary. The pamphlet and website of the RZC is probably okay as a source for the RZC (see WP:SELFPUB), but the articles do need to be mainly based on independent sources. --Slp1 (talk) 18:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I will get back to this page later if nobody does the work. There are three or so pages closer to my heart, which I would like to improve with citations etc.

Another question: This source [9] has collaborating info about Aitken and Soen Nakagawa relationship deteriorating and it is written by Aitken himself. Can I use it as a reference to the passage I inserted in Robert Baker Aitken page? I do not want to get in conflict with Tao man, so I want to be sure. Or maybe it is not necessary to add more citations there.

Thank you for inserting newest info in Eido Shimano page. I have one questions. From the info on ZSS website I read that new students will be accepted by new Vice-abbot. Can this info be added so there is no impression that the place is "going out of business" completely.

If the source is not used in particular article can it be deleted from references? Thank you.Spt51 (talk) 17:05, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

I'd suggest asking your questions about specific articles on the talkpage of the articles. That's always the best place, if you are unsure. My quick opinion would be that a memoir by Aitken would be fine as a source, though if it is controversial it should be attributed to him. e.g. "In this book, xxxxx, Aitken wrote that ......" . The bit out the vice-abbot taking new students would be appropriate in an ZSS article, but is more or less irrelevant in the Shimano article, in my view. And I think it is best to leave unused refs, just in case they become useful later on. Unless there is a particular reason, that is. Slp1 (talk) 18:38, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, I did not know that someone is looking at these talk pages to answer questions.Spt51 (talk) 13:51, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Troy Davis case

Great work so far on this. --Cameron Scott (talk) 22:03, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I really appreciate it. It is actually very interesting to find out about the case, and I will continue to work on the article, in my usual sequential fashion, as time permits in the next few days. --Slp1 (talk) 00:55, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

You are doing a good job. Thank you for your careful editing of this heretofore highly troubled article. Be sure to look at the comparative table of witness statements (recently deleted from the article) for information that can be used.184.97.141.163 (talk) 02:14, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I have been looking at the deleted chart, and will look at it again as I edit. --Slp1 (talk) 13:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

You've been doing a very good job of bringing NPOV to this article. Just one thing: At some places in this article it says "Troy" or "Troy's" when it should be "Davis" or "Davis's." Also, the article uses "Davis'" and "Davis's" interchangably when it should be consistent. Strunk & White say to use s-apostrophe only for ancient names (Jesus, Socrates, etc.), which seems to exclude Davis.Bellczar (talk) 16:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I was aware that various different styles going on. I was leaving that for later, thinking that I preferred to do the content first. But if you feel like fixing these sorts of things sooner that would be very helpful, and save me a job.--Slp1 (talk) 22:12, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Speech and language pathology and related articles

Help! I started out trying to edit one article Speech and language pathology but this now looks more of a series of already existing articles which need to be coordinated and linked together as a Wikipedia project of some type. Using Speech and language pathology as a lead summary article with a series of detailed sub articles, such as speech disorder, language disorder, speech repetition, Speech and language pathology in school settings, Speech and language assessment, Manner of articulation, etc. It seems like i find more existing articles each day. dolfrog (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

I do agree that a number of this articles are terrible. I'm not sure I agree that the solution will always be to have the SLP article with subarticles. Some of these topics (e.g. Manner of Articulation) are separate topics. In my view, Speech and language pathology in school settings and Speech and language assessment have so many problems (both in content and in concept) that they should be made redirects to the parent article. Can you make a list of all the articles involved and I will then take a look at the full picture. --Slp1 (talk) 13:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I have created a new temporary Sandbox Speech and Language project where i have listed all of the articles I have found so far, under various headings to provide some initial form of classification. For some articles I was not too sure how to categorise them but I am sure that you can correct my mistakes and add articles I may have missed. dolfrog (talk) 19:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry to have taken so long to get back to this. I agree that it looks like quite a mess. I don't really have much time at the moment to devote to this, unfortunately, though in a few days I promise to annotate your list and I may do some rough sorting out, renaming, rationalizing etc. I seem to remember noticing big copyright violations too. It would be very helpful if you could google sentences from various articles and see if they end up being copy and paste vios. If so, just delete the offending parts. Or reword if you want. --Slp1 (talk) 22:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hello Slp1. I have a question. Today I inserted passage to Robert Baker Aitken page about Eido Shimano being sent to Hawaii in 1960 to help Diamond Sangha /same fact is in Shimano page/ with citation from book, and wording is the same as in book. In this page which was considered very one-sided and picturing Aitken without problems I consider this important fact, and strangely enough there was nothing there about it.[10] The same person Tao2911 erased the passage. Am I doing something wrong to include this factual info in the page? I wonder if this person is a student of Aitken. He was trying to use unacceptable sources in Shimano's page. Now he objects to legitimate source in Aitken page.[11] I also left info in Discussion page of Aitken about it. Please take a look at this. ThanksSpt51 (talk) 00:42, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

You've done well, especially by commenting on the talkpage. A few suggestions: Tao is right that there are some grammatical problems with the addition; it would be a good idea to correct these. Second, here's a better url for your citation, which goes straight to the correct page. [12]. I do by putting a sentence from the page in the book that I want to cite into googlebooks, hitting search, and then copying the first page of the url given, ending after the bit that sets the page number - the PAxxx part. That way the person can check the citation in one click. Third, if things continue, I don't think I'm the best person to get involved directly, given that I have been in conflict with Tao before. I would try a bit more discussion on the top page, but if that doesn't work, try a third opinion or requesting input at the Buddhism wikiproject--Slp1 (talk) 13:11, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I corrected the passage and hope it is OK. I do make mistakes because English is not my native language. Thanks for info about the link. I do not want to fight with Tao, so if he does reverse this I will take it to the page you suggest and let others decide. Thank you.Spt51 (talk) 14:41, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Sims

Looks real good now, well done. Off2riorob (talk) 19:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Israel_Shamir

Good calming proposal. Could you kick off the sources list in a new section or sub-section so the 'proposals wanted' thread appears inviting for any other suggestions? Thanks, Fæ (talk) 23:05, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. I think I was working on just what you were proposing while you were writing this. At least I hope I was!! --Slp1 (talk) 23:45, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I have been itching to number the list of sources(using <li> tags), making them easier to discuss. Would you have any objection to this minor bit of WP:RTP? Fæ (talk) 12:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Do go ahead. I did think about numbering them, but the one way I know of numbering wouldn't have worked. If you do it, I will learn a new trick! --Slp1 (talk) 12:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

How can I upload a picture and insert into the page?

Hello Slp1. I know that you are busy now but perhaps you can advice me where to look for help, or direct to someone else. My question at the image upload page was not answered. I have been studying the info but am absolutely confused which copyright tag to use etc. I have a free picture of Toni Packer, which I would like to insert there [13]. It can go to public domain or other category, I do not know which one is appropriate. Please, can someone explain to me how to do it step by step. Thank you. Spt51 (talk) 01:19, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm not the best one for pictures, since I tend to struggle with this myself. On the images page you ask about reducing the size the picture. Not sure what you mean by that, but it would be probably be best to do that offline, using Paint or something to crop the picture. It would be best if your friend did the upload, since he is the one who can legally release the picture to Wikipedia. As far as what copyright tag to use, here is how I tagged a picture that I took [14], but it is on the Wikimedia commons. Here's one that somebody's mother took that is on English Wikipedia [15]. You could copy/modify the reasoning and wording for your purposes.--Slp1 (talk) 12:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Thank you! I did edit picture myself and it is ready to upload. I see that the picture in second link you included was uploaded by mother of an author. If my friend does not want to bother can I unload it due to the fact that he gave me permission to do whatever I wish with this picture? Spt51 (talk) 13:30, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I hesitate to say "yes" and be wrong. Why don't you ask the question here WP:ICHD and you can get the response of more informed editors.--Slp1 (talk) 13:46, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

I e-mailed all the instructions with the edited picture to my friend and will see if he is willing to do this. If not than I will ask or just abandon the project. Thank you very much for your help again. Spt51 (talk) 14:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Added some guidance on User talk:Spt51. Fæ (talk) 13:51, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Vote comment

As you commented in the pending closure discussion I am notifying you that the Wikipedia:Pending changes/Vote comment is now open and will be for two weeks, discussion as required can continue on the talkpage. Thanks. Off2riorob (talk) 00:04, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

how to revert edit

Hello Slp1! I was away from computer for few days but today just looked at Eido Shimano page and again there are new edits by Tao to Allegations section. This new version is not true one and the sources do not prove the language of it. I was trying to reverse it to your last edit but do not know how to do it. Could you, please, ask other administrators to revert this and ask the man to stop editing this page. Thanks. Spt51 (talk) 02:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Slp1. You have new messages at Giftiger wunsch's talk page.
Message added 22:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Your claims about me

Just thought I'd point out that your accusations concerning my editing aren't true. I've got a strong track record of writing about sex discrimination and equality issues as that's one of my main areas of interest and expertise. Being interested in articles relating to sexism doesn't constitute advocacy at all and we're all entitled to have our own set of interests. Anyway I don't suppose you'll change your mind and you're entitled to your opinions, though your comments regarding the Harriet Harman article are demonstrably false. I'd urge you to at least take a look at the edits again and the talk pages. Your quite right that the comments about her hating marriage were removed, but you should perhaps consider who decided to do this and how it occurred? Similarly if you view the article history you'll see that I didn't author the text about PIE / NCCL whatsoever - I was merely enforcing the consensus that was established in the talk page and amongst editors at the time and reverting inappropriate removals of the content added by others. I've absolutely no problem with the content being rewritten and moved elsewhere now that the consensus has changed--Shakehandsman (talk) 23:07, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I can only go on your edits. You may have have a strong "track record of writing about sex discrimination and equality issues" but as I noted at ANI, the record clearly shows that your edits are non-neutral, push a particular point of view, violate various policies including WP:BLP, and have been resisted by many other editors.

Per WP:V and WP:BLP you are responsible for any material you insert or restore."the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. It is irrelevant whether you authored the material, since it is up to you to check each and every edit to ensure they follow all the policies and guidelines. The Leo Mckinstry quote, for example, that you placed in the Harriet Harman article is simply false. Article interviewees writers don't write headlines, some Daily Mail staff person wanting to stir up some reader interest did. In doing so you placed incorrect information about 2 living people into the encyclopedia. I note that after a little over a month you replaced the false "hating marriage" quote with another one, "dangerous gospel of feminist fascism". Not exactly an improvement from a NPOV perspective, but at least it was actually in the Daily Mail article.

WP:BLP also says "When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first." You often restore material deleted on BLP ground without gaining consensus or in fact engaging in any kind of discussion at all. It is utter rubbish to say that you have restored edits to enforce a talk page consensus. Here's how the Hewitt article's talkpage looked when you (re)placed the pedophile allegation in the article. Here's how the Harriet Harman talkpage] looked when you inserted information about child pornography info. There's no discussion about either topic on either talkpage, no consensus at all.

There's nothing wrong with making mistakes. The point is to recognize them and to seek to do better in the future. And I will be happy to change my mind and forget about all these concerns if I see that you have taken the issues raised to heart and are editing appropriately in the future. It really is up to you. It is good to see that you have accepted the Harriet Harman edit as being inappropriate. It seems like a good beginning which I would be very happy to see continue.--Slp1 (talk) 23:59, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but you are 100% mistaken. Section 28 of the Harriet Harman article discusses the child porn issue, it was added by yet another different user way back in march. It just has a different title called "paedophile Information Exchange" As I said before I was simply enforcing consensus. I realise you've missed this due to the different title so don't hold any hard feelings, but please re-read the talk page. Here's the section:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Harriet_Harman&oldid=381196057#Paedophile_Information_Exchange --Shakehandsman (talk) 00:21, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

also you'll note from that talk page that I recommended the material was more suited to the Harman article than the Hewitt one. Similarly if I deleted the quote abotu haintg marriage then that is relevant simply because your comments elsewhere very much implied as if someone else had removed the material or it was somehow against my wishes.--Shakehandsman (talk) 00:28, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You are right that there was a related discussion about different material], which ended with with Off2riorob very correctly saying the totally inappropriate material linking her to pedophilia, sodomy should not be included. There was absolutely no consensus for it to be included, and it wasn't, thank goodness. You added different material, nearly a month later, and in any case, "enforcing consensus" is best left to administrators, particularly when there are BLP issues involved. I do hope there are no hard feelings. My hope is that you will take some time to honestly assess the comments you have received in the last few hours in multiple places and see if some changes might be in order. --Slp1 (talk) 00:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

No it's not different material at all, it's all very much the same controversy, just with early version being poorly written and later additions being much improved. Similarly you are totally wrong about Leo McKinstry. he isn't an interviewee in the slightest - he's a well known journalist who regularly writes for the Daily Mail. In fact eh started his journalism career immediately after he stopped working for Harman - it's in the article. Therefore that edit about Harman wasn't at all inappropriate, I removed it because I came to the conclusion it wasn't especially notable or helpful to focus on marriage. You are just making so many different mistakes here it's getting somewhat frustrating. Please take the time to read up on things before you make any allegations as they can cause significant difficulties for other people, particularly when say when posted on the administrators noticeboard.--Shakehandsman (talk) 01:00, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I've corrected "interviewee" to "writer" above but it's irrelevant to actual point, which is that Leo Mckinstry did not say what you claimed he did about Harriet Harman. I've also checked and rechecked the discussion on the talkpage but I don't see any discussion about or consensus for your edit to restore child pornography section, as required by policy given that it was deleted due to BLP concerns] on August 26th. A discussion that ended in July about a different proposed text that contains no mention of the child pornography and which there was no consensus to include simply doesn't cut it. I also think it is clear from the subsequent discussion at [[16]] that even if you did have consensus on the talkpage, the edit violated several WP policies.

While I can understand the desire to pick holes in the examples given, it's unfortunate because it suggests that the larger picture is not being looked at; that multiple editors in multiple places and over a long period of time have indicated that your edits are problematic at times. I urge you to consider that there may be a grain of truth in what I and others have been saying. Like I say, it's up to you. I'm not going to respond again. If you want to have a final word, by all means go ahead. --Slp1 (talk) 01:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not "picking holes", the facts regarding Leo McKinstry and the consensus on the Harman article alter everything. You've been making false statements about my editing on the administrators noticeboard and I really don't appreciate it at all. I know some of these may have been partly accidental but it doesn't really alter the impact this has had. An honest assessment of the "comments I've received" would be that many stem from people believing your false allegations and those of Off2riorob - so to expect me to re-examine anything on the basis of that is ridiculous. We're not going to agree on everything and everyone makes mistakes but I'd urge to to retract at least some of the untruths I'll regard the matter as being closed. I'd also urge you to read up on Wikipedia polices such as Wikipedia:Assume_good_faith as I believe it's a hugely important policy.--Shakehandsman (talk) 02:34, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

It's too bad you are taking this approach. There have been no false allegations tor retract, and the concerns and disagreements with your edits, as you know, go way beyond me and Off2riorob, and way before the last day or so. I was hoping you might take this opportunity to learn and grow as a WP editor, as we all need to do. It helps to edit as closely as possible to policy because edits stick for longer! But repeating that there are no problems and ignoring explanations to the contrary is not a good sign of that. Unfortunately, in my experience editors who ignore feedback in the long run end up with official warnings and blocks. Good luck Slp1 (talk) 03:54, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

To be fair I probably didn't explain the problem and apologies if I didn't make it clear, but other people are now repeating all your false allegations and using them as fact which is the main reason they need retracting. It's not just a civility and accuracy thing, false allegations and mistakes really do cause problems.--Shakehandsman (talk) 05:38, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

But there is nothing false about the concerns I and many others have, over a long period, had about your edits to articles, especially to BLP articles, with regard to verifiability, undue weights, NPOV etc. [17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32]. I've not been the first, and if things don't change, I won't be the last to notice the problems, so trying to personalize the issue as something between me and you, is inaccurate and unhelpful. Speaking of which, can I ask you stop posting here? If you sincerely believe that my edits have been problematic then I suggest you initiate a wikiquette alert or a request for comment, or alert the administrators noticeboard --Slp1 (talk) 19:14, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hello Slp1. I am so sorry to bother you with another question but I am still learning WIKI. While I surfed through discussions on RSN I noticed statements by you and Off2riorob that if the source is decided as not acceptable, this applies to entire Wikipedia, ie cannot be used anywhere in Wiki, in other pages. Am I correct? I am asking because I noticed that shimanorchive.com, the source which was rejected by consensus as not acceptable in Eido Shimano page, was used in page Chester Carlsonas external link and as citation. I did remove it and asked to provide different sources for a statement. The statement itself was valid and this is not living person bio. Now the author of page is commenting that it is a nonsense that this source is not reliable. Of course I do not want to go to lengthy discussions and perhaps he is not aware how strict are the rules for BLP. Am I right removing it? I did explain why two times in discussion page there. Thank you. Spt51 (talk) 23:30, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

This problem is taken care off.Spt51 (talk) 03:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Shimano Letter

Hello Slp1. I did notice that Tricycle blog today published Eido Shimano Roshi's letter to his students. Could you, please update the date of his stepping down and maybe/?/ the info about the letter should be included too. Here is the link: http://www.tricycle.com/blog/?m=20100907. Maybe they will post the letter on ZSS site too, but so far is not yet there. Thank you very much.Spt51 (talk) 03:09, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Perhaps you can suggest this at the talkpage of the article. It seems that you don't feel it is appropriate to edit the article yourself, which is fine, and a very good decision if you have a conflict of interest of some sort. However, rather than suggest edits to specific editors, it would be better to bring the matter to the attention of as many editors as possible on the talkpage. I have that article watchlisted, so will comment there, if you propose it. --Slp1 (talk) 12:28, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

No, I do not have any conflict and will add it myself. If I make a mistake or someone feels it is not ok, I hope it will be corrected. Thanks.Spt51 (talk) 01:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Adventures in the popular press

User talk:SandyGeorgia#Adventures in the popular press SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:29, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

IRC

Please get on there. I have something I need to discuss with you.— Dædαlus ^Contribs 22:06, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm afraid I have no clue how to get on IRC or even really what it is. I prefer to keep things on wiki if possible, but if it is confidential you can always send me an email. --Slp1 (talk) 22:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For your extraordinary diligence with the Eido Tai Shimano page, in particular going to the library to verify sources not available online in the name of building consensus around a most fractious topic that has already eaten more than enough of your time, I present you with this Barnstar of Diligence in recognition of your selfless labor. ⌘macwhiz (talk) 01:16, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Much appreciated! Thank you too for all your help on the noticeboards you've been commenting on. Slp1 (talk) 22:21, 14 September 2010 (UTC)

Terry Fox TFA

Just wanted to let you know that the article will be on the main page on Saturday night/Sunday. I'm curious to see how many people view our work. Cheers! Resolute 03:26, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know. I never know whether to be happy or sad when this happens; while the exposure is great, the exposure to vandalism isn't! I'll try and keep an eye on things when I have a minute.

It's very gracious to you to say "our work", BTW, since the article was almost all your work. Congratulations once again. --Slp1 (talk) 12:18, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

The day actually went quite well... I think there's been more vandalism since the TFA than there was on the day. Anyway, I was checking the page view stats. 83,000 views on the 19th, and another 23,000 on the 20th. The only TFA in the previous two weeks that came remotely close was the Rosetta Stone at 100k and 19k. Definitely nice to reach that many people with the story. :) Resolute 21:08, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, you are right about the day and about the vandalism. It's Terry Fox run time and it seems that the article always has to be protected around this time of year. I was going to do it, but somebody else got there first!! It was great the number of page views it got. I wonder why 65k looked at it on the 29th? I would never thought of having to look at that, but you are right that it is good to think of how many people got to know about Fox and his amazing feat/feet! --Slp1 (talk) 01:26, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I think National School Run Day was the 30th, so I imagine a ton of schools were teaching about him on the 29th. Resolute 03:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Ah, thanks probably it!! It is amazing to think that the page got about a third of a million views in September. Such an important article from a Canadian perspective... I wonder if there are others. Articles related to the October Crisis are very weak (and very topical) , but it is such a grim subject. --Slp1 (talk) 17:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

The idea of working on other Canadian historical articles has crossed my mind in the past. The FLQ crisis would be an interesting one, especially given I would have to leave my loathing of Trudeau at the door!  ;) Resolute 20:05, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

International Law

Hi Slp1, I apologize for cluttering up your talk page, but since you seem to be interested in international law, I thought I would correct a small misapprehension. An amended treaty needs to be ratified to be binding. Even Wikipedia's article on treaties verifies this:

“ "There are three ways an existing treaty can be amended. First, formal amendment requires States parties to the treaty to go through the ratification process all over again. The re-negotiation of treaty provisions can be long and protracted, and often some parties to the original treaty will not become parties to the amended treaty. When determining the legal obligations of states, one party to the original treaty and one a party to the amended treaty, the states will only be bound by the terms they both agreed upon. Treaties can also be amended informally by the treaty executive council when the changes are only procedural, technical, or administrative (not principled changes). Finally, a change in customary international law (state behavior) can also amend a treaty, where state behavior evinces a new interpretation of the legal obligations under the treaty." ”

US Constitutional Law requires congressional approval for all treaty obligations. Congress cannot approve a treaty, then have it amended to different obligations without voting to approve those new obligations.

By the way, I have proposed a compromise rewording of the Challenger Deep text that may make the entire point moot anyway. I would appreciate your feedback on it. Regards. Fell Gleaming^talk 14:07, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Oh no, it doesn't, if the second or third methods are used. Find some evidence that the 1993 amendment is considered a formal amendment... and note that WP articles are not reliable sources. --Slp1 (talk) 14:28, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Pending changes/Straw poll on interim usage

Hi. As you recently commented in the straw poll regarding the ongoing usage and trial of Pending changes, this is to notify you that there is an interim straw poll with regard to keeping the tool switched on or switching it off while improvements are worked on and due for release on November 9, 2010. This new poll is only in regard to this issue and sets no precedent for any future usage. Your input on this issue is greatly appreciated. Off2riorob (talk) 23:48, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of Pari Nadimi Gallery entry

Hello,

I appreciate your concern, but the West Queen West website has the information for the gallery because I gave them permission to use it. I work for the gallery and am entirely authorized to use information from the gallery website in the entry. As for the prominence of the gallery, it is not merely a small, local gallery. We are known both nationally and internationally, and represent significant artists, such as David Rokeby, one of the most esteemed new media artists in the world. Please let me know how the article can be reinstated.

Thank you,

Scott —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scotthamp (talk • contribs) 2010-10-01T20:52:21

Thanks Scott, but unfortunately we can have no idea if you are who you say you are, so cannot use the content on the website unless you and the gallery follow the instructions here to donate the material to WP. If the gallery is a prominent one, then it will be easy to find independent secondary sources about its history, importance etc to use as references. I had a quick look and saw lots of brief mentions, but nothing really substantial, but perhaps I am missing something. What I did find, however, is that the gallery is involved in a lawsuit that has covered in the Globe and Mail and elsewhere etc. Just be aware that if you do prove notability and rewrite the article, it is likely that somebody will come along and add information about that and perhaps other negative things about the gallery; maybe you don't mind, but it is worth knowing that you won't own the article as you do your own website. While WP has controls about what can be included in the article, if information comes from a reliable source then it is generally acceptable. The other piece of important information you have mentioned is that you work for the gallery. As such you have a significant conflict of interest in this matter. You should read the guidelines about how to edit with COI: you aren't forbidden from editing including creating articles, but it is strongly discouraged, but it is very hard to be neutral about such areas. Hope that helps. As I saw, I'm sorry, but I am sure that if you look at the big picture you will see there is some sense to these rules. --Slp1 (talk) 21:07, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Cordial thanks for fine work

Hi, Slp1! I notice you just edited Challenger Deep (I have it on my watchlist) and that reminded me of something I meant to say earlier. Thank you! Thank you for the very extensive and in-depth research you undertook there recently to counter the silliness that one user was engaging in to push his POV. I've very rarely seen an editor engage in that level of ... well, scholarship, I think would be the word, in an area she's not already an expert in. Yes, I said "she". Not to speak too personally, but I'm glad you're a "she": collaboration works much better in gender-mixed groups, imo. If it makes you feel any better re the frequent mistakes you mention on your user page, I did refer to a male editor as "she" for a month or so before he (rather irritably) corrected my mistake. Couldn't remember how I first made the incorrect assumption. Anyway, thanks very much for stepping in there with that fine work. Very admirable indeed. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 03:08, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

I really appreciate you taking the time to say the above, and to know that the work, that I sometimes think is pointless, is valued by some people at least. But I confess that people who try to use WP to push a POV, and especially those who misuse sources to do so, annoy the heck out of me. So a little (or a lot of) checking and other research is sometimes required, and generally it turns out to be quite interesting in one way or another.

As far as your comment about gender-mixed groups working better, it seems that your opinion is backed by up research by Carnegie Mellon University. There was an article about it in the Globe and Mail just yesterday!.

Thanks again --Slp1 (talk) 17:17, 2 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, you're most welcome! I know it can be a bit frustrating at times to work so hard and have it go unacknowledged, as if no one had noticed. But I'm of the opinion that such things are noticed by a great many people; they're just a bit too shy to say so as often as would be desirable, or perhaps just too caught up in their own concerns to recognize the importance of doing so. So much to keep track of in modern society, and our poor brains get overwhelmed with all the details, I think. Thousands more per day than our hunter-gatherer antecedents, I believe. ;-)

Thanks for the ref to the Globe and Mail article. I wonder whether the benefit actually depends on gender directly or on the truth that most women make their decisions based on what Jung called "feeling values" as opposed to the impersonal, rules-based way of deciding most men rely on, what Jung called "thinking judgment"? ( The term "feeling" has nothing - or very little, anyway - to do with "feelings" or "emotion"; it's just a different basis for deciding: values-based as opposed to rules-based. ) When measured via the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator it's my recollection that 75% of men test as "thinking types" and 75% of women test as "feeling types". I wonder, too, if sensitivity to social cues correlates as strongly to gender as it does to the preference between these two ways of deciding. But in practical terms, I've always found a mixed gender-group to be most effective. Less gender-specific silliness, imo. Men focus less on competition, and women ... well, I won't finish that sentence. One is allowed to criticize the typical follies of one's own gender, I think, but not so much re the other kind.

Finally, I was close to giving you a barnstar for your work at Challenger Deep, but I know those are intended for longer-term contributions. So I played around with templates a bit, and came up with what you'll see below. ( Perhaps you might like to move or copy it to your user page? ) The code might be a little wonky - it's my first attempt - so feel free to tweak it if the thing doesn't display as you'd like. But I did think you earned some special acknowledgement for the very commendable, in-depth research you undertook on that article. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 17:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Hey Ohio Standard... thanks so much for the barnstar, and the very original one at that! It's fantastic. I only worry that my post above came out as begging for one. It wasn't meant to be, I promise.

And yes, I think you are right about the "feelings" quotient. The researchers called "social sensitivity" and said that it could be found in men and women; it is just more common in women, according to them (and others) it appears. Anyway thanks again!! --Slp1 (talk) 21:40, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

User award

		The Sherlock Holmes Award for Exceptional Sleuthing to Discover the Facts in an Unfamiliar Area of Inquiry
		Conferred for your tenacity and scholarship in researching the legal constraints on the disposal of nuclear waste at sea in connection with the Challenger Deep article. Not many editors will take such care to discover the facts in an area outside their area of training and expertise, and you did! We would have been all to seek without your scholarship in tracking down sources and taking the time to understand a rather complex series of documents. The article is very much the better for your exceptional diligence, and you should be proud of your contribution. Thanks!  – OhioStandard (talk) 17:59, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

help

I don't know how to leave you a message besides this. You were the only one who was fair with me when my friend tried to post a personal page for me in April. Now he tried to post a page only about my book, which is VASTLY more notable, and it is being censored again. Please look at the page. There are plenty of cites to use.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Men_Know_that_Women_Don%27t

And at the delete discussion page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/What_Men_Know_that_Women_Don%27t

I'm VERY SORRY to bother you. I don't know what else to do. I'd be happy to fix this thing if someone guides me through it. Last time they said we didn't have enough cites about me, only my book. This time we loaded it with beaucoup quoted cites about the book, and they said there were too many direct quotes. They're hypocrites. They hate the book and are fishing for reasons to ban it. Please. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.234.207.192 (talk) 23:41, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Hello Rich. I've had a look and I fear that your book may not meet the criteria here. There is the Irish Times review, but the Spokesman Review article [33] isn't a book review, but a discussion of the men/women issues with a brief mention of you and the book. I have, however, found one additional (very uncomplimentary) semi-review [34] from the Press-Republican, but I suspect it is not enough.

I don't see anything in the deletion debate for your article where people suggested the book might be notable but not you, but in any case, attacking other editors, saying they are biased, censoring, hypocrites etc is absolutely the wrong way to go about things. Berating people doesn't work in real life and it doesn't work here either. I suggest you strike (using this code <s> around what you want to cross out </s>) all the negative remarks and accusations.

I also suggest going out and finding the citations/reviews that are required per WP:NBOOK. You could add the review above, for example. However, as I mentioned in the last deletion debate, there is a danger for you in having the book listed. The comments about your book are by no means all complimentary, and I seem to remember various scholarly articles and other books calling it misogynistic. It won't be possible to keep these negative comments out of the article, since this is an encyclopedia, not an advertising service. Is that really what you want? Personally, I suggest you stand back, look at the WP:NBOOK criteria, and honestly decide if the book really meets the grade here or not. If it does, great, just go out and find the sources to prove it. If not, it might actually be a good thing, so accept it "like a man"!!!! --Slp1 (talk) 00:17, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

That's not really a very ladylike comment, now, is it, your final sentence? ( The reinforcement of cultural and gender stereotypes isn't quite as much fun on the receiving end, is it? Just food for thought. ) Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 20:17, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I don't mind it at all, given the context. Zubaty (the IP) is an ardent promoter of gender stereotypes, including the strength and superiority of men, and he actively promotes the concept of acting "like a man" as opposed to the feminized "manholes" he decries. But thanks; it is probably a good idea to point out that this was an individualized comment directed to a very specific editor with a very particular perspective and does not reflect my personal opinion about gender issues at all. --Slp1 (talk) 21:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah, yes. I see... Well, there's nothing like confidently correcting another person with complete obliviousness as to that troublesome and overrated matter of context, I always say! Everyone needs a hobby, wot? I seem to be doing a lot of this lately: Sorry, then, and thanks for your gracious reply.  – OhioStandard (talk) 04:18, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

No worries. I admire people who notice problematic comments and are willing to take a stand on them. Unfortunately, not everybody does, as this video shows even when comments are waaaaaaaay over the line. --Slp1 (talk) 17:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, most people have the courage of sheep in such situations. They usually know the right thing to do, but are so used to conformity as a guiding principle that even when their values urge them to differ, to speak up, all you usually get from them is "Baaaah!" You're familiar with the Milgram experiments, I'm sure? A fairly dark commentary on human nature, imo... Re your interlocuter who likes to crow about male superiority: When I hear that kind of thing, the question, "Which of us is he trying to convince?" presents itself to my imagination every time. People who genuinely know themselves to be intrinsicaly superior are more usually modest than otherwise, I've found; with nothing they feel compelled to prove, they can afford to be. It's always the man who's driven by secret, often unconscious doubts about his intrinsic worth and masculine identity who strives with others for "social proof" that he's superior to them. Men who really are superior don't need to proclaim it, and all the ultra "tough guy", "macho" men I've ever met have been short, in terms of moral development, abilities, or achievements, at least, and usually in physical stature as well.  – OhioStandard (talk) 07:36, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

You are being mentioned in speculations about sockpuppetry

Hello. I just wanted to let you know that your name is being mentioned in this speculation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cybermud#Fathers.27s_Rights_Article. Cybermud has actually accused me and another user of having multiple accounts because we both happened to disagree with Cybermud. Thanks and bye. Sonicyouth86 (talk) 17:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Quick way to unravel complex dysarthrias

Not sure if my spelling is correct in the section title, but I thought this thread at the reference desk might interest or amuse you. Feel free to e-mail me anonymously (ie from a non-personally identifying generic Yahoo or Gmail account) if you want some more interesting details. Best,  – OhioStandard (talk) 18:35, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you are quite right in your spelling, and yes, it is a fascinating thread. Who knew? I wonder if assisting in the provision of services to those with disabilities can be used as a point in favour of legalization!! Maybe employers should provide the brownies as part of one's professional equipment, along with the tape recorder! You mean there is more? I'll certainly send you an email to get them. --Slp1 (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

William Wilberforce

Good work on your recent edits to William. Long overdue! – Cheers, Bruce Agendum (talk) 23:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Anya Chee

Hi, I missed all that yesterday, just going over contributions and found it now, many thanks for commenting. Off2riorob (talk) 16:17, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Request for Consensus

There's an on going dispute about whether Multi-Level Marketing should be listed under the InfoBox heading Industry at the USANA article. I feel it should be restored but a new contributor who has recently deleted the refence disagrees. We've had a good discussion about the topic but can't reach a consensus and I was wondering if you could read our comments and weigh in with your own opinion. Jean314 (talk) 23:08, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Sam Vaknin

You need to explain in more detail what you are driving at as you have lost me. The issues are probably much more complex than you realise. It is way too simplistic to dismiss Vaknin as just OR.--Penbat (talk) 18:55, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

I just did, on the talkpage. Vaknin may not be OR, but the information in the article is at present. It doesn't matter how complex the issues are, if there are no reliable sources about this stuff, then it should not be in the article. --Slp1 (talk) 19:07, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

The 3RR and a new user

Hi, Slp1. It is about this block from this request. In fact, the 3RR was broken, but there are (in my opinion) at least two reasons for that the block shouldn't be done. The first is that the user didn't receive enough warnings about edit warring (only one). He didn't know he could be blocked for that reason. The second is that the block was made only after 12 hours with no edit of the user. I don't know if it is the usual, but I believe that a message on his talk page would have a better effect.
This is a new user and apparently with good faith edits, which seems to be correct on what he says. It is not an unblock request; just my opinion on the case. Regards.” T_eLeS (T _{@ L C S}) 04:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Hi Teles and thanks for commenting here. I appreciated your concern. Just to let you know that, unlike for vandalism, only one warning is given for 3RR. It's clearly stated on the warning that editors will almost certainly be blocked if they continue reverting. It's up to editors to read and process the information. In this case, Hunterda did not, and continued to revert (on two separate pages), with no attempt at discussion on article talkpage.

Your second point about the delay is better; and I did consider it, but in general 3rr is considered a bright line and it was clearly broken. Whether s/he was right or not is irrelevant, because the whole point is that edit warring is not the way to force through "improvements".

I see that you were engaged in some conversation with the editor on your talkpage. Your comments were helpful. Another time, I would suggest more strongly indicating that the editor should post on the article talkpage itself rather than on your talkpage. Or even transfer the posts there yourself. As I think you know, wider conversations are generally better than private ones about these kinds of content issues. Anyway, thanks again for bringing up your concerns. --Slp1 (talk) 12:49, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

You are correct about the number of warnings. It states very clearly that he can be blocked and he did one more edit on each page involved after receiving it. I believe that a block message will prevent him from engaging in another edit war, but will possibly also dispel a new contributor. He wasn't editing for a few period and he could be warned once more in my opinion, since he seems to be a good faith user who just doesn't know the procedures. Instead of a block message, a last warning, besides preventing him from engaging in another edit war, would, perhaps, be a better way of receiving this new user and we would gain a new contributor.
Anyway, you are acting according to the rules indeed and I couldn't say you are wrong by blocking him. Maybe that would be a case where we could choose not to act according to the rules... the threshold between blocking or not was very subtle in this case. Thank you so much for your attention. Have a nice day.” T_eLeS (T _{@ L C S}) 23:05, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Soiregistered and Sam Vaknin

Sam Vaknin was originally deleted using the excuse that Vaknin was a self-publicist see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Sam_Vaknin. Inspite of the fact that Vaknin's credibility has been restablished (see Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2010 November 8) User:Soiregistered is still using that line of crticism to delete references to his work see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Narcissistic_supply&diff=prev&oldid=401007992 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Malignant_narcissism&diff=prev&oldid=401005295 IMO whether or not Vaknin self-publicises Wikipedia:SPS#Self-published_sources it is of incidental importance as he is a notable person whose ideas are respected by his peers and it shouldnt be an overriding factor.--Penbat (talk) 11:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi again. Thanks for coming by and asking my opinion about this. The fact that Vaknin is notable enough for an article does not by itself imply that information about his views or books should be noted in other articles. It really all depends on whether high quality respected secondary sources cite him, and then it would be best to cite these books. Based on what I recall, it's undeniable that Vaknin self-publishes his books, and I don't think I could find any significant evidence that his ideas are widely quoted or cited by the psychiatry and psychology communities. But I may be wrong; I have been meaning do a bit more research and editing of the article, and will do so when I have a minute. --Slp1 (talk) 23:12, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi i dont have time to give you chapter and verse right now but he is frequently cited in books on narcissism by leading academics if you would care to dig deeper which makes, as far as i am concerned, the point that some of his work is self-published irrelevant.--Penbat (talk) 23:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Excellent. However, I would be interested in the chapter and verse, when you have time, since based on my searches "leading academics" don't mention him at all, or give him only the briefest of mentions.

BTW, using these academic sources about Vaknin would be much, much better than using his self-published website, and these edits would be much more likely to stick in other articles too. The highest quality possible sourcing is required in medically related articles which need to meet WP:MEDRS standards. Slp1 (talk) 23:43, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I have started a discussion here Talk:Narcissistic supply#Removal of Vaknin material --Penbat (talk) 20:35, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Just a note to add that I had a similar, non-productive discussion with Penbat a year ago on Talk:Malignant narcissism. (Narcissistic supply was created by Penbat from material originally at Malignant narcissism). Also, I have again edited Narcissistic supply, this time to provide the reader with some background to the information supplied by Penbat rather than deleting the material outright again. I suggest that any further discussion be held at Talk:Narcissistic supply#Removal of Vaknin material. --Soiregistered (talk) 01:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate your efforts in looking into the matter and giving your views at Talk:Narcissistic supply#Removal of Vaknin material. Since you have clearly done some legwork, perhaps you might also make a comment at Talk:Codependency on the same issue. This may be a somewhat closer call, as Codependency is rather a softer topic (i.e., the article is not even listed as part of WP:PSY and I don't know whether WP:MEDRS is applicable to it), although the underlying issue is this same author's self-published materials about narcissism. Thanks again for your efforts at NS. --Soiregistered (talk) 00:04, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Dashes script error (from 1 year ago)

Hi, edits such as this were screw ups, formatting dashes in DOI and URL fields, breaking those links. I realise that edit was a year ago, has the script you were using been fixed since? Thanks Rjwilmsi 15:20, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I think it was brighterorange's dash script, but can't really remember. I'm sure it was my fault rather than the script itself, as I should have unclicked the doi and url changes before saving, but at the time I didn't realize the effect of the dash changes. I believe the penny dropped some time later, however, by which time I'd forgotten the earlier edits. Thanks for fixing the errors on the article and sorry for making the error in the first place. --Slp1 (talk) 15:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Okay. I did a database scan and only ~15 articles needed fixes for this (September 2010 db file), so we'll call this closed. Rjwilmsi 16:12, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

188.221.170.220

I'm not sure you're doing anyone any favors by not continuing the progressively longer blocks with this editor. Days after a release of a 3 month block for the same offense you issued a 1 month block. 1 year would have been much more appropriate. Toddst1 (talk) 15:43, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I did consider a longer block, and I would certainly agree if it was a registered editor (when I would almost certainly have indeffed). Also, the actions which seemed to spark the 3 month was the talkpage abuse once blocked, which didn't happen this time (yet!). Given that this seems to be an individual and IPs can be reassigned to other people, I opted for a more conservative approach. But feel free to increase the length if you want; I don't feel very strongly about the matter. --Slp1 (talk) 15:51, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

NPOV

Hello. I think your understanding of NPOV as expressed on a recent AE thread is a bit naive. NPOV is an ideal, but as someone said, NPOV is in the eye of the beholder. Wikipedia recognises that everyone has bias, and has developed procedures and traditions on how to deal with these biases. Thus in reality there is no need to ban editors with a set of biases, provided their edits adhere to other policies (such as verifability, RS, etc) and are not disruptive. Banning editors who have strong views on a particular subject will be detrimental to the articles in that area. It is disruptive editing that has to be avoided and banned if necessary. I would have commented on that thread, but I cannot edit that section since I am not an admin, and the subject of my comment is a diversion from the main topic of the thread. Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 03:50, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

It is certainly one way of looking at NPOV: sets of POV editors fight each other with V, RS, OR etc as the rules of engagement, with NPOV hopefully emerging at the end like a sausage. That certainly seems to be the approach used by many editors, in many conflict areas. Unfortunately, this battleground approach results in editors who let their biases rule in everything, not only in which edits to make and support, but which reliable sources to support, which editors to support at talkpages, ANI, ArbCom, which articles to delete/save etc etc. It's so desperately predictable, and it makes a mockery of the encyclopedia and the entire editing environment toxic, driving away all but the most hardened campaigners. And of course, one side's point of view pushing merely entrenches the "opposition" to do exactly the same, and so the circle continues and intensifies. And all this is disruptive at the macro level, no?

Here's the other, policy-based way of looking at it; we are all required to edit from a neutral point of view, as much as possible not allowing our biases to affect our editing judgment. Of course everybody has these biases, and of course even unconsciously they can and do influence our edits. But we need to consciously strive to set these POVs aside, looking at the highest quality sources to find out what "they" say, not to prove our favoured point. Writing for the enemy is a great approach, and is fantastic way to appreciate the shades of grey that exist in any topic. Editors who consistently can't or won't observe the core, non-negotiable requirement of NPOV editing aren't making the encyclopedia better, they are making it worse by pushing their point of view and tendentious editing - affecting not just the article content but the whole editing environment. --Slp1 (talk) 04:55, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I both agree and disagree at the same time. I 100% agree that it would be best if everyone was editing from NPOV, or at least made every concious effort to edit from NPOV. But I am not sure we can enforce this. I always come with this approach in mind, but when one encounters an opposite bias, one's natural inclination is to present the opposite POV so that in the end we will acheieve some middle ground. Indeed many POV warriers come here with a genuine motivation to restore neutrality as they see it... Not sure what can be done about it. Sorry if I sound confusing. Feel free to ignore... Cheers. - BorisG (talk) 05:09, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I agree it is difficult, and I know from experience that it is natural (and even appropriate) to seek to balance out another editor's POV edits. That much is fine. But the POV warriors arrive from both directions. An editor with neutrality as a core value will seek to rein in both of them, both in content and behaviour, rather than support the new "buddy" and oppose for the new "enemy". S/he won't engage in the block !voting - doing so makes so very plain that those editors' value place greater value on their cause than on WP's core values. When point of view problems are pointed out by independent editors, s/he collaboratively tries to solve them, rather than fighting tooth and nail, or grudgingly allowing the "opposition" editors to add a bit to balance things out. There are mutiple ways that editors, even ones with a strong POV, can demonstrate their commitment to fundamental WP principles. And those who don't, well, as I said, I believe something can and should be done about it: when an editors' edits show that they consistently place loyalty to their POV above WP's policies of neutrality, both in terms of content and behaviour, then it is best for the whole encyclopedia for them to edit other topics, or not at all. --Slp1 (talk) 14:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Trying is incredibly important, and the people who are trying seem to be outnumbered by the people who are not and its causing major wear and tear.--Tznkai (talk) 05:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Yup. And of course, the very people who and do try, who are able to see the shades of grey, often don't want to touch the area with a bargepole or give up in despair. --Slp1 (talk) 14:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

By the way, I think you might be right about reverts per se not being the problem, but at this point a restriction nimble enough to get to the core problem will be fairly novel, and I don't think it'll work without significant support. I think we do need to get something done and logged, or at least firewall the problem editor.--Tznkai (talk) 05:03, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it is not easy, dealing with the tip of an iceberg. But I agree we should close this out asap and get on with the holidays!!--Slp1 (talk) 14:33, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

What was the problem?

Hey there slp1, You deleted a wiki page on actor Zahf Paroo and I wondering why? Please fill me in. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kidbelvedere (talk • contribs) 06:12, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

As I explained on your talkpage earlier, it was deleted as a copyright violation. The text had been copy and pasted from the actor's own website, which is not permitted for legal reasons. That was the reason for deletion; but in case you are thinking of recreating the article in your own words and without the copying, there were additional problems too; there was a promotional tone (appropriate for the actor's website but not for an encyclopedia), and more importantly, a lack of citations to reliable secondary sources about him. I did a quick look at the time, and I found it difficult to find the substantial coverage in independent sources (newspapers, books, magazines etc) that clearly showed that he met the criteria for notability for having an article here. Perhaps you know of some, however. Let me know if you have any other questions. --Slp1 (talk) 13:10, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Tony Proudfoot

Materialscientist (talk) 06:05, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Gordon Hamilton-Fairley

thanks for the extra link for a source on the murders --Flexdream (talk) 22:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)