User talk:Warrior4321/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

The IP address is in Madison, Wisconsin. Coinsidence?

HERE IS THE GEOGRAPHIC ADDRESS OF IP 216.26.97.159

SOURCE: www.ipligence.com/geolocation

This IP address is 216.26.97.159 City: Madison, Wisconsin Country United States

Isn't Abramson attending school in Madsion Wiscomsin? Do you imagine it to be a coinsidence? This is circumstantial evidence that would stand up in any court. I rest MY case. John Gardner (talk) 04:39, 20 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by John Gardner (talk • contribs) 04:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Good sir, I don't know what you want me to do. As stated above, users can create article about themselves, however it is discouraged. Editing your own article is completely acceptable, as long as reliable sources are shown. Mr.TrustWorthy----Talk to Me! 04:42, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay so now we're getting somewhere. In this case all I ever wanted was a recognition that it was Abramson posting his own vanity entries. That's all I ever asked-- to let the reading public know WHO was posting this information regardless of whether it is cited. And YES if we have identified him as the person making these entries and or someone with a personal interest based on the IP geographic address, they SHOULD BE DISCOURAGED from doing so. You would I thought I asked you to drop an atomic bomb on Switzerland the way the vitrolic responses and denials poured out of this place. You want this place to grow? Then it has to stop being so ingrown and defensive every time a new kid comes around with a new idea.John Gardner (talk) 04:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

No actually we're not getting anywhere- as said before to you John, the article has been worked on 2 years- and voted on in AfD- by several dozen IP addresses in total. Youre trying to prove this guy is the only editor here..? So how does that addup. At best you are trying to show a few entries were made by Abramson. "it was Abramson posting his own vanity entries"- not proven whatsoever. I said to you that students often create entries for their professors- particularly as regarding writers- so of course the subject city and editor city will be the same. And writers friends often work on their entries- again often from the same city. Youre ignorant to how WP:BLP tends to go, thats your problem not anyone else's. These things happens all the time in 1000s of entires. I am in Madison, no secret there. Mr. Trsutworthy has told you even if the guy did some of these edits it wouldn't matter if WP:NOT, WP:NPV, and WP:NOR were met. You dont like that policy-ok! Irrelevant to anything or anyone else. Postscript- i'm guessing you'd make a terrible lawyer 216.26.97.159 (talk) 05:20, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Second postscript- by your logic if a friend of a subject posts an entry the entry is fradulent forever- even if dozens of editors work on it to fully source it afterward.. makes no sense- and we'd lose most contemp. artists' entries if so. You thik this guy's a putz- ok, point made. How many lbs flesh do you want anyway.216.26.97.159 (talk) 05:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I know I make a better lawyer than Abramson wouldn't I, since I proved my case and you keep hiding. How many pounds of flesh? Sorry, this ain't no play, Shakespeare. I want you to stop lying to people here and readers who come here. That's what I want. Now answer the question. I tracked you down in Madison, Wisconsin. Please stop being so immature. Honestly it is beginning to show here and I know it certainly shows in your work. I've proven my point. There isn't a soul around who doesn't know you posted your own little autobiography, self-promoting some of you minor accomplishments to further your own self interest. And if by chance you happen to be some srarry eyed little student fawning endlessly over this entry, please give it a rest. He's just not that important or even well known. I'm sorry but in my opinion your credibility here is gone. Probably elsewhere too. I will give you this: You have helped coin the rather shabby phrase into the lexicon of our language: "VANITY ENTRY or VANITY POSTING" Good for you. Now it all seems so worthwhile to have your name asociated with this phrase. Sort of like having Nixon associated with Watergate.John Gardner (talk) 13:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Autobiography states:

“ Writing autobiographies is discouraged because it is difficult to write a neutral, verifiable autobiography and there are many pitfalls. ”

Although it states it is discouraged and difficult, the IP user name has not even created the article? He has simply added facts to the article. Now, if you don't like the facts written there, which are supported by reliable sources, then nothing can be done. If you feel that the facts written there are written by the article subject, and he is simply promoting himself, then place {{citation needed}}, everywhere where no references are placed. Mr.TrustWorthy----Talk to Me! 15:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Well, I see no place on the entry where wikapedia has noted that this entry has been repeatedly questioned as to its authorship nor do I see where any disclaimer is noted that such behavior IS discouraged. That is up to you. In my humble opinion, whatever credibility associated with the entry previously, it has been greatly diminished for a variety of reasons, not the least of which is IP address, Madison, Wisconsin, not coming forward to identify why they have SUCH a vested interest in this entry. That would have solved everything but the hypocracy associated with this cat and mouse game is evident to the vast majority. Isit that some people think the public is stupid? That's apretty pedestrian stance if you ask me. That is not my problem. I am just here like thousands of others trying to make wikapedia better and more credible. Did you know that ANYONE can nominate themselves for a Pulitzer Prize? Fill out the form and send $50 and you have been nominated. There is, however, a huge difference between someone nominating themselves and a legitimate nomination by an unbiased source in the eyes of the vast majority. I once again applaud Mr. Abramson's many worthwhile accomplishments. But in my eyes, from an academic point of view, those accomplishments have been greatly tainted by the fact that the subject or the subject's close personal friends have placed this into wikapedia as a VANITY ENTRY. That is my humble opinion. I think a vast majorty of folks can smell a rat when they smell one. I will reiterate what I posted on my talk page: There are two quotes that best sum up my feelings on this subject. The first comes from Congressman Barney Frank who when talking to a disgruntled opponent at a health care forum stated, "Arguing with you is like arguing with my dining room table." The second comes from the person whom actually tracked down the IP address to Madison Wisconsin where Abramson goes to school. Their comment was simple and to the point. It was this: "BAGGED!" That's my take on this. Once again I'm just one of thousdands of folks who come here in the hopes of making wikapedia more authentic, credible,and accessible. Thank you for your attention. John Gardner (talk) 15:52, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I have to apolize but I am unable to go through this particular vanity entry to ask for references. I am busy now winning a Pulitzer for my poetry and being nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize. I am also all caught up in discovering a cure for cancer and proving the existence of God. All good and worthwhile things to do no doubt and all things I must remember to post for myself on wikapedia. John Gardner (talk) 16:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I want to find a cure for cancer as well, and for the existence of God, none is necessary. Remember :

For those who believe, no explaination is necessary, and for those who don't believe no explaination is there.

— Frédérick Jézégou

Absence of proof is not proof of absence.

— William Cowper

As for the Seth Abramson issue, I am not sure what you want done. As long as reliable sources cite the information in the article, nothing can be done. However, you can place {{citation needed}} wherever you feel that it is not true or "self-promoted". After around a week, if no references are provided, delete that phrase from the article. Is that good? Mr.TrustWorthy----Talk to Me! 16:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

LOL. Yes, well I guess I want to get back to that state of grace I was in before I ventured out into this arena. What do I want? I want a little bit of honesty. Am I asking too much? I am spending too much time on this. Grades are due in shortly. Good luck and thanks. I guess al have already contributed too much time to Mr. Abramson's 15 minutes of fame. Live and learn. John Gardner (talk) 18:05, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Grades are due in? In most countries, schools and universities should be opening next week, not ending.. Anyhow, what do you suggest when you state you want a little bit of honesty? What do you want done, I need to know exactly what your goal is. What is the purpose of all this? I'm kinda confused right now, so once I know that, we can move in the right direction. Thanks Warrior4321 04:41, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

In MOST universities there are TWO six week sessions. This is the end of the second six week summer session. We do not open until AFTER Labor Day. Anyway, I really don't think this is the time for me to begin piling on poor Mr. Abramson since it was brought to my attention that the "poetry community" in droves and on a variety of sites and locations have mostly atacked him regarding the MFA consulting business he began. (Will that be posted by IP 216 on this entry and sourced correctly or perhaps I should post and reference how the poetry community has lined up against what they consider a foolish artificial business? Are you watching IP 216? Should I post THAT on Mr. Abramson's vanity entry? Hummm)The attacks on him have been brutal and have now carried over to his ability to actually write. So it goes. I was listening to an NPR program yesterday and before the announcer interviewed the person on the program they made a disclaimer stating that they knew the person they were interviewing and that they had worked with him before. I don't see what's wrong with such a disclaimer being posted on such vanity entires like Mr. Abramson's. I understand the argument that such a disclaimer doesn't exist, but then again slavery used to be legal but that CHANGED. If places are so rigid they can't or won't make or add changes they become stagnant. I once again feel that IP 216, Madison, Wisconsin has done themselves, this site and Abramson a great disservice. I also believe the "history" of these entires lend themselves to support the point that this was, is and will always remain in the eyes of the vast majority a vanity entry. The extent to which this was posted here on merit is suspect. But if wikapedia in its wisdom does not see the importance of leting readers know that something is or isn't entered based on merit and not a vanity entry like this Abramson entry is, far be it for me to interfere.John Gardner (talk) 13:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Alright, this isn't going anywhere. Please take this to this noticeboard by clicking here.  Thanks Warrior4321 14:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Once again, the end of the 2nd six week course is here. I have really given up on this matter. I think I have fleshed it out as much as I can and for those people I need to be concerned with the issue with or without a disclaimer is clear. A vanity entry is a vanity entry regardless of any disclaimer or dispute resolution. Too bad Madison wisconsin couldn't see fit to "man-up" about this or the initial poster. But so it goes.John Gardner (talk) 14:18, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Held the town

I thought I'd say here, rather than on the ref desk, that I agree completely with your translation ("held the town" / "owned or possessed"). I was using "held" in a feudal sense (holding title to, rights over). "Possessed" is probably clearer to the average modern reader, as is your "since its founding" rather than my "from." Ce qui n'est pas clair n'est pas français. --- OtherDave (talk) 20:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

 Thanks. Warrior4321 04:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

hi

i m very confused. I created LinkedNow page, which you marked for the deletion. I used Hunch (website) as the general template for my contribution. Yet, my contribution is marked for the deletion. Please explain Why? How are the two profiles different? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Suzan.nguyen (talk • contribs) 05:02, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

What you had created did not meet WP:WEB. Now that you have added more materai with references, it seems to meet WP:WEB and can be included in Wikipedia. Warrior4321 05:24, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

LinkedNow

Sorry about that :) I m a new user to Wikipedia. But I love it. Thank you for your outstanding support! Suzan.nguyen (talk) 05:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Article Alerts

I have re-reverted you. The previous version did not work, so I'm trying a fix. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 04:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It already did work/does work. It just doesn't work in the WikiProject Zoroastrianism/Template box. When you send out a confirmation to all WikiProject Physics participants to see if they are still interested every six months, do you send each one manually? Warrior4321 04:58, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay I see what's going on. What you should do in this case is place the subscription template (with |display=none) on the project, and transclude the alerts on the /Template subpage. Gimme 5 secs and I'll show you what I mean. (And I've never done it so far, but I would probably use a bot if I ever decided to contact everyone. What I usually do is review the "contributions" from every user, and update their active/inactive status every couple of months). Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 05:05, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

There, this should work and make both of us happy. Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 05:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Alright,  Thanks! Warrior4321 05:22, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Jamshid Zal Roham Alavids Jalayirids Gordafarid Apadana Nabopolassar Ctesiphon Silver cord Impermanence Hanuman Turan Holarchy Karim Khan Vishtaspa Hindu Kush Jiva Tahirid dynasty

Cleanup Safavid dynasty Reza Shah Anatta Merge Update on the Aryan Invasion Debate Gorgan Nazanin Afshin-Jam Add Sources Middle Persian 651 330 BC Wikify Googoosh Criticism of Hinduism Record Collector Expand Urmia Battle of al-Qādisiyyah Pre-existence

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 20:28, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Use of A1 Speedy Delete criteria

I think you should be a little more careful with your speedy delete nominations, especially the A1 criteria. I have removed the speedy delete tag from 2 articles (More Lies About Jerzy‎ and Focke-Wulf Fw 62‎) that had plenty context to identify what the articles were talking about. Focke-Wulf Fw 62‎ has some notability concerns that I am addressing with the author, but More Lies About Jerzy‎ is definitely notable. More Lies About Jerzy‎ was questionable when you first tagged it, but it did have an external link that positively identified the subject of the article, then when you retagged it there was no question of what the article was about. --A new name 2008 (talk) 02:46, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

At first I thought Focke-Wulfe was some 10 year old having a giggle by creating a page that sounded like the word fuck. For the More Lies about Jerzy, a page creator should never remove the template with a blank summary, and/or without notifying the person who proposed it for speedy deletion. If they do not wish to do that, then they can place a hang-on template, and state their case in the talk page. Warrior4321 02:52, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

You are right that the original editor should never remove the speedy delete tag, but on both of those articles the tag should never have been placed in the first place. Neither one of them met the criteria for the tag you placed on them so they shouldn't have been tagged in the first place. Nominating articles for speedy deletion that do not meet the criteria can drive new editor's away from the project. --A new name 2008 (talk) 02:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

How does this not meet A1? A1 is for articles that do not have enough content assert their importance. A page that states : A play written by Davey Holmes (2001). Original New York Cast : Jared Harris does not enough content to assert it's importance. Warrior4321 03:03, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I understand the problem. WP:CSD#A1 has nothing to do with asserting importance. The criteria is Articles lacking sufficient context to identify the subject of the article. Between what it said there and the external link that was with it, I could easily identify the subject of the article. That is why it does not meet the A1 criteria. --A new name 2008 (talk) 03:11, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the external link might have had the information, but the article itself did not.

Articles lacking sufficient context to identify the subject

All that was in the article was "A play written by Davey Holmes (2001)" and one actor. I could create a page saying "A play written by Warrior4321 (August 2009)". That would still not be enough to identify that the article subject is notable and can be included in Wikipedia.

I just went back and relooked. You are right the article did not have the external link. I am sorry, the original tag was correct. --A new name 2008 (talk) 03:18, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Removal of PROD from List of autostereotypes by nation

Hello Warrior4321, this is an automated message from SDPatrolBot to inform you the PROD template you added to List of autostereotypes by nation has been removed. It was removed by Wikipeditor with the following edit summary '(remove evil list-eating templates, see discussion)'. Please consider discussing your concerns with Wikipeditor before pursuing deletion further yourself. If you still think the article should be deleted after communicating with the 'dePRODer,' you may want to send the article to AfD for community discussion. Thank you, SDPatrolBot (talk) 02:48, 30 August 2009 (UTC) (Learn how to opt out of these messages)

Saqib Ali image

Just to set the record straight, I took the picture of Saqib Ali that is in the infobox of his article; just as I have taken more than 50 pictures of other Maryland Legislators. You can check here [[1]], if you wish.--1MSU-LAX •talk• 23:40, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

It is very unlikely that you took the image yourself. I have asked admins to check over this image and all of your other image uploads. Thank you for showing me the other images, as they all look full of copyright violations as well. Warrior4321 01:16, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Eurydice (Next World Communication)

Dear Warrior4321! The above named article is written by me. I am going to change the content within the next few days. --W.S.Herrmann (talk) 11:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Saqib Ali

On August 31, 2009 you indicated that we had seven days to fix the prolems with the Saqib Ali article, and then 3 days later you fail it. Is my math wrong? What happened to the other 4 days?--..BlackThor^{Talk • Contribs} 16:00, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Look at the amount of problems, that are in that article. Yes, at the beggining only a few minor problems were there, so it was On Hold, criteria. However more and more problems were found. "On Hold" is for a few minor problems. An entire list of problems does not require On Hold, but Fail. Once, you fix the article, you can always re-nominate the article. Warrior4321 16:11, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Alien language

Sure, it needs improvement, but blanking all the content with the edit summary "Removing OR" isn't that constructive. There's probably material to be built on in the present article. Fences&Windows 17:28, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, there is room for development, but that does not mean that we have to keep all this original research. There has been an original research tag since December 2008, and no work to remove the original research from the article has been done. December 2008 was almost a year ago, and therefore plenty of time was provided to eradicate the OR. That is why I removed all of the information that seemed OR, and I made it a stub with only the lead sentence. It does not make to continue to maintain the OR. Warrior4321 13:06, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

As well, WP:NOR states Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. This includes unpublished facts, arguments, speculation, and ideas; and any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to advance a position. This means that Wikipedia is not the place to publish your own opinions, experiences, arguments, or conclusions.

Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked. To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented. Warrior4321 13:10, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I already know very well what original research means! I'm not proposing to leave the article permanently in its uncited state - I've gutted articles to become stubs myself when I felt they were irredeemable, but with this article I think there's a scaffold to work from that we'll lose by reducing it to a dicdef. It's hardly unusual for articles to go tagged for months with no work to address the problem, indeed that's standard. If we reduced all the unsourced articles and those with potential original research in them to stubs we'd lose most of the content of Wikipedia. Fences&Windows 17:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not publish original research or original thought. To demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented.

Since, there are no sources or efforts to fix the original research issue since December 2008, the information must either become referenced or be removed, until sources can be brought. Warrior4321 22:32, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

What you stated is original research in the article isn't actually OR. Original research means that it is something the editor themselves came up with, i.e. "Material for which no reliable source can be found is considered original research", whereas I when I looked at reliable sources - see User:Fences and windows/Alien language - I found that the majority of what is in the article is perfectly able to be sourced, and I'm getting around to it. Reducing the article to a single sentence certainly removes substandard and currently unsourced writing, but it also removes information that can be of more use to a reader than a microstub, and removes perfectly valid and useful external links and book references. When you come across an article in such a state again please don't just gut it; make an effort to source it yourself or ask a relevant WikiProject for help. Here are some other relevant policies: "It has always been good practice to make reasonable efforts to find sources oneself that support such material, and cite them." WP:Verifiability; "Be cautious with major changes: consider discussing them first." WP:EP; also see WP:IMPERFECT, WP:PRESERVE, and the essays WP:NOEFFORT, WP:DEADLINE, and WP:DEMOLISH. Fences&Windows 00:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Well explained, but what I was trying to do was reduce it to a stub, and then watch it's re-growth in my watchlist. Every time, a statement would be added, I would ask the user to use references and cite their work, and if they did not, I would remove the information previously added. Thus, the pattern of original research in the article would stop and cited work would be added warrior4321 10:48, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You're not the Judge Dredd of Wikipedia, you're a fellow editor; you too can find reliable sources to help verify articles. Giving other editors ultimatums after which you'll remove unsourced content brings in an adversarial atmosphere, whereas the ideal for Wikipedia is collaboratively building the encyclopedia. Your plan to monitor new contributions and revert all unsourced edits is ownership, and biting the newcomers. I've revamped articles and it can take time and effort, but it's much better for the reader than a microstub. For example, SpacemanSpiff drew my attention to Sexual Interaction After Childbirth, and it was a mess of rambling prose and original research. I could've stubbed it or nominated it for deletion, but instead I wrote Sex after pregnancy. Some of the material you removed in those articles was sourced or clearly verifiable, and you also removed valid book references, See alsos and External links - this is throwing the baby out with the bath water. I'm not an inclusionist - you'll have seen I'm no stranger to deleting articles when they're unverifiable or non-notable - but I don't think your "purist" approach to articles that might contain original research is the best one. Fences&Windows 17:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I was in no way trying to attain ownership. I was saying that I would ask for references, and if no references were found, I would revert the unsourced original research. It is not biting the newcomers, if I go to them, and ask them to provide sources. However, if they cannot provide sources, then it is original research and can be removed. If you look at the histories of many FA's and GA's, you'll see that as soon as unsourced information is added, it is reverted. I was attempting to something of the similar, except I would actually try to address the issue with the user.

As well, since you want to throw Wikipedia essays and policies at me, please read them first. WP:Don't throw out the baby with the bath water states :

If someone discarded some good stuff when reverting, please don't revert the reversion. This can spark an edit war. Just find some of the good stuff and put it into the current version. Then do a diff and look for more good stuff. Repeat as needed.

You however, reverted the full article without addressing the concerns of original research that were presented in December 2008, instead of restoring parts of the article, and removing the OR, which had been presented almost a year ago. warrior4321 21:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

You're still ignoring the fact that you can look for sources yourself; have you actually looked for any for Alien language, First class travel, or Synod? And as for whether I should immediately add sources to the articles I reverted, I will do that in my own time and not according to your timetable. You didn't revert an edit - you blanked entire pages without discrimination, and you also left behind microstubs on topics that should have been outright deleted. Fences&Windows 21:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Nobody is asking you to add sources according to anyone's timetable. I am asking you to remove the OR ; if you have the time, to add sources later, then you can re-publish the facts. Concerning the fact, that I can look for sources, I don't have to. I was not trying to add references to the articles, but I was going through a backlog of original research tagged from over a year. If you want to save the article, than feel free to add the sources, if not the challenged unsourced material must go. warrior4321 21:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

My last word on this: just because someone has tagged an article as containing original research it doesn't mean the whole article is suspect. Unsourced =/= original research. Tackling backlogs is admirable, but please tread more lightly. Fences&Windows 01:02, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Synod

I've reverted your edit to Synod. In my opinion, the vast majority of the material you removed is not controvercial and should be backed up by an attributable source, not removed. Please feel free to discuss this at Talk:Synod. Blarneytherinosaur ^gabby? 08:24, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

The section about Uses in different commmunions seems like a whole lot of OR. I have currently placed {{citation needed}} tags around the paragraph. If no references are provided, I will remove the information again. Warrior4321 12:58, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I see that reducing articles to microstubs isn't a one-off. This kind of edit[2] isn't constructive. Synod is well written and is certainly a topic that can be sourced. Re: your note on the talk page, please don't blank Synod again; see WP:BRD for how to handle editing disputes.

I have had a look at some of the other article blanking you did the same day; I am not try to WP:WIKIHOUND you, as "Proper use of an editor's history includes (but is not limited to) fixing errors or violations of Wikipedia policy or correcting related problems on multiple articles":

I've nominated Lady Paula Merry for deletion, as it is totally unsourcable.

Secure Password Authentication was an appalling breach of WP:NOTHOWTO and WP:OR; you were right to remove all that material. Is there any point to having a standalone article on the topic? Is there a good merge target?

Image development (visual arts) seems to be a horrible mish-mash of a topic - I'd recommend reverting the blanking and instead nominating it for deletion, as I'm not sure this is a real topic. An alternative might be a merge, but I favour deletion.

South St. Louis seems like a pointless article. There's already an article on St. Louis, Missouri, another on Neighborhoods of St. Louis and no less than 79 on the individual neighbourhoods. Again, this is delete-worthy.

I'm in two minds on Pop quiz; the material you blanked was hardly controversial, but equally is there any point having an article on this? It covers two dicdefs, basically. What is its potential? A soft redirect to Wiktionary might be best.

I've reverted your blanking of First class travel, Fetish fashion, Pundit (expert), and Marxist Group (Germany); other editors reverted some others too. I think the material in these articles is promising; most of the content doesn't smack of total OR and is likely to be able to be sourced. I've made appeals to two WikiProjects for improvements to Fetish fashion. Fences&Windows 01:29, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Babylon

I'm sure you know that you should use edit summaries and not just revert edits. You left the article in an inconsistent state, among other things. I'm reverting your revert. Please don't change it back without discussing this on my talk page. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 05:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

The revert I did was a rollback, and therefore I could not provide a edit summary. What is the point of keeping BC and A.D? The article has nothing to do with Christianity, and therefore Common Era is fine. Warrior4321 20:08, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

First, I agree with you, an IP changed BCE to BC (and the rest of the article uses BCE/CE), I put BCE back, and you used rollback to restore the IP's edit. Take a look. And I don't mean to be hypercritical, but you shouldn't be using rollback that way. The guidance on rollback says " These should be used only to revert edits that are clearly unproductive, such as vandalism; to revert content in your own user space; or to revert edits by banned users." I do see editors, usually IPs, doing edits like this, but I always use edit summaries. Using rollback makes it appear that you think I was vandalising. There's been quite a bit of discussion recently at ANI about the use of rollback for edits other than vandalism (which you've probably seen), and if you want to become an Administrator you don't want people thinking you don't know how to use such tools. Having said that, don't worry about it, I've probably used rollback some time when I should have added an edit summary, we all make mistakes or go too fast. Good luck with your administrator ambitions - we can always use more, although I know that being an Admin gets in the way sometimes of other work I want to do on Wikipedia. Dougweller (talk) 20:48, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, for the explanation. :) Wonderfully explained and makes perfect sense. warrior4321 10:44, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:ERA says to enforce style consistency for each article, but to stick with the style used by the historical main contributor to the article. --dab (𒁳) 10:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Zoroastrianism Barnstar

I finally got around to making that barnstar for you. Take a look at Template:Zoroastrianism_Barnstar. I can easily change the color/shade of the background star, or remove it entirely, if you want. I could also add a circle around the whole thing if you like. Let me know what you think, ThaddeusB (talk) 23:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Great! The Barnstar looks wonderful. However, I have a few questions :

1. Which image of the faravahar did you use? I've never seen that image on Wikipedia.
2. Did you create the image using Inkscape? Warrior4321 02:38, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

1. I modified the File:Faravahar-Gold.svg heavily to the point that it is essentially it is a new image.
2. I used GIMP.--ThaddeusB (talk) 14:01, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

RE: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/422nd Military Police Company

Would you considering userfying the article which you put up for deletion? The will delete it from main space completely.

The editor is a new editor, and this will give the new user a chance to rework this article and maybe wikipedia will get a long term dedicated editor.

Please let me know as soon as possible, because as soon as someone else comments on the AfD, they must agree also before I can userfy the article. Thanks for your time.Ikip (talk) 03:06, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I had previously prodded the article and got a message from the user. However, after replying to him, I never got a reply back. However, feel free to try :) warrior4321 03:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

God bless you, how sweet. I will I will come right back after it is done. Ikip (talk) 03:47, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I just userfied the article. thanks a lot. Ikip (talk) 03:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

		The Helping Hand Barnstar
		This barnstar is awarded to Warrior4321, for helping and fostering new editors become dedicated wikipedians. Thank you. Ikip (talk) 04:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Aw, thank you for the barnstar. It is my first one . That was very kind of you. Thanks. warrior4321 04:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I am happy to give it to you, you deserve it, with your compromising attitude, I am sure you will be receiving many more soon. Ikip (talk) 04:51, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Heresy

What was the reason for removing almost all of the information that was in the Judaism section of Heresy? warrior4321 13:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

A lot of the information appeared superfluous, given that Judaism has relatively few adherents compared to Christianity or Islam, and that Orthodox Judaism itself is a minority movement among North American Jewish communities, who are predominantly Reformed or Conservative. I am currently transfering some of the information into heresy in Orthodox Judaism. ADM (talk) 14:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick reply. I understand what you are doing now. Thanks for improving Wikipedia. warrior4321 14:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Comment

Hi even though we dont agree on a certain wikipedia article i would like to point out that i like your work overall here. Its great and i hope we will work together on some article one day. Cheers.--Judo112 (talk) 21:29, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Why, thank you. . I'd love to work on an article with you. warrior4321 00:10, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Reference desk science

Your answers are ready for you.77.86.47.174 (talk) 17:36, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs Alavids Sanjan (Khorasan) 273 Apadana Turan Zal Arpa Ke'un Arya Ctesiphon Jamshid Hindu Kush Imamzadeh Bazaar Jalayirids Abadan Tahirid dynasty 224 Unitard Karim Khan

Cleanup Parsi Sumptuary law Safavid dynasty Merge Moral skepticism Gorgan Nazanin Afshin-Jam Add Sources Zoroastrian eschatology Middle Persian Iranian monarchy Wikify Googoosh Record Collector Peri Expand Urmia Battle of Chaldiran New Mobility Agenda

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 23:41, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Hello

I saw you supporting my nomination of "4 Minutes". So curious, I came to your talkpage and found out that you are a Canadian of Indian origin. Since I'm from there too so just wanted to say hiiiiiii!! --Legolas ^(talk2me) 11:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Hobbit Day.

The "Hobbit Day" page was deleted with the reason "(G3: Blatant hoax)". The notion that this was a hoax is patently false. The article states plainly that it is to celebrate the birth of fictional characters. It is plainly marked as "Tolkien fandom". The article plainly states how it applies to "the real world". It may have few people who celebrate this day, but it's at least as valid as "Talk like a pirate day".

This page also has/had problems in lack of sufficient references, and challenged notability, however these are not the basis for the deletion, and these are not criteria for speedy deletion. Additionally, as various editors added the templates requesting these problems being fixed over a period of two years, no one has mistook this page for a "most obvious case" of vandalism.

While I could understand other arguments against this article, I do not understand how you could conclude this is vandalism.

Further, I am disappointed in how I was contacted, and the true speedy-ness of the the deletion. A message was left in my talk page by Warrior4321 at 14:11 on 6 September 2009, and 28 minutes - not even a half of an hour - later the page was removed. I don't log in even every day, much less every half hour. The "attempt" to get the input from the page creator was pro forma and disingenuous.

Personally, I am insulted by the demeaning allegation that I created a page as a vandalization. This page was created to contribute to Wikipedia's well of knowledge on a subject matter that is real and, I believe, of interest to others.

Dsmouse (talk) 03:53, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I didn't delete the article, I tagged it for deletion. This guy was the one who deleted your article, so I'm sure you'll want to direct this to him. However, I must state that it was not deleted on grounds of vandalism, but on the grounds of blatant hoax as the article and the facts inside of it seemed made up, even if the event wasn't made up. And yes, I too once, remember the slashing agony of the "speedy delete" as the user is hardly informed. However, you must take this up with the one who deleted your article. Thanks. warrior4321 04:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

I understand that you tagged the article and he deleted it. I posted the same message to him too. The blatant hoax is a subcategory of vandalism, and is still vandalism.

What facts seem made up? That the day exists and is celebrated? A quite google would clear that up. The day it's celebrated? That's answered in the one reference that was at the bottom of the page.

Dsmouse (talk) 04:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, a first glance at it looked like a blatant hoax. Many people create their own days up, and I thought this was the same. However, your article has been restored, please take the time now to properly add references and to cite them. Sorry for any confusion, that may have occurred. Thanks! warrior4321 00:31, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Since you complained the loudest about the article, can you look at it again and see if any of my recent chances have improved it any? Dsmouse (talk) 14:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)