User talk:Wassupwestcoast/Archive to March 2008

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Re:Harry and the Potters discography

A shame it didn't recieve FL status, only due to length, an issue that is strongly argumentative. A sentence (for FLs in general) should be introduced into the criteria, stating that is either is or isn't a requirement. Anyhow, I will continue to work on Harry and the Potters (and discography) and Draco and the Malfoys (discography). The Draco and the Malfoys discography is now formatted the exact same as the Harry and the Potters discography, so it would be good to see these reach FL status and the main Draco and the Malfoys article reach GA. I believe in 2008 (if not already), The Parselmouths and The Remus Lupins may just become notable if they were to do a national tour for instance. Good luck administrator (congrats!) and happy editing in 2008! Hpfan9374 (talk) 01:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Same to you, friend

Happy new year! -- SECisek (talk) 02:46, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Well done

This is a great idea. You are a genius my friend.--Angel David (talk) 14:42, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 04:57, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Not burned out

...just burned...I am droping this hobby and sticking to personal research due to the ease of the delisting of Christianity. I have a MySpace page, a YouTube site, and my e-mail is readily available to anyone who can make an intelligent google search. EdChampion once sent me a text message on my cell phone in a fit of wiki-stalking, surely you can find me if you care to. Stay in touch and best wishes.

With regrets, but no apologies. -- SECisek (talk) 10:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Please, have no regrets and apologies are not necessary. You are hardly the first good editor who contributes a ton to the project and then is dissed. Another good editor from Illinois - IvoShandor (talk · contribs) - found the same problem and left. One of the most prolific FA contributors - Cla68 (talk · contribs) - found himself amazingly under attack a month ago. Several others are in a bizarre dispute with troublemakers. In other words, many Wikipedians and I understand your aggravation. My new year's resolution is to stay away from any article that attracts POV pushers like bears to honey. Nor, will I fight silly vandalism on those pages. Really, what do I care if a million and a half articles claim the most strange fringe theory as truth and are liberally sprinkled with "Cody is gay" and "dsfaogaoganrg". Will anyone take such an article seriously? Will anyone care? I will work on articles that purely interest me. In the end, if Wikipedia collapses under the weight of in fighting, I will at least be enriched by my own reading and research even if Wikipedia cares not for it at all. My involvement will be with Wikipedia:One featured article per quarter and using my admin tools to keep that clean and to help at FA. I am leaving the dross makers with the dross. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi to you both. I am saddened to see you go, Secisek, but I understand. I've been through some problems myself. Wikipedia seems fraught with mixed messages. I've also come to limit myself to doing what interests me. I enjoy learning new things and I still enjoy the serendipity of researching for an article on something dull and finding other things that really interest me. I did an article this morning that fits in that category Best wishes to you both. clariosophic (talk) 23:49, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:One featured article per quarter

I've declared my intention to take the wizard rock band article Draco and the Malfoys to GA by March and a true encyclopedia-worthy article - Adventures of Huckleberry Finn - to FA by April. I will spend my hobby time here at Wikipedia on those two articles and surrounding articles only. I intend to keep my patch of Wikipedia nice and clean. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Novels WikiProject

Book collection.jpg

Hi, and welcome to the Novels WikiProject! As you may have guessed, we're a group of editors working to improve Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to fiction books often referred to as "Novels".

A few features that you might find helpful:

There are a variety of interesting things to do within the project; you're free to participate however much—or little—you like:

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask one of the members, and we'll be happy to help you. Again, welcome! We look forward to seeing you around! :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 16:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

GA Review of Armstrong Sperry

Hello, I'm glad you agreed with my comments. There was a mix-up with User:Amatulic and myself; I had "signed up" to take on the Review, but while I was laboriously writing out my comments for why I thought the article should fail, they commented on the talk page, saying that they were going to be reviewing the article. I added my comments anyway and removed my name as the reviewer, thinking they would take over, but they never came back; so I'm glad you stepped in. :) Just a note to say sorry for the confusion and I agree with your assessment. Take care, María (habla conmigo) 17:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:58, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

ACfL GA review

Wassup, thank you for taking the time to review A Canticle for Leibowitz. Your generous words and observations are much appreciated. I hope you enjoy the book!
Jim Dunning | talk 04:34, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I will!. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 04:38, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


Choco chip cookie.jpg Thanks for your support
Thank you SO MUCH for your support in my unanimous RFA. Take this cookie as a small token of my appreciation.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 06:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Good luck. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 06:25, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Novels members

Why!!! have you alphabetized the members list you did this is no consultation that I can see. now we will find it very difficult to monitor joiners and also easily check those who are older member and have turned in active. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually I do agree, however just to correct, slightly. You say "years", actually that is slightly stretching a point. last changed by a user March 2007 and last worked on otherwise Oct 2006. So, just over a year and a quarter.
Ok! so actually this sequence is now a lot better. However asking just yesterday afternoon and resequencing just a few hours later is "a bit" quick.
Anyway no real harm done, and yes it is better. In my view. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 16:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
No problem - I know I might be the most active member here but there are quite a few others. Have a look at some of the project pages and scan the update history a bit and you should get a good idea of the workrate. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 16:20, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Children's literature project

Anyway moving on. Quite happy to get involved but really only in the narrative prose (i.e. WPNovels) sense. We have a relationship with the Australian literature project. This involves setting up a task force that advertises and points to the work of the the project as linked with this one. I think such a link would benefit both projects. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 16:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Gas on the Fire

Perhaps there is plenty of blame to spread here. User:Professor marginalia had never participated or commented on the Introduction to Evolution entry since its inception. This is how his difference of opinion was accepted by another:

  • I don't think that my comments were considered, looking at the hostile response above
  • I see the Wiki-gang-up in full force.
  • There is no need to call others in to dismiss my comments from even different angles, the hostility to sex as a source of variation is evident

While screaming victim --- they are personally attacking the intent of a new contributor. Doubt if Professor marginalia will be coming back either. It should have never spilled to the FA page. Unfortunately, that forced me to defend the article in open forum. At no point would I defend Filll; thou I saw a response of that nature coming like a freight train.--Random Replicator (talk) 21:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

How many places do you have to personally attack me? Now Wassupwestcoast has to say I'm "obsessed" with linking sex and evolution? Is this typical Wikipedia? This, right now, is exactly how your gang has come across from square one:aggressive hostility towards an outsider, someone who wasn't part of your gang already. Anyone who disagrees with you will be hounded all over Wikipedia, attacked relentlessly, on article discussion pages, on personal discussion pages. Everything they do will be wrong, will be dissected. Wassupwestcoast, your post on my page was dishonest. Random Replicator, you've said enough about me. It's clear personally insulting me and attacking me is consuming a lot of bandwidth. Strangely, I would have thought evolution more interesting. --Amaltheus (talk) 02:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
What? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
What? Flaming? What? Cheers! It was a talented flame on your part, though, very deserving of a response. I'm impressed with how many Wikipedians it takes to get rid of one editor and how many nasty personal attacks will be resorted to in so many places. You did go, though, Wassup. Cheers, indeed! --Amaltheus (talk) 02:32, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


Do you really think the things you wrote here are true? We don't block users for good faith edits?!? We block sometimes for disruptive editing. Disruption does not require intentional malice. We don't block users for productive edits, but nonproductive edits can be the result of intentional damage or a lack a competence. You may wish to have a look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Angel David for some background. There are a handful of users who claim they can teach this child to edit productively, but I see no indication of success, or even that they're actually trying. At any rate, it's become clear by now that he needs more babysitting than we can provide. I'd much rather see this kid playing with his user page than running amok in article space. Do you have a better suggestion? Friday (talk) 16:27, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Harold Innis GA Review

Thanks so much for your careful review of the Innis article. I found your suggestions extremely helpful and I've made the necessary changes. Thanks again. Bwark (talk) 21:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh hell no!!!!

You are in it now!!! Stay until this is resolved or simply by general agreement dismissed! I screwed it up. I thought they just wanted the mention of the social concerns as a broader understanding of the topic; the part about including the scientific objections went right over my head. I really don't think there are any. I hope no one jumps with allegations of creationist agenda on the guy... we are already suffering from an image problem!!! --Random Replicator (talk) 00:18, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

You went there out of meanness!!!!!!!! I'm going to go knocked down a cold Corona before I do get an ulcer. --Random Replicator (talk) 01:49, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


Thank you for the friendly invitation. Tonicthebrown (talk) 03:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)


Broom icon.svg
Dear Wassupwestcoast, my sincere thanks for your support in my second request for adminship, which ended with 113 supports, 11 opposes, and 4 neutral. I would especially like to thank my admin coach and nominator, Rlevse and Ryan Postlethwaite who in addition to Ioeth all inspired me to run for a second candidacy. I would also like to make a special mention to Phoenix-wiki, Dihyrdogen Monoxide and OhanaUnited who all offered to do co-nominations, but I unfortunately had to decline. I had all these funny ideas that it would fail again, and I was prepared for the worst, but at least it showed that the community really does have something other places don't. Who would have though Gmail would have been so effective? 32 emails in one week! (Even if it does classify some as junk :P) I'm glad that I've been appointed after a nail biting and some might call, decision changing RFA, but if you ever need anything, just get in touch. The very best of luck for 2008 and beyond, Rudget. 16:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Smoke but no fire.

Although Darwin outlined the basis for evolution over two hundred years ago, the theory continues to be a source of contention among the general population world-wide. Many of theobjections center around perceived conflicts between evolution and the many religious views as to the source of species diversity. This is in striking contrast to support for the theory within the scientific community (99.99%) work the number in there somehow ------ Stop ------ Nothing more.... No defense .... no offense just a statement). Avoids two phrases "in spite of" and "over-whelming". We can be all things to all people!!!! I think we can!!!! ---- we can link off the word objections to the main articles -- yes?--Random Replicator (talk) 02:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I've submitted my compromise on the talk page; I'll wait for your version there. Mine is much more toned down than yours ... they are going to rain down fire and brimstone on your head!!!! --Random Replicator (talk) 16:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes ... Dwellers talk page may be the best place to focus --- we are a bit spread out. Lets try to get one version there we can live with and then take it to the masses. thanks! my goal on this is joy for all ... perhaps an over-reaction to the harsh criticism from our past visitor, Cheers! --Random Replicator (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
If you can take a look at Dwellers talk. The oppose is solved, now if we can agree amongst ourselves. No pressure!--Random Replicator (talk) 23:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Christianity

Did you need some sort of admin help? I haven't looked at the article in a while. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 04:50, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Not now I don't. It was just moved several times by a page-move vandal. At first I thought it was your fault for reducing it to semi-protection, but it was actually the previous administrator's fault for setting an expiry time on their full protection – Gurch 04:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
OK. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 04:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Re:Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Harry and the Potters discography

It might be okay? But nevertheless, that essay was a good read. Thanks for the link. Hpfan9374 (talk) 03:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Tom and Huck (1995 film)

I just restored this redirect, which you deleted as a "redundant image". I assume this was by mistake; as you are probably aware, redirects resulting from page moves should usually not be deleted. Happy editing, Kusma (talk) 14:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, wasn't certain if it was redundant. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

FAC (Intro to evo)

Ah - I see you have just done what I was about to do, and invited people back to have another look. I'll leave it to you. Well done! Snalwibma (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I'll be interested to see if a civil dialog can take place on the issue of the box. Certainly User:Snalwibma is not a gang member or not even around at the time. I've argue from the beginning that my beef was only that it spill over to the FA page which put me in the attack mode. Perhaps not my finest hour! I have no strong opinion of the box --- I like sex. --Random Replicator (talk) 23:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

No, I've not reconsidered. The taunting about sex[1] is boring and simply shows your continued unwillingness to discuss issues that arise. Snalwibma refuses to believe what I said about the summary box is about the summary box, so there's very little to do about that when I'm using English to say what I mean and Snalwibma is reading whatever. And Wassup is enjoying taunting me too much, so, no, I haven't reconsidered. I did have a ton of nit-picky details I disagreed with in the article from square one, but weighed them and their value before deciding what I felt really mattered, only one or two small changes that would have enhanced the quality in my opinion. However, although I did not consider these details worth putting forth in a collaborative effort, if I did change my vote at all it would only be after all of these details had been discussed, since discussion takes such a poor second place to the fun and games around here, and that continues to concern me as being 100% counterproductive to a civil discussion about issues. Many people will find the article more important and interesting than engaging in endless pokes and jabs at people they disagree with--after all, that's what a lot of people read Wikipedia for: the information, not to get mocked. Cheers! --Amaltheus (talk) 00:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

OK. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 00:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to get involved with this sort of nonsense, so I'll just comment (i.e. let off steam) quietly here. Sorry if it's the wrong place! For the record, I did not do anything like "refuse to believe what [Amaltheus] said about the summary box is about the summary box". I came late to the discussion and tried to act as a mediator. I told Amaltheus that it all seemed to have got sidetracked into personal matters and apparent expressions of hurt feelings, and that I therefore found it hard to discern what change(s) Amaltheus actually wanted to make to the article. I suggested that a restatement of the key issue(s) might be useful. Then this sort of tirade... Oh well - steam vented - apologies for abusing your talk page! Snalwibma (talk) 08:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
It's nice you've found a place to continue to raise your issue of my "hurt feelings." And that Wassupwestcoast is so welcoming to the idea of your using this page to discuss me personally.[2] I agree with you on this, though, that I'm more interesting personally than the article is as long as it's written by editors who prefer reading my feelings over the land lines to working on the article. --Amaltheus (talk) 03:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


Amò l'è lé? Brískelly Problèmes, questions, angoisses? 13:03, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Response to follow-up!

Did you understand the response from User:Brískelly? No hablo english? --Random Replicator (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

No. Odd cause he uses English on his user page. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:12, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
When this is over we need to have a group hug or better yet a cold beer. You have been a tremendous help in both your edits and in your moral support; I promise that both Filll and I would never intend to offend. I was ready to raise the white flag long ago if you had not stepped in. --Random Replicator (talk) 03:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your support! I came here to review the article, and like a Wikipedian is supposed to do, I came here to contribute also. However, you and Filll are clearly the in-house experts for this article. Lose you two and the article will just float and drift away. The funny part is that my New Year's resolution was to do an FA article on Huck Finn. I'm still working on it. But, this article is becoming my Wikipedia obsession. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Hope you don't mind

I moved your comment to after mine.[3] I think there might be a template to break insert comments inbetween mine, but I can't find it. Sorry. TableMannersC·U·T 05:43, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Please don't take the bait. If we fill the page with even more allegations of personal attack on the discussion page it will only serve to undermine all your hard work here. Deep breathe now!!!!!!!! --Random Replicator (talk) 13:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, sometimes I'm a bull in a china shop. I wish someone would blow the whistle on this thing and just put us out of our misery! Say a prayer for the rest of us.--Random Replicator (talk) 02:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk page please

Please continue the discussion at the talk page before reverting.[4] Thanks. TableMannersC·U·T 04:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I am talking. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 04:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Could you move User:Wassupwestcoast/sandbox evo lead to Talk:Introduction to evolution/LeadDraft2? Thanks. TableMannersC·U·T 06:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

<undent> Hi, hope you don't mind me treating the article page as a sketchpad, I thought the ideas you were discussing here had already been implemented. Feel free to move a copy of the Mark III version (or whatever it is) to a sandbox for discussion, or I'll move it if you prefer. Trust this shows that we can achieve worthwhile improvements from the various inputs :) . . dave souza, talk 17:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


Except at the same time you posted this[5] supposed "welcome to Wikipedia" you were posting this[6] calling my comments about including sex in one line of the summary box an article about the evolution of eukaryotic organisms an "obsession with linking sex and evolution." Just keep fanning the flames, which is precisely what you are doing by continuing to discuss me rather than the article.

As soon as you characterized my comment about including sex in the summary box as an "obsession with linking sex and evolution" you were off base. My "obsessions" are not part of the table for the article about evolution. All that's part of it is the article. Don't keep talking about in user talk space as if you didn't start out by characterizing me rather than the article.

Try to find the article and stay away from the personal and you may understand where I'm coming from-I won't be coming from anywhere when that becomes the case. --Amaltheus (talk) 19:37, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Get your story straight, I posted the second comment to RR a day after I welcomed you. Not at the same time. And the comment to RR had nothing to do with you personally at all. I wasn't talking about you. Stop putting words into my mouth and assuming what is not there. Stop flinging mud at me. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I do have my story straight. You posted the comment under a thread Random Replicator had about my "screaming victim" while "attacking the intent of a new contributor." A welcome contributor, unlike me. Your welcome was nothing of the sort, just a prelude to more digs, and as such it was more offensive than not being welcomed. I didn't have to put any words in your mouth-you put them there. And it wasn't a day, it was hours:

  • 20:02, 12 January 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Amaltheus‎ (welcome and be bold.)
  • 02:28, 13 January 2008 (hist) (diff) User talk:Wassupwestcoast‎ (→Gas on the Fire - reply)

My story is straighter and more accurate than yours. If you want to welcome people don't smack them 5 1/2 hours later. --Amaltheus (talk) 20:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Gas on the Fire Perhaps there is plenty of blame to spread here. User:Professor marginalia had never participated or commented on the Introduction to Evolution entry since its inception. This is how his difference of opinion was accepted by another:

I don't think that my comments were considered, looking at the hostile response above I see the Wiki-gang-up in full force. There is no need to call others in to dismiss my comments from even different angles, the hostility to sex as a source of variation is evident While screaming victim --- they are personally attacking the intent of a new contributor. Doubt if Professor marginalia will be coming back either. It should have never spilled to the FA page. Unfortunately, that forced me to defend the article in open forum. At no point would I defend Filll; thou I saw a response of that nature coming like a freight train.--Random Replicator (talk) 21:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

How many places do you have to personally attack me? Now Wassupwestcoast has to say I'm "obsessed" with linking sex and evolution? Is this typical Wikipedia? This, right now, is exactly how your gang has come across from square one:aggressive hostility towards an outsider, someone who wasn't part of your gang already. Anyone who disagrees with you will be hounded all over Wikipedia, attacked relentlessly, on article discussion pages, on personal discussion pages. Everything they do will be wrong, will be dissected. Wassupwestcoast, your post on my page was dishonest. Random Replicator, you've said enough about me. It's clear personally insulting me and attacking me is consuming a lot of bandwidth. Strangely, I would have thought evolution more interesting. --Amaltheus (talk) 02:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC) What? Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:28, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop it. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


Stop posting comments about me everywhere you feel the need to[7] and I will be glad to stick to finding faults with the article, there are certainly plenty to find.

It's very simple. Stop talking about me. I should not be a topic on this encyclopedia. And I will never initiate anything, but will respond. --Amaltheus (talk) 20:51, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Stop it. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)


Everything now points to Talk:Introduction to evolution/LeadDraft2. I think its sorted. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:48, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Of course I do not agree. I found the depth of the two dramatically different. Ahhh but remember who won that war! Never any hard feelings thou --- you put up with a lot of shit on our behalf --- I'll always appreciate that. --Random Replicator (talk) 03:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you --- I do take your concern very seriously; and was distraught by the reversal. If we can ride the tide of FA and maintain some stability. Then we can look to breaking up some sentences and finding those pesky over the top descriptors. It may even require dropping some content which crept in as Filll stated to defend against every exception. Your right -- there is never an end to the process; but maybe a lull in activity until the FA Director can review one stable copy is not such a bad idea. Again - Thank you.--Random Replicator (talk) 16:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for catching my slip-up on the article count at the top of the list. Cheers. – Scartol • Tok 17:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the grunge work.

I had not a clue on formating. I didn't even know there were templates until recently. I do know that no one wants to deal with the tedious junk. So for that I am in your debt!!!! Thanks. --Random Replicator (talk) 22:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks --- again. Unfortunately the other text weren't added by me; so I do not have access for page numbers. Could you figure out the feedback on the mechanisms section. Should I stay or should I go.... If I stay there could be trouble .... If I go there could be double .... (A song from somewhere) I thought is would be a perfect replacement for the stub. It seems a bit out of place now that the entire article has become less inclusive. Maybe a statement that its going unless someone speaks out for its retention? --Random Replicator (talk) 04:23, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Clicking on Gould ub the fossil section (citation) doesn't do anything. I'm afraid to Dork with the formating. I deleted the one beside it --- the other gould without a page number as it was not needed as a reference. If we don't getsomepage numbers on the other 3-4 we may go down in flames and I unfortunately can't access the books. Let me know if you think switching to a web reference on tnose few is a good plan B. Gotta another support with a very minor compromise!--Random Replicator (talk) 01:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Do you really think I'd send you "down in flames" over page nos?  :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Mayr, Ernst (1970), Populations, Species, and Evolution, Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, ISBN 0674690109 As it relates to the chiclids --ummm the fish.

This is the last book to apply page numbers. I replaced one book with a much better web resource --- and cited it flawlessly --- so don't worry! I used "phone a friend" for the others to get the pages. --Random Replicator (talk) 22:02, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm done That last round on the FA talk page did me in. Thanks for bringing it up to snuff. You are a good person - and clearly far more patient than any of us. I was joking when I said "The last one out - shut the door" However, other than the unmentioned one --- your it! A heart felt cheers to you my friend!!!--Random Replicator (talk) 02:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Updated notice box with link

Here is an updated version of the noticebox with a link back to the discussion page:

Given the level of dysfunction that has come to prevail on Wikipedia, the most appropriate course for a principled scientist is to withdraw from the project.

The bureaucracy should either take corrective steps to fix this situation, or else suffer the eventual loss of huge amounts of valuable talent and volunteered resources.

If you agree with this statement, post it to your pages, and pass it on. (discuss this here)

We want to draw as many eyes to the discussion where we can decide what to do. If we get enough attention and enough good ideas, perhaps we can have some input into policy to correct a few problems that are bedeviling science on Wikipedia.--Filll (talk) 14:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 14:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

What the hell is this?

[8] Why the hell were you giving a vandalism warning template to an established user? That is grossly unacceptable. Templates are not something you hand out because policy says so; they are just a way of warning new users. It is absurdly patronising to leave such a template on the talk page of an established, good-faith user, let along Gurch, who is one of the best.

Have you any idea how gratuitously offensive your action was?

Sam Korn (smoddy) 15:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Um no offense, but do you think it is possible that this note might be construed by some as offensive in its tone? I apologize if this post was uncivil or offensive in any way; it was intended to be so and I apologize to anyone that was offended.--Filll (talk) 15:46, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
If it was offensive to someone, they need to get a grip on what offensive means. It does not mean criticism, even if harshly phrased. Sam Korn (smoddy) 01:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive819#Vandalism of WP:FAIL. Wiki snit? Wiki drama? Whether a new user or established user, using 'rollback' to massively delete good-faith 'sourced' texts and edit war in a content dispute is not done. So, yes, the editor got a warning. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a clue what warning templates are for? I am not defending Gurch's actions (I am explicitly not commenting on them), but do you not realise what their purpose is? You are accusing him of being a vandal, someone who deliberately goes out to harm Wikipedia. Vandalism warnings are not punishments, automatically given out. When it is an established user, they are never appropriate. I am astonished you can't grasp this. You can discuss politely, you can even warn. Your comment was lazy and mindless. Your lack of common sense is mind-boggling. Sam Korn (smoddy) 01:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but you seem to be saying that 'an established, good-faith user' can never be considered to be a vandal. The rules of Wikipedia apply to everyone ...even Wales. If an editor behaves in a manner that is clearly disruptive of Wikipedia, then they have become a vandal. I've been here long enough to see admins go rogue. Certainly, using 'rollback' to edit war is vandalism. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Miserable time

I have never had as miserable time on Wikipedia as these last few weeks. I saw Introduction to Evolution on the FA Candidate page and 'supported' it. I then contributed my time to tweak it further. I have never experienced a page go sideways so badly. I believe that the artilce should be deleted because of inevitable content forking as the article is constantly under pressure to converge to the sophistication of the main article Evolution. There is - almost - no natural constituency on Wikipedia to maintain - let alone to write - a simple straightforward explanation of evolution. 'Introduction to Evolution' is not supposed to duplicate 'Evolution'. I think we are re-writing 'Evolution'. I can not see this article ever being stable. It is unnecessary and grief causing. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 06:33, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for your work which has produced great improvements, very sorry to read of the misery. It's fully understandable, this place can get like a crazy MUD and even well intentioned efforts can come across as attacks. Of course, not that I'm paranoid, but there are also real attacks :-/ The thing I find useful to remember is that I'm only doing this for fun, and there's no obligation on me to do anything unless I want to. A break and a bit of the relative sanity of the real world is often a very good idea, hope you enjoy it and are refreshed. Thanks again, .. dave souza, talk 09:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, have a fish.

Barney the Bishapod.png The Evolution Award
Thanks for all the fish, Wassupwestcoast, and for working to dispel the yapping terriers of ignorance, using the simplest of language. dave souza, talk 11:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (fiction)

I have not actually been following that discussion directly. From what I can tell, it has basically become another ground to fight the WP:EPISODE battle, with people who want episode stubs (infobox, plot summary, and nothing else) looking to make sure they can keep them (when WP:EPISODE's current attempt at resolution is to merge these into a list, preserving all the content, just not as separate articles). I believe it was Masem's rewrite of FICT that resulted in EPISODE getting looked at, and now it is falling back down the chain. Expect the discussion to hit the pumps soon enough... LinaMishima (talk) 12:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


Delete Please --Random Replicator (talk) 23:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

So long. I enjoyed the collaboration. I am taking an extended break myself. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 23:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


It made it.--Filll (talk) 18:22, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Very cool. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


Dude, don't stress it. I was involved with him and another editor going a bit bats at each other. I got nowhere fast. Rise above it, move on. Hope you're not too depressed about the whole thing... The Rambling Man (talk) 11:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I was ignoring Amaltheus. Then I made the fatal mistake of looking at his user page after Intro to Evo went to FA. I just about had a coronary 'cause of the sudden rage. I really am going to have to take Feb off. Thank you for your reply. At least, it isn't just me. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 14:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, just chill it. Work on other things. All the best! The Rambling Man (talk) 14:08, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Best to just leave him alone.

IMHO. Ok?--Filll (talk) 14:41, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm still simmering :-) Wassupwestcoast (talk) 14:44, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Everyone chill... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


Sorry, I missed your message. I can certainly see your point... and empathise - take a look higher up my own talk page.

If I might patronise you for a minute, the thing to remember when faced with accusations on Wikipedia is that anyone glancing at them will assess not just the accusation but who is the accuser and who is the accused. When vandals and trolls leave me unpleasant messages at my talk because I've blocked someone, deleted something or reverted, I'm not too bothered because a) I know I did the right thing (on the occasions where that's not true, I'm always happy to apologise) and b) accusations from a disruptive editor are not worth sweat.

If I received accusations about my behaviour from a trusted user, who was calm and considered, I would be appalled. Anything less than that I treat at its relative value. If I find no merit in the accusation, I am confident anyone else whose opinion I truly care about will do too. In fact, I often solicit third party advice to check I'm on the right lines.

Heck, the "You deleted all my articles on Paper Towel Football, you harrassing bully"-type messages are practically a badge of honour.

I hope that's of use. Look forward to seeing you again soon. --Dweller (talk) 15:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the reply. Your approach makes complete sense. I was over taken by blind rage, especially because I have never run into anything quite like it here. Wikipedia always surprises me. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:30, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

January 2008

Congratulations, good job on the FAC. Drop me a note when you get back again. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. I shall return in March. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 23:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Closed for February 2008

I am taking a wiki-break for the month of February. Since, I started editing on Wikipedia, I made the second most number of edits in January. There was also some nastiness at the end of the month that made my time here quite miserable. Before I leave, I tried to catch up on a bit of maintenance at a few projects. I enjoyed working with everyone and hope to edit with you in March. I will not be monitoring my user pages until then. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 23:26, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy Hols, and thanks for helping me do edits on the Authorized Version article. You suggested putting it forwards as a featured article - but my impression is that it already has been. Various editors have added a bit since then, butbasically it must be the same article. TomHennell (talk) 01:03, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XXI - February 2008

The February 2008 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.

This is an automated delivery by KevinalewisBot --12:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Open for March 2008

I'm back again. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 14:51, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back. You were missed. Best wishes. clariosophic (talk) 15:16, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for the welcome. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:17, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, welcome. See my user page. -- SECisek (talk) 20:39, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XXII - March 2008

The March 2008 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This is an automated delivery by KevinalewisBot --18:05, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Pseudoscience discretionary sanctions

Hi! As somebody who commented on a January proposal to place all articles related to homeopathy on article probation, I would greatly appreciate your input on a new proposal to help combat disruption that would scrap the probation and implement discretionary sanctions. I apologize for any intrusion, but this is to my knowledge the first time sanctions of this nature have been attempted to be enforced by the community, so I feel that a wide range of opinions is necessary. Thank you in advance for any comments you may make. east718 (talk) 19:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Novels - 1st Coordinators Election

An election has been proposed and has been set up for this project. Description of the roles etc., can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Coordinators. If you wish to stand, enter your candidacy before the end of March and ask your questions of anyone already standing at Wikipedia:WikiProject Novels/Coordinators/May 2008. Voting will start on the 1st April and close at the end of April. The intention is for the appointments to last from May - November 2008. For other details check out the pages or ask. KevinalewisBot (talk) 14:20, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


Looking over those wikiprojects, I can see that there are an incredibly diverse amount of ideas floating through the ether, we shouldn't however, group them together under the one banner, but maybe have a leader for all of them, whilst they stil retain their indipendance, I will personally go to each of those project pages and post a banner asking for input on the subject.DangerTM (talk) 10:57, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Some projects are so inert, it does seem to make sense to me to kick start some of the projects by merging them. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church

Hi W. Please do not insert material into a referenced sentence unless you add a reference to support the material. Our sentences have been source audited to make sure they say what the reference says. I have to revert a couple of your edits that did this. Im sorry. NancyHeise (talk) 18:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to cause you stress. I was actually trying to relieve your stress by inserting a bit about the criminally convicted and jailed priests, esp. in Boston. It is so widely known because of intense press coverage that it is practically common knowledge. Leaving it out will invite finger-pointing by the Neutral POV brigade. All the same, you've done a really good job. I hope it becomes FA. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:21, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your help, I'll go get a newspaper article and re - add the material - stupid me, I should have thought of such a simple thing! Thanks for your help. NancyHeise (talk) 18:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Roman Catholic Church first sentence

Hi. I know you may not have seen this, but the most recent discussion of the subject generated a number of perfectly acceptable versions of the first sentence which are both factually correct and NPOV. Here's a link to the discussion on the talk page. (Talk:Roman_Catholic_Church#First_sentence) Thanks! Dgf32 (talk) 20:01, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry. I knew I shouldn't have touched that sentence. I'm completely aware of the huge and nasty RCC vs CC debates that go back years! Please, correct my meddling. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:10, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
No problem. Thanks for being so charitable, not to mention friendly! Dgf32 (talk) 20:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for the tip. I am sure I will put something back up sooner or later. Again, it will be a busy year for me. -- SECisek (talk) 21:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)


Dear Wassup - I am a Catholic and even I don't understand clearly what is being said in the new creed paragraph. I think it is confusing. NancyHeise (talk) 01:36, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about this creed business. I'm trying to simplify the Roman Catholic Church article by removing universal Christian doctrines and beliefs. The sentence might be too obscure. But the gist is that Catholics recognize three creedal (belief) statements 'cause they formulated them. The Nicene creed is the basic statement of Christian belief. The Apostle's is the baptismal statement. The obscure Athanasian creed is a bit odd and reinforces the Holy Trinity. You know this. I know this (as a practicing Anglican). Most Christians know this. It isn't unique to the Roman Catholic Church. The article ought to be trimmed of this sort of redundancy. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:46, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
What if we just mention the Nicene creed as the basic statement of Roman Catholic belief, its universality among the other Christian churches and eliminate the references to the two other creeds. WE dont need to have all that obscure doctrinal history in there - it really is confusing an nobody is going to care. Do you mind if I tinker with the paragraph a bit and you can tell me what you think? NancyHeise (talk) 02:12, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Please tinker! And, tinker also at User:Wassupwestcoast/sandbox/RCC rough draft belief. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:15, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Is your rough draft sandbox page for a new article on Roman Catholic Theology or are you thinking of putting it on RCC? I hope you aren't putting it on RCC. NancyHeise (talk) 02:24, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
It is to build a very brief synopsis of Roman Catholic belief. Rather than edit warring (well, not quite), we can build up a consensus version. Every one, please visit it and hack away. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

RCC; "worst exp. ever"

Just now looked at your user page. Sorry about the fact that "I've just gone through the worst editing experience ever on Wikipedia". Hope the RCC FAC isn't getting under your skin. In my opinion, this whole thing... was inevitable. As I mentioned in the FAC and its talk, the topic is huge and controversial. But I got my head taken off for saying that. ;-) Ling.Nut (talk) 07:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

No, the RCC page is nothing like the worst experience ever! But I sense an edit war is starting. I'm not comfortable with the article as it is, and have decided to 'oppose' it for now. I hate doing that...but I think it is just going to get nasty. I'm off to better editing pastures. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 07:35, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I meant to say, sorry about that worst exp., whatever it was. But an edit war may be in the offing at RCC. I was hoping to avoid it. I do think you shouldn't have removed the Creed over the strenuous objections of the article's dedicated editors.. but... I see why you did. I also agree it should be removed. But whatever! Hope you enjoy whatever topic you're off to! :-) Ling.Nut (talk) 07:40, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I've reverted the massive edit. This is probably going to trigger an edit war. Sorry. I'm off to project novels! It's quieter over there. The worst experience ever was to push, pull and drag Introduction to Evolution to FA. We succeeded but it was nasty. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 07:45, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Deletion of The Church of Google article

Excuse me, but that article went through a AfD, where we discussed whether or not to delete it. The result was "keep." For you to now just go ahead and delete and salt it was wrong. You think it promotes a personal website? Do personal websites have hundreds of active members? And in that case, go along and delete the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster article. That article was supposed to be informative. It you don't think it was informative, post so on its talk page. But don't go deleting articles after they have been democratically voted on to stay. "The universe is a figment of its own imagination" - Douglas Adams (talk) 14:46, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

re: additional reading on liberalism

This is not the first time this article is nominated for deletion. The issue has been discussed before and resolved to the satisfaction of both parties.

Your reasons for nominating the article for deletion is as follows: "Indeterminate and indiscriminate reading list. Not encyclopedic."

The fact that the list does not provide criteria for inclusion and/or exclusion does not ipso facto mean that it is "indeterminate and indiscriminate." My suggestion to you is that you refrain from assuming that something is indiscriminate simply because you yourself are unaware of what the implicit organizing principles might be.

I'd be happy to provide you with the criteria for inclusion if you so wish.

--Rubbersoul20 (talk) 19:45, 17 March 2008 (UTC)Eric

Why was this page deleted?

According to the deletion log, the article entitled "Church of Google" was deleted because it was a meaningless joke article. I didn't write the article, but I know that is was, in fact, not a joke. On behalf of the people at, I would like to ask if this was the only reason that it was deleted. -- (talk) 21:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Wassupwestcoast: This article, The Church of Google, was the subject of a 2nd AfD, which I assume you didn't see, that closed as Keep Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Church of Google (2nd nomination) on 29 February 2008, with no DRV initiated, so please restore it as a matter of process. Thank you. — Becksguy (talk) 08:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the deleted talk page, that result of the AfD was mistakenly never entered there., which is why you didnt see it. Just a minor mistake; I probably would have missed it also. I doubt you are on-wiki now, so restore it later in the morning when you are DGG (talk) 08:48, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, see the confusion now. There were multiple AfDs. Both for The Church of Google, and the Universal Church of Google. I shall restore and redirect. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

This appears to be a case of Wikipedia:Gaming the system as the article and its variants have under gone multipe AfDs with the majority closing as DELETE:

Thus, the concensus of concensus (a meta-concensus) would suggest the article ought to be deleted. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Layout change

You're absolutely right. Sorry! EyeSerenetalk 18:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

We are both right! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for the help, I've added my opinion to the reassessment. Guest9999 (talk) 19:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it does need the GAR treatment. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

The General in his Labyrinth

I can't bear to look at the failure there to use named refs; are you working in there now, or can I put it in use to clean up the refs? I'll follow your talk page, so you can respond here. Wasn't sure what that last editor had done, but those refs need work. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:25, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll work on the refs! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
I totally apologize. This whole mess is a complete misunderstanding. Seriously. Totally apologize. When you wrote to me:

"I can't bear to look at the failure there to use named refs; are you working in there now, or can I put it in use to clean up the refs?"

I thought you put the {{inuse}} tag for me I said I would work on the reference name problem. This is obviously self-centered of me ...I didn't mean to be rude at all. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 21:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


Hi Wassup. You'll have to tell me what wording is violated. Virtually every good book article here (and television episode, movie etc.) goes with synopsis after the lead. Lists, such as publication history, come last. And definitely headlines should drop implied subjects (Characters in the book). Marskell (talk) 20:32, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I was going by the the layout in the guidelines. I don't have any reason to do otherwise! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:35, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see--you were following the guideline headings themselves. Those don't necessarily match article space. Look at The Raven or Hamlet, as examples. Articles dealing with fictional works almost always have the synopsis immediately after the lead. There's no one-size-fits-all, but in general you should start by immediately summarizing the work. Cheers, Marskell (talk) 20:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Wassup, do you know the purpose of an inuse tempalte? I'm busting my buns, and you're undoing what I'm doing and edit conflicting with me ... do you mind giving me an hour to clean up this mess? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:57, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

You'll clean up the mess? I lost a bunch of work I did, only to help you all. The question is, will you just respect the inuse for an hour and let me do the cleanup, or should I just forget it? I don't like losing work to edit conflicts, and someone erased all my named refs. Yes or no to the inuse ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I have to say, Wassup, that's one of the rudest things I've ever encountered. The inuse template is precisely so someone won't lose a lot of work to edit conflicts. I did, and you persisted even after I queried. I won't trouble the good folks on that article again. BTW, there are still WP:MOSBOLD issues all over the place, and a lot of other cleanup I intended to do if you just would have given me an hour. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

There was a lot of hustle-and-bustle and I presume Wassup just missed it. (I think the inuse template is useless on articles that are being currently edited.)
Wassup, I just posted to the talk regarding section placement if you want to comment there. Marskell (talk) 21:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

All right, apology accepted, but that scenario triggers maximum frustration, nothing I won't get over, but I won't go near those sets of articles again, because that happens every time I drop in to help there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I've done my best to fix the damage I've caused at The General in His Labyrinth. To keep everyone from going hypertensive, I won't go back for a while. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 22:29, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Wassup, don't worry about me :-) I apologize for overreacting; it's not a big deal, and I can re-do the work anytime. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:02, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


I long ago gave up, too. Today, I noticed our friend hasn't shown up for two months. Maybe he quit when I left to win that election? We can hope. Anyhow, after pulling Anne Boleyn out of certain GA delisting and getting a pass on my Henry Martyn, I felt emboldened and thought I would give it another go. The delisting was nonsense. It was timed to take place when I wasn't around. If I had been around here it never would have happened. Keep your fingers crossed. -- Secisek (talk) 19:41, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


I looked at the discussion for about 5 seconds when I first got back and ran in terror. The article itself, however, is GA now and should serve as a model for Anglicanism. That is, if the Anglican editors can stop going at each other like Roundheads and Laud's men. I don't understand how - in a church which has almost universal open communion to baptized Christians - any Anglican would declare that the Anglican church up the street from their own is somehow out of communion with them. Wilberforce looks good. Anything else shaking? I had been kicking around some of the Oriental Orthodox articles when a few people started an Indian Christianity group. So that has been a focus of mine for a bit. Some articles fit into Oriental Orthdoxy, Anglicanism, and Indian Christianity all at the same time.

My recent travels in the Pacific also have me intrested in Hawai'ian royalty, so I may head over there for a bit.

Anne Boleyn cleaned up so easily that Henry VIII, Mary I, and Charles I might all be good targets as well. What have you been up to. -- Secisek (talk) 20:10, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Augustine of Canterbury seems to be getting a good polish from the Anglo-Saxon experts at the moment too. On the Edward front, I fear you're only going to have woken the Kraken David Underdown (talk) 20:25, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I have worked closely with those ediotrs before and we were talking about setting up a portal/sub project to deal with Pre-Reformation Christianity in England and Wales, Scotland, and Ireland. Something like Wikiproject:Christianity in the British Isles prior to the Reformation or something not so wordy - any ideas? As for Edmund, if the Kraken rises, I am just going to sail away. -- Secisek (talk) 20:40, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I went through similar trouble at Introduction to Evolution with an editor whose entire Wikipedia presence bracketed the article's FAC. The editor is now gone. I fear not the Kraken. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 20:50, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

The Kraken has returned. He is clearly a sock puppetmaster who only uses EdChampion when there is buisness at Edmund the Martyr. I withdrew the nom. Sigh...--Secisek (talk) 21:46, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

I suspect that you are correct! However, he is nothing like the worst editor I've met. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:07, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Not frustrating, expected, really. I am just going to go about my buisness. I think some editors are going to force a solution on Ed this time, so it will behind us one way or the other. -- Secisek (talk) 03:16, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

re: additional reading on liberalism

I have access to over 300 computers with different IPS. The article 'Additional Reading on Liberalism' shall stay as it is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:42, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Happy First Day of Spring!

Jack the Ripper

If you'd bothered to look at the talk page of the article in question, or my talk page where I already directly answered your question the last time you asked, you would already know. Cheers. DreamGuy (talk) 01:03, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't mind him, Waaup. the user causing you hassles is just an unhappy little person, currently circling the drain. There are more of us than there are of him. If you have a concern, bring it to article discussion, and we'll square things away. No need to let him harsh your enjoyment. - Arcayne (cast a spell) 03:52, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


Hi, would you please restore Devta? It was not a valid speedy A2 candidate. Thanks, Jfire (talk) 07:04, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 07:07, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick response! Jfire (talk) 07:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: Tagged at Not Notable

(Copied from my talk page:) It is indeed notable! I'd have thought there was enough information there to suggest that. But I'm afraid I don't have much time at the moment to attend to it. I'll try to get around to it at some point. Thanks for the heads up. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 07:40, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

The Griffin and Sabine Trilogy

Information.svg Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to The Griffin and Sabine Trilogy, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Removal of maintenance tags without addressing them is not productive. The notability tag is to remind editors that citations of multiple independent reliable sources about the topic are required to establish notability. Thanks. Dicklyon (talk) 15:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Information.svg Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to The Griffin and Sabine Trilogy. Your edits appeared to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Same as before. You can't remove the tag without addressign what it calls for, in a talk page at the very least. Dicklyon (talk) 15:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC) Dicklyon (talk) 15:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Not vandalism. It is called editing. I was trying to add examples of why The Griffin and Sabine Trilogy is notable. It takes but two minutes of research. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Dicklyon, the tag you seem to have in mind is "unsourced". Removing a notability tag in good faith is not vandalism. If you disagree with the notability of an article, there's a good way to follow up on it: AfD. DGG (talk) 07:48, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

He's baaaa-aaaaack...(maybe)

I'm thinking this brand-new guy posing "interesting" questions in the Novels election is our old friend DangerTM again. What say you? Howa0082 (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

See my message to the editor who first reported the sockpuppet: diff. Cheers!

Notability question

I'd like to offer my thoughts on the question you posted in the edit summary of this edit: how else does one establish notability?

Notability is a characteristic of topics, not of articles. If the article on Politics was poorly-written and failed to cite any reliable sources, that would not be an indication that the topic is not notable. To put it more succinctly, the current state of an article has no relevance to the notability of its topic. Cheers, Black Falcon (Talk) 17:34, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Please cease and desist from removing the Notability template without reasonable justification

Please cease and desist from removing the Notability templates from The Second Generation, The Soulforge, Trail of the Black Wyrm, Dark Thane,The Second Generation, Legacy of the Drow and many other articles which do not have any reliable secondary sources. There is no reasonable justification for removing the cleanup templates which were put there to address the problem of lack of secondary sources to demonstrate notability. The reason why I ask you to do this in the strongest possible terms is that you appear to be POV pushing, as the explanations for removing the template are not supported by the notability guideline WP:BK and WP:RS which applies to these topics. Unless you adding reliable secondary sources to the article, I would be grateful if you would restore the templates immediately. --Gavin Collins (talk) 17:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

The {{notability}} is one person's opinion. I think they are notable. My opinion. If you don't like it then AfD them by adding them to the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion page. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:04, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • It does not work that way; your opinion on its own is not evidence of notability. I don't want to see these articles deleted. However, the guidelines WP:BK states that "A book is generally notable if it verifiably meets one or more notability criteria through reliable sources." The templates were put there so that this issue could be addressed. By removing the template, you have hindered the improvement process. Please note that the point of the templates is to get the involvement of other editors who are willing or able to add reliable sources, but if you are not willing to do this yourself, please restore the template. --Gavin Collins (talk) 18:23, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
No one has addressed the issues. That is the problem. The articles I went through had notability tags on them for quite some time - some as long as a year! Some were so blatantly notable such as Gogol and William Carlos Williams that there can be no dispute. Why not be proactive and fix the articles that trouble you. Find sources. Bring the article up a class. Wikipedia is not a Kafkaesque bureaucracy. If you disagree about any particular article, then you can tag it {{notability}}, or {{unsourced}}, or {{prod}}. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • The fact that no one has addressed the issue of cleanup does not mean that the templates should be removed. Remember, the range of topics on Wikipedia is very broad; it will take many years before reliable sources will be added to every article. By removing the templates, you are slowing this process down. Please do not remove any more cleanup templates. --Gavin Collins (talk) 18:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't think our editors are so infantile that they can't figure out how to improve a page without needing a hand-holding tag. Nor, do I hold our readership in contempt. They too can figure out which pages are works in progress. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 18:51, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

  • That is true. When reliable sources have been added, and there is evidence of notability, the cleanup templates will be removed. However, do not remove the cleanup templates until you or other editors have added sources as evidence of notability. --Gavin Collins (talk) 21:59, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
  • Gavin, removing tags is as much editing as any other process, I for one am unaware of any policy that says when an article is tagged for improvement don't remove the tag unless you have improved it - in fact the very suggestion is very unwiki. I expect that Wassup considered that this improved the articles. Too many clean up banners or stale banners can be just as bad as articles with faults. You cannot demand that other editors do not edit or only edit in ways that you think best. I agree with Wassup that if you think the articles are not notable you should AFD them and if you think they just need sourcing - well then the tag is inappropriate at the very least. Sorry to jump in here on Wassup's page but that's where this is being discussed apparently.--Doug.(talk contribs) 01:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you just ignore Gavin Collins. He adds this bullshit to everyone's page if they happen to remove any of the many templates and tags he vomits and spews randomly across hundreds of articles. He doesn't even read the articles he edits; he just goes alphabetically through categories tagging without reading or improving. I dunno, sometimes I think he's just a brain-dead zombie or maybe he thinks D&D is offensive and Satanic (he went to a Catholic school in Ireland). See this and this for the many complaints Gavin has against him. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:50, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:04, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Post Chronicle

Please do not reinsert links to the Post Chronicle in any articles. See this Administrators' Noticeboard thread for reasons why. *** Crotalus *** 19:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

abuse scandal

I think your version is acceptable but it omits two key points - that the prevailing psychology thought people could be cured, that the transferred priests had recieved counseling and the reaction of the pope to this reasoning. If you were to add that info, it would be longer but I like the inclusion of the info regarding other institutions, I think it adds perspective and I have no problem adding it. I would have a problem with elimination of the very highly sourced content on the other issues just mentioned because they are very notable portions of the whole episode. NancyHeise (talk) 01:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. It will be longer. I can return the sentences that I left out. But be clear that these sentence invite mockery;
"Pope John Paul II responded by stating there is no place in the priesthood or religious life for those who abuse children."
Were priests really so confused about the issue, that they needed John Paul to tell them right from wrong? As for the sentence about the prevailing psychology of the day; well, that would be relevant for priests with latent tendencies that had not been acted upon. But, this is irrelevant once the abuse had started. The police should have been called, then and now. I think returning either John Paul's admonishment or the 'prevailing psychology of the day' invites mockery. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:24, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

I am more concerned with keeping real facts that were key parts of the scandal and should not be omitted. All else is our own speculation which should not be part of the decision on whether or not to include basic facts. NancyHeise (talk) 02:27, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

OK. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Your rewrite is much longer and omits the reforms instituted by the church to prevent future abuse. I dont think it is an improvement, sorry. NancyHeise (talk) 03:23, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I give up. The Roman Catholic Church article cannot be NPOV if it white washes the child abuse scandal. It is too bad that the editors do not get it. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 03:28, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Notability & Cleanup templates

With reference to your edits on March 21st, 2008 on which day you removed multiple Notability and Importance cleanup templates, I would like to disucuss with you why I do not believe this series of edits (20 or more) to have been in accordance with Wikipedia policy.

The cleanup templates in question are designed to identify topics which do not have reliable secondary sources as evidence of either their notability or importance. If you have a look at the guideline WP:BK, you will see that reliable sources are important for several reasons: they not only provide evidence of notability, but they provide third party citations for the content, context, analysis and critisism which is required for the development of Good Articles.

The cleanup templates in question have been placed there to alert editors (such as yourself) that reliable sources are need to improve the articles. They are not put their as a critism of the books, authors or editors of these articles, but rather to encourge as many editors as possible to get involved in improving them. By removing the cleanup templates, article cleanup is less likely to take to place.

I would be grateful if you would only remove these templates after cleanup has taken place. If you have added reliable sources to an article, this would justified. However, removing the cleanup template without actually making any attempt to add sources can be challenged at any time (as I am doing now). If you disagree with my viewpoint, I am happy to ask for a third party comments to discuss this this issue with you.--Gavin Collins (talk) 10:49, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 13:41, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Removal of Notability & Importance cleanup templates

With regard to my enquiry of earlier today, I am not sure I understand your response. Are you in agreement that the cleanup templates should remain. As an admin, I would be grateful of your assurance that they will remain for the time being. Could you provide an appropriate response to my concerns? --Gavin Collins (talk) 14:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

This conversation is stale. You can do whatever you wish. Add templates. Remove templates. AfD articles. Create articles. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
My concern is with what you want to do. Will you allow the templates to remain? --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think you understand Wikipedia. No one is the boss of anyone. You may do whatever you wish. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I understand, believe me. When you reverted my edits, you asserted that these subjects were notable, but you did not provide evidence of notability. I have since reverted your edits and restorted the cleanup templates on the grounds that the cleanup issues have still to be resolved. I hope you are agreeable to this arrangement. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Where I removed a {{notable}} template, I meant it. I do not agree with you. To me the article was notable. Have I started an edit war at this article? No. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 15:20, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
  • I sure you meant it, but if you don not have evidence to back up your assertions of notability, I would be grateful if you would leave the templates in place. --Gavin Collins (talk) 15:32, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

List of characters in Magic: The Gathering: Y

What is patently nonsensical about this list? The game it pertains to is notable and there are other lists in the same vein. Granted it stinks somewhat of fancruft so maybe it should stay deleted. Many thanks for any clarification :-) Dracontes (talk) 16:43, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you want List of characters in Magic: The Gathering: Y restored? I hold no ill will. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, if you please :-) I'll be sure to do some editing on it afterwards so it's more intelligible to the average reader, if at all possible. Thanks again Dracontes (talk) 16:15, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, all yours. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 16:19, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

peer review requests

Wassup, thanks for putting in all these peer review requests. That's very helpful. I just hope there's time for us to get feedback. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 13:18, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Don't expect much! Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 13:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Article nominated for deletion

Hi, I just wanted to let you know I've nominated your article Married life (film) for speedy deletion. Due to the lowercase L the article is titled incorrectly, and an article with the correct title (Married Life (film) already exists and with much more detail. Unclewalrus (talk) 22:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Deleted! Thanks. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 22:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Murder, Madness, and Mayhem

Hi Wassup, I know you are trying to help, but the FA-Team is trying to let the students decide when the articles are ready to be nominated for GA and FA. I saw that you just nominated Domingo Faustino Sarmiento‎ for GA, and I didn't see any notice on the talk page that the editors were ready for that. Please encourage them on the talk pages, but let them make the actual decision to go forward; we don't want them to get scared off the project by nominating when they don't feel ready. Thanks! Karanacs (talk) 01:52, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you think I should un-nominate them? They look good enough and they are running out of time. So I was trying to be a bit pro-active. Note, I've nominated most of the GA passes in their project so far. I know they are new at Wikipedia so I don't want them to think that GA is some sort of 'perfection clearing-house'. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 01:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Would you mind just leaving a note on the article talk page saying that you nominated it for GA because you think they've done a good job so far and let them know they can withdraw if they don't think it's ready? That should solve any nervousness. Thanks!! (and are you interested in officially signing up as part of the FA-team? You're more involved than some of the official members.) Karanacs (talk) 01:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I'll leave a note on the talk pages. As for FA-team, thank you for the kind invite ... but I'm concentrating my efforts at WP:NOVELS. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 02:07, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Heh, I've just noticed this. Yup, Wassup, you're often moving faster than the project itself. Sometimes that feels a little problematic. On the other hand, it does push editors to get their acts into gear. I really don't think Sarmiento or Facundo are ready yet--and indeed I've suggested that the FA-Team have a look at Facundo in particular. But perhaps with this little kick up the backside, the editors can get those articles ready in time. So I do want to thank you, but perhaps also encourage you to be a little bit more cautious at time: the FAC nomination of The President caused a bit of anguish at the time, for instance. --jbmurray (talk|contribs) 04:20, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
Sorry to have pushed too much. I double checked and discovered I've nominated all your project's GAs. I realize now that that is a bit much. I was thinking more of the GA process which can drag on forever. You have to get them in the queue ready or not! But my GA noms have been sincere. Everything I've nominated is better than most that appears at GA and really does have a chance at passing the criteria. GA isn't much of a hurdle. Nothing like FA. The editors who are leading you to FA are the best on Wikipedia. However - my opinion only - FA can spiral into one of the nastiest places on Wikipedia. I'm crossing my finders and toes. Good luck. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 04:30, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
I just found this discussion; I posted a GA hold on the Sarmiento article this morning. I think that one was a little soon, but we'll get there -- it does need a major copyedit, but as it happens I have today off work and should be able to do a run through. Your enthusiasm is good, though, so let's just keep at it and I think the noms will all work out OK. Mike Christie (talk) 17:47, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
OK. I did a bit of a copy edit last night also. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 17:49, 31 March 2008 (UTC)