User talk:Seraphimblade/archive 5

I will stand by my comment

This encyclopedia and its personnel leaves a lot to be desired. There is something fundamentally wrong with an “encyclopedia” that grants people tools to tag, vandalize or delete articles on topics they either don’t understand or have never heard of. Fame and greatness certainly appear to be dependent on each other in this peculiar wikiWorld. Oh, yes indeed! For in this World, Karl Leister, Mikhail Pletnev and Patricio Manns are sacrificed for Paris Hilton and Britney Spears! (*_*((( Чисто Золото 03:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AMA Archive Case

Good afternoon (GMT time); a Happy Hogmanay and a Joyous New Year to you! If you cast your mind back around three or four months ago, you may remember I took you as an Advocate in the AMA case, Wikipedia:AMA Requests for Assistance/Seraphimblade. As a followup, and also as a favour to me pending my Med Com nomination, I was wondering if you would have the time to fill out the Follow up section regarding how useful the AMA was in your dispute and also my conduct during the handling of your dispute?

This would be greatly appreciated. I haven't spoken to you in a while, and remembering you to be a courteous editor I invite you to drop by my talk page any time!

Cheers and regards,
Anthonycfc 13:39, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts

As I explained to Mackan79, I've already discussed this ad nauseam on the Talk: page of the article in question, including with you. I don't need to keep repeating the same arguments. Please use the article Talk: page to discuss this further, not my Talk: page. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:24, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jews for Jesus

I put this here because it is ancillary to our discussion of the article and need not clutter the page anymore than it is. If after reading it, you want to move it there, I have no problem with that. But here is my response to whether JFJ, also asserts Jewish religiousness. I think they go to the line but never cross it. They make a fine line distinction that can easily be missed or confused(and is probably at the heart of the controversy). They state that the New Testament is consistent with the teachings of the Old Testament, but they do not claim that you are Jewish by religion if you follow the New Testament. They also use terms like "Jewish" Messiah. As the Messiah is a Jewish tradition and creation, adding Jewish is a redundancy. There is only one Messiah, who necessarily must be Jewish. I could surmise that why they emphasize the compatibility of the teachings is that they are focused on converting Jews, so their prospective converts need the comfort that they are not betraying the beliefs of their ancestry or whatever. However, to rebut the criticism of misleading their converts they lay out that following Jesus, belief in him as Messiah, and as the Son of God, makes you Christian and that JfJ's Jewishness is ethnic. For example, Jews believe that Islam is a Noahide religion. In other words, a path to "salvation" for Gentiles who follow the seven laws of Noah. So although some teachings of Islam are compatible with Judaism, it doesn't make a Muslim a Jew, or vice versa. All I see JfJ saying is that the New Testament is compatible with Judaism, even though they are Christian. Some Jewish scholar also believe that Christianity is a Noahide religion in asmuch as they follow they Noahide laws. The major incompatibilities are the Trinity, and Jesus as God. Ramsquire ^(throw me a line) 20:07, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fact checking

I wanted to share an ambitious idea that I read some time ago for fact checking. First the citations must be standardized in a way that a tool can be created which would generate all citations from the same journal or book or whatever and it would copy the text out of the article that appeared before that citation. Then people who sign up as fact checkers could be assigned a various book or journal to check and provided with all coresponding citations without knowing what articles the various citations came from. These assignments could be completely random or random within a category that people can sign up for. The fact checkers would simply respond to thier assignments by approving the citation or declaring it is unsupported on a scale of 1 to 5. Unsupported cititaions would sent on to a task force which will throughly investigate the citation, this will allow fact checkers to work quickly knowing someone will be examining any problems in detail. The citations marked as low-level unsupported may only need a slight change in wording to be accurate and the original editor can kindly edcuated about the details of WP:OR or however they crossed the line. Or maybe the text has been tinkered with over time and can be fixed by reverting to the original wording. The taskforce can also investigate the complete contributions of editors who had unsupported citations (starting with the 5's) hopefully allowing them to find the worst problems quickily. The last bit, that I find ingenious, is that the program that genartes the assignments would occasionally give a citation that is actually belonging to a different book or journal in the same category. If the fact checker does not mark that citation as being unsupported then their own work will be flagged for investigation.

As I said the above program is very ambitious and I would love to see that or something similar in operation in three years. At this point any organized method of fact-checking would be a good start and wish you luck in implementing a program.--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 17:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Persons/people

You recently added comments to the discussion on the Person article, supporting my objection to User:Lucy-marie's changing of 'persons' to 'people' without justification. User:Skapur suggested, I think not seriously, that the article should be split into two - one for British English and one for American English. Having received one comment supporting her, from a friend, she has done precisely that so that there are now two new pages Person (British English), Person (American English) and the original Person page has been made a REDIRECT to Person (disambiguation). At the head of the discussion page for each new article, she has written "The page was created to resolve a dispute over the use of the words people or persons." Now, clearly the 'dispute' was never resolved and certainly was not going to be resolved in her favour in any case, though I was prepared to wait for more comments. I have now nominated both new articles for deletion, with the original article to be restored. I would be grateful if you would give your views in the deletion discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Person (British English). Emeraude 10:55, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Jews for Jesus 2. For the Mediation Committee, Essjay (Talk) This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

This message delivered: 16:15, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

New section

Thanks: Now we are getting somewhere. So you did not delete but another person did. I followed all the rules so far and have made an attempt to post properly.

Reply to your question So - the removal of famous is not difficult to do - however, if you would like more source material that is better than a. Wilkepedia on her Mother, and NY Times on her Father, what would you like? There are hundreds of links to her publications. Do you want these? There are links to her work but these are commercial so I thought better not to post these. When you say reliable sources, I ask - what is more reliable than the NY Times? Please be more specific. Because of her geniology, I could list hundreds of source and I just don't want to waste my time or yours. Thanks Archiet Seraphimblade 23:48, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Archiemartin 23:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Can you also extend a note to WGee as he has made in my opinion inflamatory remarks towards me.--Lucy-marie 23:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the place to justify your unverifiable original research. Your personal views count for nothing.

These were a couple i could find.--Lucy-marie 00:54, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to clarify my comments I only made them after being provoked.--Lucy-marie 01:18, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you I will use your words exactly, as It Is what I would have said.--Lucy-marie 01:28, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lukas zpira

why lukas zpira's entry is inapropriate ?! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lavoice (talk • contribs).

New section

Talk: Suz Andreasen

Why on earth are you deleting a legitimately verifiable piece of data? I would like to know so that I can re-post and correct whatever error you were finding. I am totally against advertisement but you have not provided me with any information and did not check the references because if you had - you would know this is a real deal.

Thanks A

Archie Martin —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Archiemartin (talk • contribs).

Thanks: Now we are getting somewhere. So you did not delete but another person did. I followed all the rules so far and have made an attempt to post properly. Reply to your question So - the removal of famous is not difficult to do - however, if you would like more source material that is better than a. Wilkepedia on her Mother, and NY Times on her Father, what would you like? There are hundreds of links to her publications. Do you want these? There are links to her work but these are commercial so I thought better not to post these. When you say reliable sources, I ask - what is more reliable than the NY Times? Please be more specific. Because of her geniology, I could list hundreds of source and I just don't want to waste my time or yours. Thanks Archiet Archiemartin 23:35, 7 January 2007 (UTC) Archiemartin 23:31, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion continued at other user's talk page. Seraphimblade 23:43, 7 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfM/Jesus for Jews 2

Your case for Mediation from the Mediation Committee has been accepted. Your re-agreement is required at the case page under Request for Mediation; prompt action on your behalf would be appreciated in order to commence the mediation as soon as possible.

If you have any questions about my contributions, personal mediation style or otherwise, please contact me at my talk page, or email me at anthony (dot) cfc (at) gmail (dot) com - all email communication is private unless stated otherwise.

Cheers and regards,
Anthonycfc ^[T • C] 03:19, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Comments from Babylon 5 AfD

Replied on the journal page, it's on my watch list now. Re: talk page clutter - thanks for being considerate :-) Quack 688 04:40, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments, they were very insightful. There's another thought experiment on the talk page if you'd like to play again. Quack 688 23:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Diana Institute of Peace

Hi,

I kindly request you to have a look on the Princess Diana Institute of Peace whether the details I have submitted are meeting the criteria for citation. Thanks Rajsingam 11:16, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oden RaveenS Bakasuprman SiobhanHansa Wackymacs User talk:Seraphimblade User talk:Freedom skies User talk:Rumpelstiltskin223 User talk:Dangerous-Boy User talk:Ccscott User talk:Dennisthe2 User talk:DoDoBirds User talk:Mariano Anto Bruno Mascarenhas User talk:Tarinth

B5 AfD comments

I reverted your removal of the comments, I'd rather they not be moved without asking, and at the least, you should have included a link to wherever you moved them to. FrozenPurpleCube 01:20, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Avoid dropping baseless accusations

After reading your note on my talk page

Hello, I would like to offer you some advice. I recently made a few minor corrections to the Andrea Meldolla article, and as is my habit I kept the article on my watchlist for a bit after doing so. I noticed that you'd blanked a section, and figured the edit for mistaken and reverted it. After noting that you had reversed this edit again, I had a look at the talk page. It appears that you have been reverting without any form of discussion for quite some time, which is generally frowned upon. You haven't technically violated WP:3RR, but you have been edit-warring (at least eight of those same reverts from an offhand count!) I would like to suggest you discuss changes rather than engaging in an edit war.

I would advise you to read completely the discussion related to the Andrea Meldolla and the Giulio Clovio articles. My point of view (in both cases) is clearly given there. Any message (coming from you) of the type above will be treated only as a grave insult next time.--Giorgio Orsini 23:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

Hi,

I've been lurking at Wikipedia talk:Places of local interest, and find myself in strong support of both sides of the argument, which is causing me a great deal of cognitive dissonance.

I have an idea (about how to handle the wider problem of unsourced articles), but lack the gumption to ram it home. It is:

1. Instead of deleting or merging unreferenced articles, start a merciless campaign to tag every last one of them as {{unreferenced}}, thus growing Category:Articles lacking sources until it is large enough to warrant breaking into subcategories...
2. ... subcategories like Category:Rail articles lacking sources, which would allow people to identify unsourced articles within their sphere of interest.
3. Populate these categories by rolling out topic-specific unreferenced tags a la stubs:

4. Start an Unsourced Article Sorting project, a la the Stub Sorting project; or give the Stub Sorting project responsibility for these tags too.

Hesperian 01:28, 11 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

The article concerned a church, not a group of people. Buildings aren't covered under the CSD. He blanked the page anyway, so I tagged with {{db-blanked}}, which is a guaranteed deletion. John Reaves 04:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll keep that in mind. John Reaves 04:48, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fashion IQ

Hi, We have tried to stress on the concept that the site promotes rather than the site itself. The color macthing ability on this site is a unique way to process images and match them. That is what we are trying to promote. Also, we will re-edit the page contents further to stress upon the concept further. If you look closely, the article has a neutral tone and there is no way we have made an advertising attempt. Thanks, Ensparc 12:08, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion continued on article talk page. Seraphimblade 12:09, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

John 1:1

Thanks for your comments on the talk page for John 1:1. I have appreciated your level-headedness. I did indeed come to the talk page in response to the RfC (as you did) and the resquest for an expert (actually, I really only respond to RfC's where I have some background). FYI, it seems that Thejamesg has only edited this article - there's nothing wrong with that, but there might be some issues of "ownership" involved in all this. Anyway, just wanted to say thanks. Pastordavid 21:37, 12 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for Mediation/Jews for Jesus 2

The Request for Mediation, WP:RfM/Jews for Jesus 2, has been accepted and mediation is now open. You are invited to participate in accordance with the mediator's instructions at the case talk page. For the Mediation Committee, Anthonycfc ^[T • C]

This message delivered: 18:48, Saturday December 28 2024 (UTC)

Tag

I was fixing my typo. I can't move any faster!--Anthony.bradbury 00:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem. You think you've hit the key twice and it's only once. I know you should hit preview, but with a simple warning do you always? And there you are with a duff edit. I did see it, but after you.--Anthony.bradbury 01:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question about speedy Deletion of Frito Lay article

Hi Todd. I've been contributing to Wikipedia for a while in my leisure time, and I have a question about a speedy deletion that you made on an article I put up. Normally when an article is deleted you can also see the old content in the logs, but nothing's showing up in this one. Initially I put up several facts about this new brand name product from several different, notable sources, which should qualify it for brand name food stub as per the guidelines on that category page. However, I'm trying to add to it and I can't find the original content. I don't put up blank stubs, and I don't spam Wikipedia. With that in mind, do you have any idea where the original content could be? Thanks, sir.

Best, Bryson

Hi Todd,

Thanks for clearing that up! I will contact ChrisO to find out what happened to the content of the article.

Best, Bryson

Blackbryson 14:58, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the headsup

I appreciate your information about Deadmalls.com. Jerry lavoie 01:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD header removal

afd for Ya(game) you help put back the prod for that page because someone removed it yasterday well guess what some one did it again please help and put it back again thanksOo7565 06:41, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks i did not know if it was a prod or notice now i know it a afd notice not prod thanks for the info and help again sorry to keep bothring you i hope i do not have again but who knowsOo7565 07:05, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the note. I'll be sure to ask you if I need help with anything. Be well. --Bentonia School 11:50, 14 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jyrki Niskanen

Further to your comment at the AFD debate, I have re-written the Jyrki Niskanen article from scratch, and would appreciate your opinions. Thank you. Eludium-q36 18:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll

Please take a look at WP:MALL to which you have contributed, with respect to proposals to merge it with WP:LOCAL, to continue developing it, or to go ahead and implement it as a guideline. Thanks. Edison 21:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment! While I see your point, I'm not sure exactly why we need a poll to work things out. Can't we discuss and debate in the way Wikipedia was intended to be? Cheers! Yuser31415 00:14, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JfJ

I am not sure that I want one editor to have the power of veto if all the other editors agree to a change. I've seen intransigience from certain editors, and the fact that only 4 of the 7 parties are contributing to the mediation is also troubling. But to get the ball rolling, I'll support the final compromise. Anthony changed my original diff and it lost it's original meaning.Ramsquire ^(throw me a line) 01:26, 18 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New Deal

I see you reverted my change for lack of sourcing. I guess you did not look at the talk page, where I quoted from the Wikipedia article about Milton Friedman. Your comment about the change states "unsourced removal .." -- well, I don't know how one can quote a source for something that does not exist except by putting a comment in both the talk page and the change comments.

Skateboarding Dogs.

That was not a test page. It is a page which I am starting to create on the serious trend of people teaching dogs to skateboard these days. I included a link that now works and is a good reference. I will be collecting more and combiling all of the information I have about these dogs. I don't understand why you think skateboarding dogs are nonsense when there is a separate wikipedia entry on the Konami Code.

My Question - by adorableani

I would like to ask if you could please add to my page, SSX Tricky - Mesablanca as I have run out of ideas. I found your message on my page and I am terribly sorry as I didn't know what I should put on that page as I only created it for people to understand and know about Mesablanca. Thank-you.

Thanks Seraphimblade for answering my question and telling me I was writing it the wrong way. I just wanted to try and make Wikipedia a better place. Thank-you.

Thanks again Seraphimblade for that link. I just realized I was putting complete junk in my article and have remembered what stuff to put in my article about the PlayStation 2 game SSX Tricky's fourth course, Mesablanca all by the help of you.

Now I'm going to write and tell people how long the course is, how to obtain it and what rider you need to be. Adorableani 06:03, 18 January 2007 adorableani 4:42, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Dusty Springfield

Do you not think your deletion of all the Dusty Springfield links was a little harsh?

(Ravenfire 21:21, 18 January 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Reply made to user's talk page. Seraphimblade 00:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anton Balasingham

Hi,

The above personality did a lot for a lasting solution in the island though he suffered from diabetes, Motor Neurone Disease, a degenerative disease of the nervous system, and possibly medicine-induced bile duct cancer.

Now putting his Bio "Terrorist Tag", I feel unreasonable and removing it, please take necessary action on this.

I have discussed my points at Talk:Anton Balasingham.Rajsingam 09:46, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jimbo Wales Oden RaveenS Bakasuprman SiobhanHansa Wackymacs Seraphimblade Freedom skies Rumpelstiltskin223 Dangerous-Boy Ccscott Dennisthe2 DoDoBirds Mariano Anto Bruno Mascarenhas Tarinth

Hi,

As I am unfamiliar with the process, please help on this matter.Please consider other methods as well. Thanks for your opinion at the Anton Balasingham talk page.Rajsingam 11:07, 19 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newyorkbrad's RfA

This is to thank you for your early support on my RfA, which closed favorably this morning. I appreciate the confidence the community has placed in me and am looking forward to my new responsibilities. Please let me know if ever you have any comments or suggestions, especially as I am learning how to use the tools. Best regards, Newyorkbrad 17:38, 21 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seraphimblade, Britney Spears and Guggenheim Fellow Patricio Manns

There is some good analysis on the nature of systemic bias in the Wikipedia Project; it is a shame that some editors who are writing drafts for “fact checking teams” don’t appear to read them or assess their conduct in this project in light of them.

• • "The idea of a systemic bias is thus far more troubling than even widespread intentional vandalism. Vandalism can be readily identified and corrected. The existence of systemic bias means that not only are large segments of the world not participating in the discussion, but that there is a deep-rooted problem in the relationship of Wikipedia, its contributors and the world at large.” [1]

Yes Seraphimblade:

The English Patricio Manns stub that you carelessly tagged was simply a minute effort to translate part of the first paragraph, from Spanish to English of the spanish wikipedia article on the subject [2]. An effort quickly abandoned by the peculiar editor who upon seeing so many tags probably felt he was doing something terribly wrong.

How can you help other Wikipedia Project contributors if you are tagging minor author stubs for references, or as being “of unclear importance” or for “possible deletion” despite the fact that a lengthy article on the subject already exists in Wikipedia – albeit in Spanish.

I noticed in your comment you mentioned Britney Spears – that’s just about all the Wikipedia Project needs to gain credibility as an international encyclopedia: Britney Spears fans tagging and preparing articles on Guggenheim Fellows for deletion!

Erielhonan (WP:RPA), an avowed admirer of yours, has stated: “He has a keen eye for non-notable, commercial, and vanity submissions, and has been a strong force in pushing other editors (myself included) to make their new article submissions better, sooner rather than later. Through his pace, his judgement, and his firm but cordial dialog with other editors he does a great service toward keeping Wikipedia relevant and clean of bad stubs. Keep up the good work!”

Flattered by such compliments you have moved to new frontiers. Your page states: “I am currently writing a draft for a fact checking team. Everyone is welcome to comment on or edit the proposal.”

May Wikimedia Foundation Inc. be spared from any “fact checking team” you may lead into the stormy frontiers of human knowledge and well referenced established facts. Behold thyself Jimmy Wales for peril is at your heels! Moshe-paz 13:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great Fire of Smyrna

Certain arbitary rules seem to be in operation here. Our turkish firm seems to be able to delete previous edits numerous times while I get a warning that I may be blocked from future edits.

Is Wikipedia now a medium for the Turkish government? Are you aware of the concept of objectivity? The current propaganda posted has many warnings of severe bias yet you persist in keeping it unmodified. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tedblack (talk • contribs) 13:38, 22 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Editors : the Destruction of Smyrna

Yes thanks for your advise to "discuss" modifications with Wikipedia editors. Strange that most of them are Turkish and paid agents of the Turkish government.

Thanks for your objectivity Wikipedia! This story is bound to generate interest in newspapers in Britain and the US. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tedblack (talk • contribs) 13:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Serephimblade and the Great Fire of Smyrna

I am sure you are "a student in Seattle" and I am also sure that none of the editors of the "Great Fire of Smyrna" are "Turkish government agents". Looking at the history of this page I am impressed with the free reign given to Mustafa Akalp (undo revision by Tedblack, proposed deletion and correction of his mistakes!), Baristarim (deletions too numerous to mention) etc.

I also want to congratulate you for the fast response to my edits. You seem to show no mercy to any attempts to correct this page for pro-Turkish bias.

(There is enough material here for an article in the New Yorker!)

Message from Nearly Headless Nick

[3] is a legitimate edit. — Nearly Headless Nick 14:27, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree...I didn't revert that edit, I reverted this one right before that one. I had nothing to do with the edit you cited. Seraphimblade 14:31, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that, dude. :-) — Nearly Headless Nick 14:40, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Brookie :) - a will o' the wisp ! ^(Whisper...) 16:54, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another set of Eyes

I was wondering if you could take a look at Maximus the Confessor. I have done an extensive re-write on this article (this is the version prior to my edits), and could use another set of eyes giving it the once over. Thanks. -- Pastordavid 23:09, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your suggestions and for the once-over on the page. Pastordavid 17:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

For offering to talk my case. Yes. I do still need some help with all of this. futurebird 12:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of essay "Option on the product of two asset prices"

By a strange coincidence my contribution has been deleted by Guinnog who after deleting it decided to go on a quick holiday. The deletion coincides with my first contributions on articles on the Destruction of Smyrna and other issues with Turkey. The article on Option theory had been welcomed by students at the London Business Schools and colleagues in the City of London as a very useful reference. Tedblack 13:55, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Cities

Hey, I could really use your skill on WikiProject Cities. Do you have time to assist? Alan.ca 14:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Did I lose you on my talk page? Alan.ca 22:31, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Futurebird AMA request

Thanks for taking this on - I am going to remove Punk Boi's initial assignment as advocate. Good luck! --Trödel 15:53, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re:AMA membership

I have previously benefitted once from an advocate's help, and after gaining experience, have decided I would like to similarly offer help to new users. I hope that my contributions will be worthwhile and helpful. Seraphimblade 12:48, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the team! :-) If at any time you hit a snag, first consult the WP:AMAFAQ and AMA Handbook, then feel free to contact another fellow Advocate for assistance. If all else fails, leave me a message (I try to be an Advocate for Advocates). :-) (Just to warn, though: I may be slow to respond these days as, with the aid of my wife, I'm juggling a 3 month old daughter, several home businesses, and I'm trying to make some headway on the Aramaic Wikipedia. I promise, however, that I'll keep in touch as closely as possible.) Good luck! אמר Steve Caruso _(desk/AMA) 16:57, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paletten

Hello Seraphimblade. I noticed your attention to my entry on Paletten. Thanks for taking the time to edit. You should know that I am English speaking. I neither read nor write Swedish. I created the English language entry for a friend in Sweden who works for the magazine, at her request. It has been a learning experience, both as to satisfying Wiki format and proocol, and to entering text and image. I worked hard and did the best I could. It was my first time entering material on the site, although obviously I had been to Wikipedia many times to gain information.

Most of my material from the entry came directly from the Paletten site. So it was, by necessity, self referential. That's why I entered contact information, phone numbers, e-mail addresses etc. Because it wa available material. Not because I was trying to advertise or be overly entreprenurial.

Regarding your tags on Notability and references, I have asked my friend in Sweden to find appropriate material and send it to me, so I can include it in the entry and satisfy the criteria. I cannot do this search for matrial myself, a i do not radSwedish.

I hope the Paletten entry is not slated for deltion. i worked very hard on it. There should be new material to satisfy your criteria. When I have it i will enter it. Do I have some breathing space here?

Stevenwikikaplan 16:59, 23 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD closure corrections

I saw you corrected where I placed the templates, thank you. :) Other than that, I'd like to know if you think I did alright, those two are the first I've ever closed, if you have a moment. Thanks! Seraphimblade 11:45, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Other than the template placement, they looked perfecto :-). I would have closed them the same way. About the template placement, it's weird, but AFD and MFD get the template above the header (as their discussions are in special subpages), and TFD, CFD, and RFD get the template below the header (as their discussions are on "day" pages). —Mets501 (talk) 14:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Zariski Surfaces

Thank you for removing the deletion tag from zariski surfaces page May the Lord bless you Dr Piotr Blass www.pblass.com [e-mail] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.168.221.210 (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

AMA request:Race and intelligence

I like the work you are doing. Good words. I've copied some of your links. Regards and respect. SilkTork 01:32, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberly Spreen

I spoke with her just a few minutes ago. She will gather the verifying info we need and have her PR group call me next week. If you would like me to remove the page until next week then redo it, let me know. Thanks, --Flashback62 03:31, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding Animesouth (talk · contribs)

Thanks for getting involved. I am a bit immobilised at the moment due to a wrist injury, so I cannot really spend a lot of time typing. :: Colin Keigher (Talk) 06:37, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Rajkumar Kanagasingam

Hi

I couldn't understand why this user User:Netmonger is raising the above problem which totally irrelevant to Talk:Rajkumar Kanagasingam Page. As this is my Bio, could you help me to sort out this matter with him. Rajsingam 13:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oden RaveenS Bakasuprman SiobhanHansa Wackymacs Seraphimblade Freedom skies Rumpelstiltskin223 Dangerous-Boy Ccscott Dennisthe2 DoDoBirds Mariano Anto Bruno Mascarenhas Tarinth

Deletionism

I strongly agree with deleting poorly sourced articles, articles about people in the news enjoying their 15 minutes of fame, memorials, articles merely linking to the subjects website, articles about internet phenomena which are sourced onlyu to blogs or fansites. We are in accord on many things, but I have one question: On your user page you say "The name of my dog is not "human knowledge"-it's unverifiable ." Shouldn't you have quotes around "Unverifiable," if that's what you call your dog? Edison 19:28, 26 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something Quite Interesting

Something Quite Interesting

Oden RaveenS Bakasuprman SiobhanHansa Wackymacs Seraphimblade Freedom skies Rumpelstiltskin223 Dangerous-Boy Ccscott Dennisthe2 Mariano Anto Bruno Mascarenhas TarinthRajsingam 05:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My AMA request

Thank you for your kind words and offer of assistance. I think the discussion on ID has progressed from the POV bind that it was in, and is otherwise in enough turmoil already, so I will withdraw the AMA.

However, I am still concerned with this issue of how to deal with conflicting statements, when one of them is incorrect, by definition or is otherwise suitably certain. I have noticed on other pages (e.g. cold heat)that some editors wish, at least initially, to present a balanced POV argument even in technical issues, when one of the published sources has produced something that is plain wrong.

I would like to help clarify this policy area if I can. Have you any suggestions on how I could progress toward this goal?Trishm 10:15, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism: changing xB's to xiB's

Seraphimblade: we have had discussion, and good-faith docterine has been violated by Sarenne in his/her constant replacement of xB units with xiB units, all the while refusing to discuss and come to a consensus regarding the change. xB units are the accepted norm, and his/her constant editing does not reflect this norm. Not one other encyclopedia, manufacturer, or magazine employs xiB units. Sarenne's editing represents his/her personal agenda. Sarenne insists every other encyclopedia, manufacturer, and magazine is wrong, and that s/he wants to use Wikipedia as a small way to change the industry, to encourage use of xiB units. If Sarenne's actions don't constitute vandalism, what does? Sjenkins7000 10:41, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You make a good point, but after the hundredth or so revert, trying to include in the edit summary the fact that absolutely no one in the industry uses xiB units, and that Wikipedia reports, and does not attempt to coerce the industry, and then seeing Sarenne undo my revert, I started using "rvv" in an attempt to get Sarenne to stop until we had discussion. I am not the only one to use "rvv" in changing xiB units back to xB units. According to WP:VANDAL, "Vandalism is any addition, removal, or change of content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of Wikipedia....[and that] not all vandalism is obvious." We are trying to build consensus, but until consensus is reached, the industry-standard xB units should be used. I am in the process of talking with the AMA. I appreciate your advice, and from now on, I will summarize reverts with "rv wait for consensus." Sjenkins7000 11:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The MiB issue

Sorry to intrude, but this silly RV war keeps popping up in my watchlist, and now I notice there are several anon apparently throwaway accounts being used to do nothing by RV them back to MB style.

The consensus appears to be that MiB is fine and the pages should be left in that format? Is this the case? I can't follow the labyrinthine trail very well. If this is the consensus, I'm about to pull out the block-hammer.

Maury 21:13, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well the edit war continues unabated. Should I start blocking the anon accounts doing the RV's? It seems like it would make it settle down. Maury 22:46, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reliability check

Hi there. You are part of the wikiproject for digging out reliability - this is why I contacted you.

I was wondering if I could get a conclusive judgement on whether this (http://www.standwithus.com/news_post.asp?NPI=291) is a reliable source or not. It is being used to source "Pete Sampras" as a Greek Jew on List of South East European Jews. Pete Sampras, however, made the following statement "I'm 75% Greek 25% Jewish. My mother is 100% Greek... ...my father's mother was Jewish but his father was also Greek" which essentially concludes that calling him Jewish would be incorrect. Further, though this shouldn't be used as a source either, the following Quiz on who's Jewish and who's not: http://www.jmerica.com/magazine/jquiz/quiz-7-2004.php concludes that Pete Sampras isn't Jewish. 141.213.211.100 20:44, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had a look for those sources. It looks like the source of the Sampras quote you cite is from a 1996 interview, which can still be found here: [4], in which Sampras does make the quote you specified. It is actually in response to the question "Are you Jewish", and his answer indicates that, while he is of Jewish ancestry, he does not himself identify as Jewish (he states that the name Sampras came from a Greek Jew, rather than that he is himself a Greek Jew.) Finally, the "standwithus" site referenced is pretty evidently partisan, and I see little evidence of peer review or editorial control with its content. Accordingly, it does not appear that we can state that he is Jewish, unless better sources would indicate that he is indeed considered so. Seraphimblade 01:05, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing

Hi, you left a cleanup suggestion on the talk page of Franciscus Henri, which I replied to, but maybe your not watching it or whatever. Anywho, I'd like to discuss it. Here, there - I'm just getting your attention. Electriceel 23:55, 30 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I only posted a simple question: "Are you Arsath?"

Hi

I only posted a simple question: "Are you Arsath?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Netmonger#Are_you_Arsath.3F

But He has come out with the following lenghthy statement about me.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Rajsingam

Kingrom Oden RaveenS Bakasuprman SiobhanHansa Wackymacs Seraphimblade Freedom skies Rumpelstiltskin223 Dangerous-Boy Ccscott Dennisthe2 Mariano Anto Bruno Mascarenhas TarinthRajsingam 02:54, 31 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skyview High School (Thornton, Colorado)

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Skyview High School (Thornton, Colorado), suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. —Dgies^t c 17:16, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One Last Thing

These pages that you deface with your deletion billboards are a source of humiliation to anyone coming in from Google. Course, given the callous manner of many Wiki Editors, you probably figure that's what I deserve.

I have whittled my page down to a one liner. Please discontinue your practice of restoring the page. It is pointless and a source of pain. You and your editors/admins can look at previous pages.

Just so you know. Seeking "validation" from a kid like you is comparable to you seeking validation from a five year old child.

Solneffmike 21:47, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To Todd

Todd, the P&W article was published in print. If I had all the time in the world I would copy it and mail it to you. Bottom line: if you read the Poets and Writers piece and don't think I meet Wiki guidelines, then it's bye bye me. Fine. The P&W is a bit dated, but it pretty well sums things up. I CANNOT DO BETTER than that. As for the New York Times piece, that appeared in print also. What the heck do you expect it to say? It gave me as much play as anyone else.

And your comments in the history section were inflammatory and some were false by any reasonable definition of the word. You know they are.

And again, you're NOT a writer or fan of literary work. If you were, you would see quite differently.

Solneffmike 21:41, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You Know Who

Dear Student of Chemistry and Physics Who Enjoys Lying and Gratuitous Insults,

I'm not here to argue or beg to stay on Wikipedia. I want off. But just a couple things.

You are the epitome of what is wrong with Wikipedia these days. You are insulting and hip-shooting. I'm sure you've been told. You made absolutely false and defammatory comments in the page history of my article. IF the article doesn't conform to Wiki standards, so be it. As you can see from the history, quite a few editors have seen and not dispatched. I modeled my page after many others on the site. Again, if it doesn't fit, it doesn't fit. So be it.

What I do object to are your outrageous lies, e.g., "Absolutely nothing to any of those sources, nominating for AfD." The Poets and Writers article is about ME. The NYT link makes it clear MY site was chosen as top ten literary arts site and my NAME is there, etc. etc.

What do you know about literary arts online anyway? Zero.

Regardless, I REALLY DO NOT CARE if a chemistry student with an alias on Wikipedia thinks of WebdelSol.Com or anything else connected with me.

OH, and one last thing, how do you have the nerve to ask anyone to refrain from personal attacks when you spark them with hostile and insulting language? Give us all a break. Get religion or something.

WDS Solneffmike 17:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Answered on poster's talk page. Seraphimblade 17:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Conquer Online

Nice work. You deleted stuff I didn't have the nerve to for fear of pissing off the masses. <3 --SummonerMarc

Calm Down

I don't think you're such a bad guy, everyone needs to calm down a little. Thanks for the help though.

More Franciscus for your enjoyment

You really are being good about this to a newbie and his childhood entertainer... I've done some sourcing, and have put some footnotes in with links and what-have-you, how is it going? Oh, and I NOW understand the concept of secondary sources, as wikipedia is NOT a primary source, but and intermediary between, maybe, some more obscure sources and the people too lazy to look them up. : ) Electriceel 06:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You may be interested in joining...

WP:SCISSORS.... regards, Bwithh 18:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me make a hierarchy??

Can you help me make a hierarchy on Alpha Gamma Rho? Sjostrom 19:42, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Look at the picture on Alpha Gamma Rho I could make another one myself easily, but I thought a text version would be better. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Lsjostrom (talk • contribs) 16:09, 4 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Okey Dokie then. Sjostrom 16:21, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish Voice for Peace

Thank you for reviewing Jewish Voice for Peace. Malik Shabazz 19:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shopping centres

I would never dare to unilaterally overturn an AfD consensus by undeleting those articles - those articles stay deleted. When one user - having tried and failed to have the article unilaterally deleted five times under a patent abuse of the speedy deletion criteria (spam does not equal stuff that's commercial that you don't think is notable) - tries again and quickly finds a rare sympathetic admin, no, they don't have the same protection. If you want the articles deleted, you get a consensus to do so. (And in future, please stop abusing your admin powers to try and circumvent getting an actual consensus.) Rebecca 22:34, 4 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

These articles did assert the importance of the topic - a shopping mall, of reasonable size and importance to a particular area. You might notice that that same criteria says "if the assertion is likely to be controversial...the article should be nominated for AfD instead", which you knew full well these would be, considering your involvement in bitter disputes about the notability of these.

You made taggings in violation of the speedy deletion criteria, and a small number of admins who should have known better made the mistake of deleting them against policy. You also know full well that there's absolutely no consensus about these sorts of articles, as you've been involved in the policy discussions about what to do with them. For that reason, you shouldn't be trying to get them deleted via the back door and circumventing getting an actual consensus. Rebecca 00:47, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Futurebird/AMA request:Race and intelligence

I've been busy and this is going nowhere... I've proposed a new intro to the page, tried to keep up with the rest of the concerns raised by others, asked a friend to read the article. (He was horrified and it was all I could do to keep him from writing something... uncivil...) I've even started a new wiki project WP:AFRO since I hope (tangentially) that if the articles on african history were better there might be more editors around who'd think that including some historical background was important. I just seems that the one user (WD) is still in the way. I don't want to turn the whole article in to a hate fest about scientific research-- I just want the very prevalent and well sourced information on history to be a part of the story. Do you have any other suggestions? futurebird 00:21, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Prod

Gun Fu - Animal Fighting Styles

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Gun Fu - Animal Fighting Styles, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. UtherSRG (talk) 16:08, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Johnson Phone Experiment

I was getting to that, but you posted the notice merely 2 minutes after I created the article. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Qaddosh (talk • contribs) 05:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

No worries, I think I overreacted a little bit. It's 11 P.M. here and I've had a long day. Happy editing! --黒雲 user:Qaddosh 05:21, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

marriage

Thanks for your support.Trishm 05:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ip at it again

I just reverted a slew of vandilism from the Fish article. Please warn. --Darkest Hour • © 20:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up.

Just FYI. There's a discussion about potential RFA candidates happening, including you. The conversation hasn't reached a conclusion and you don't need to comment, but I just thought you'd be interested. Regards, Ben Aveling 05:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My pleasure. I should have told you earlier, I just wanted to see if there was a consensus that you should apply. I think the feeling is yes, but not yet. I agree, though I'm unhappy about it. "Wait 3 months before reapplying" was created for a good reason, to discourage people from applying too often, but what was originally a rough guideline seems to have turned into a firm policy somewhere. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biographical?

Would it be premature to remove the autobiography and list laundry tags from Franciscus Henri yet? I've been trying to improve it bit by bit, and everytime there are those tags on the page... mocking me... What's the go? Electriceel 08:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool, I understand. I wasn't really that upset by them, I was just being quaint. Though between you and me, I was crying myself to sleep every night... Thanks though, you've been a great help with everything. Electriceel 04:49, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Policies of the Surayud government

Heads up - Policies of the Surayud government is not an attack article. Surayud Chulanont was getting too long and I merely pasted over its contents to a seperate main article. I didn't have time to put in a references section before you added the CSD tag. Patiwat 18:12, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD

It's Deletion Review time. Would you like to do the honors? :) --Elonka 19:57, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're talking about Wikipedia:Deletion_review#Westfield_Warrawong, the other option is to AfD the lot. --Fang Aili ^talk 20:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please go back to deletion review and explain why you didn't take these to AFD. That would have been the normal route if a speedy was declined, and there are better forums for dispute resolution. GRBerry 20:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fact Checks for Listing/Categorization

What is your take on listing X-Americans on lists of X? List of Polish Jews seems to have added nearly every American politician of some ethnic Polish and Jewish ancestry to their list based solely on the one statement at the header "The is a list of people of Polish Jewish heritage" while no other list on wikipedia does that. Notice how List of English people doesn't have George Bush listed as an English politician or List of Dutch people doesn't have the Roosevelts. 141.213.210.88 20:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"My thoughts on it would be that if a person identifies him/herself as of that ethnicity (or does not), that this should be the overriding factor, and what sources should be sought on."

Wouldn't that be problematic? Looking at the sources on List of German Americans, it is clear that every one of those people would identify as being German if someone asked "What is your background?" But does that merit deleting the whole list and merging it with List of Germans? For some, such as the ones born in Germany, yes, but what about third-generation German Americans? 141.213.210.88 23:41, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV

As you know, I have been working on the marriage article, which is yet another controversial article where NPOV is difficult to negotiate. Today, during a discussion about the differing POV's of whether marriage is shaped by society or is unchanging and absolute, I had one of those Aha! moments, when I saw something that I would love to see articulated in the NPOV guidelines.

It is this: the NPOV guidelines currently use a sense of USA-style journalistic balance, a "he said", "she said" approach, where if you balance it all out nicely, you should have a neutral article.

I think, though, that an encyclopedia needs a little more than that. What is needed is to frame those thoughts, so that the article is not so much presenting opposing arguments, as presenting a framework in which these arguments all have a legitimate place.

I recognise that this is not an easy thing to achieve, but if it is considered to be a useful idea, it might a good thing to aim for, and perhaps be a pre-requisite for FA status or similar.

It would change the nature of the endless debates on the religion-vs-science articles, because you would need to find common ground from which you can launch the different perspectives. What do you think? Trishm 10:46, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate your comments on the first draft. Thanks,Trishm 10:32, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Royal Descent

I would be happy to work with you on the Royal Descent article, if you know something about the subject. At the moment, the chief task is citing the removed information, which needs to be done speedily so relevant information can be returned; however, since RosePlantagenet is the one who originally added the information, she will hopefully have it to hand. Therefore, for now, I'd appreciate your help in anything you can easily do, but until we know how complex the citations will be, there's no need for you to put yourself to any great efforts. Hope you're up for the work. Michaelsanders 21:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your VandalProof Application

Dear Seraphimblade,

Thank you for applying for VandalProof! (VP). As you may know, VP is a very powerful program, and in fact the just released 1.3 version has even more power. Because of this we must uphold strict protocols before approving a new applicant. Regretfully, I have chosen to decline your application at this time. The reason for this is that at this time you do not meet the minimum requirement of 250 edits to mainspace articles (see under main here). Please note it is nothing personal by any means, and we certainly welcome you to apply again soon. Thank you for your interest in VandalProof. Prodego ^talk 22:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously that was a mistake ;-). I will approve you when I start approving (I am declining first, it is easier). Sorry about that! Prodego ^talk 22:44, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to VandalProof!

Thank you for your interest in VandalProof, Seraphimblade! You have now been added to the list of authorized users, so if you haven't already, simply download and install VandalProof from our main page. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or any other moderator, or you can post a message on the discussion page. Prodego ^talk 23:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

3RR

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on Marriage. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. 63.228.44.66 04:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at Talk: Policies of the Surayud government

Could you take a look at the Discussion page for Policies of the Surayud government. You placed a POV tag on it, and I've explained in detail why I think the article is neutral. Patiwat 06:33, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Responded on article's talk page. Seraphimblade ^Talk to me Please review me! 06:59, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Defining marriage using married

We might as well say, "Marriage is the state of affairs when people are married." This however would be something of a tautology, wouldn't it? Please examine your last edit to "marriage" in light of this difficulty. While you're there, you might want to consider how certain you are that marriage is always a contract. Some traditions simply don't see it that way. Sdsds 20:39, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, thanks very much for your prompt attention to this! While I'm here, though.... how does your new language handle the case of forced ("arranged") marriages, where one participant isn't in agreement about it at all? Sdsds 20:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Planetary Chaos

I've never filed a request for checkuser myself, so I don't have any real insight to give there, I'm afraid. I think the number of IPs involved made a bit of a mess of the last request, so if the editor goes nuts in the next few hours using dozens of IPs in succession (as he's been known to do), I don't think it would help much to list every single one of them. -- Vary | Talk 04:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How was I classified, the sockpuppeteer or a sockpuppet? I need to know so I can request a check user on myself.  Planetary Chaos  Talk to me  19:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess this means I reverted my self?00:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Valentines day in Sweden.

http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alla_hj%C3%A4rtans_dag

We call it Alla Hjätans Dag. I can't edit the Valentine's Day page but you said to contact you with the source. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nixxie71 (talk • contribs) 13:33, 13 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Willy on Wheels?

Perhaps? I'm not really familiar with WoW's vandalism style, though. I'll make sure to watch him when the block expires. -- Merope 09:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Valentine's Day in Sweden

I don't know if these count as good sources (there's a reason to why I don't write these kind of articles), but I found at least these: [5], [6], [7] and also this one (in Swedish, sadly): [8]. Other than that I only know what I have seen and heard for all of my life and that doesn't exactly count as an unbiased source.

Eloriel 09:31, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're WAY too kind.

See my user page history. Feels like Trip the Light Fantastic. (See User:Monkeebreath). - Penwhale | Blast the Penwhale 10:14, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User: I am Ockenbock

User: I am Ockenbock looks like User:IamOCDpatient a sock of User:SummerThunder? I could be wrong but it does seem to look like it.  Planetary Chaos  Talk to me  20:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

user:Kingpin23

...Appears to be slightly underinformed with regards to notability criteria, and has removed the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Julian Clarke.DayKart 00:27, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Julian Clarke

All of the info I put on that article I got from all of the sources from the links that I posted all the way at the bottom of the article, Mr. Julian Clarke himself (The person that that article/biography is about) is also another source, he personally told me alot of this stuff that I posted on the page, he can be reached on his myspace page http://www.myspace.com/julianclarke. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kingpin23 (talk • contribs) 01:10, 16 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I'm Sorry :(

I'm sorry about deleting the notables, it's just that when I read the thing on there, I agreed with what yall said and realized that I sohuldn't have posted it without that much info, so I decided that I should delete the Giv It Up, C.O.D.E, Project C.O.D. ect.. articles myself to save yall the trouble

RE: RE: Julian Clarke

So if I post up magazine sources and news paper ect... I can keep the page up? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kingpin23 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

RE: Created Artice Deletion

Ohh, ok, sorry about that, I had no idea, thank you :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kingpin23 (talk • contribs) 01:24, 16 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

RE: Sourcing

Thanks :) What if I give you his manager or talent agents info? Would that help to confirm the information listed? I also found these other 3 website a few minutes ago that mention him http://www.americanidolmyspace.com/ http://applyimage.co.uk/forum and http://www.christinamilianfans.org would these help much?

--Kingpin23 01:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)KingPin23[reply]

RE: RE:: Sourcing

Ohh ok, thank you :) I'll try and see if I can find any reliable secondary sources, I think I remember seeing him in a magazine before, I'll try and see if I can find it.

--Kingpin23 01:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)kingpin23[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for the revert to my user page! delldot | talk 02:53, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evrik

Would you care to take a look at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Evrik and leave a comment if you feel it is appropriate? Thank you. -- PageantUpdater • talk | contribs | esperanza 23:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Editor review/Seraphimblade 2

Just read through this -- FWIW, it was fairly obvious to me that there was some silliness going on at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Starslip Crisis, but rather than break my vows of WP:AGF and WP:BITE I decided to just treat the probable silly socks as clueless newbs and just shoot down their points ("hasn't even been invited as a guest to conventions," etc.) since AfD isn't a vote anyway and there's no ballot box to stuff. Thoughts? --Dragonfiend 05:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Hi there:

please watch out for the pages Goslar, Hamburg and Bremen and check out circles of the German empire. There are Net-net and Der Erberswalder, who are trying to implement some right wing stuff, namely the

to the web site. These circles which were thought of Maximillian of Austria to reassert his authority with the electros and kings of the German empire never really existed and had no whatsoever bearing upon the history of Goslar, Hamburg or Bremen. This is dangerous stuff, because here some Nazis try to fabricate history. Namely Germany until 1871 was not a Nation, but a conglomeration of states which were more or less losely assembled into the German empire

http://www.uni-mainz.de/FB/Geschichte/hist1/168.php

and those contributers who hail them as an organ of the German empire are wrong, as since the thirties year war the reichskreise ceased to exist. here none-relavant historical issues are being overemphasised and there is some degree of war going on, because net-net and eberswalder seem place these circles under the wikipedia entries for the french cities of strasbourg, mulhouse and colmar, who during the thrity year war signed a protection agreement with the French king to prvent those cities from being raided by by rampaging mercenaries. The cities in alsace are since French, even though the Germans did not like it. Although in he French empire the protestants were persecuted, this was not the case for the alscaian cities who thought protection from the french king. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.157.239.230 (talk • contribs)

Dear IP, why don't you discuss this at Lower Saxon Circle? Every article listed there should have the navigation-template mentioned above. -- Netnet @ 16:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC) (@Seraphimblade sorry for editing your talk page)[reply]

Jared Leto

What, my impresson of Jared Leto is supposed to agree with what people who like him put on there? I'm sorry you're such a Nazi with the sense of humour of a cat with its tail being cut off. Must be nice to be able to control reality like that. Also, I have to ask you, is it considered a "Neutral Point Of View" to put a little ♥ at the bottom of the page? Man, you people need to stop being so tight-assed and get out of your mom's attic for a while. Maybe pick up a hooker and release some tension? Shandra Herself 05:30, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You forget that Wikipedia is a democracy. As long as enough people agree with what is said, it gets to stay... it must be true. Do you want to take democracy away from facts and reality? Hmm? -- ZombiesNTea 06:09, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you ban me

When you ban me, do it oh so softly. I've been raped by you Wikinazis one too many times. Shandra Herself 05:31, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No less than fourteen minutes ago, you threatened to ban/block me, and now you're telling me you nor anyone else has any wish to see me blocked or banned? You really need to not take things so seriously and maybe just take a bit of humour for what it is- just that. Shandra Herself 05:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can appreciate wanting to stop vandalism, such as vanity pages, or just plain blanking (which is just stupid), and I will admit that my complete re-doing of Jared Leto's page could be translated as vandalism, but tiny things like writing that someone likes to do British accents or something, it's not vandalism, it's so obviously just an attempt at a bit of a joke. And as for "repeated warnings", half the time, it's one warning and then you're off, and honestly, a lot of things that people seriously put on here because they think it's something you need to know are immediately put down as vandalism because they're not what a certain person finds important. It's really, for lack of a better word, a bitch to have to always walk on eggshells around you mods and fear for the life of your Wikipedia account if you make even the tiniest edit, because it'll be found by someone who thinks it's vandalism. You people think you and you alone control Wikipedia, well if that was the case, why make it "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit"? And thank you, the Nazi comment was supposed to be offensive. Shandra Herself 05:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

they forgot to write after "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" the part that says "but only a a few have the right to be dicks and let their power overwhelm them, forming them into soulless beasts... shells of flesh devoid of all spirit or worth." - ZombiesNTea 06:12, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That bit's implied. A lot of people wanted to put it on, but it just made it all too long.  ;-) Regards, Ben Aveling 06:28, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought they'd settled on the "All edits must be approved by the cabal" disclaimer on the edit page. When did that get changed? Seraphimblade ^Talk to me Please review me! 06:37, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re:theocracy

the user who is adding the tags has something either personal with me or the band going on and I will continue to remove it per Wikipedia:Ignore all rules--E tac 06:03, 18 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Comment from Pink collar girl

hi seraphimblade -- thanks for your comment on my user page -- i am indeed new to wikipedia and just learning how to edit but i have a question for you. i noticed that user: osakadan keeps forcing in references to "every nation ministry" and specifically a lawsuit that was filed in nashville, tennessee on entries of new zealand schools. isn't this against the wikipedia rules of undue weight? so far, i have found similar occurances on the entries of: Kelston Boys High School, Otahuhu College, Sir Edmund Hillary Collegiate, and Victory Christian Fellowship -- this is as relevant as mentioning alcoholics anonymous in every single wiki entry on major cities of the world. reading the wikipedia guidelines, it appears to me that this is activism, and several editors, including user: gadfium and iskongbayan have brought this up on osakadan's user page to no avail. it appears to me that osakadan created the "Sir Edmund Hillary Collegiate" entry for the sole purpose of putting in negative POV statements about every nation ministry, since no other 'real' content exists for that entry. this is the reason i deleted the info on the lawsuit which, according to the wiki entry on "every nation" -- was dismissed "with prejudice" and the plaintiffs provided a sworn statement which refutes the allegations osakadan lists in the Sir Edmund Hillary collegiate entry. sorry if i didn't post this correctly -- my first time commenting on a talk page... Pink collar girl 10:32, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NEVER accuse anyone of vandalism senslessly

See my contributions... lcnj=Worledixor. I will sure review you on your RUSH to the WRONG judgement. Worldedixor 05:16, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

STOP REVERTING my Edits, ALREADY. Worldedixor 05:20, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Clasione

Deletion_review PLEASE TAKE ANOTHER LOOK February 22 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_February_22 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Clasione (talk • contribs).

bellend bil, but beefier

This user was created by a person simply for vandalism, please block him I have warned him several thousand times.Womble1234 11:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Womble1234 (talk • contribs) 11:42, 22 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You are fucking bastard

I hope you have a baby with down syndrome and he bites off your dick. Wikipedia is fucking communism AND DESERVEs to be vandalized —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Brian the Tank Engine (talk • contribs) 13:51, 22 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks. Anything else? Seraphimblade ^Talk to me Please review me! 13:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have something to say (he added the same comment to my page, but someone deleted it): It is for you, Brian, that the timer ticks... :) · AndonicO ^Talk 13:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not the first time I've caught hell, probably won't be the last. I've probably been called worse then most anyone can dream up. Seraphimblade ^Talk to me Please review me! 13:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah. It's incredible how some people who might be nice in real life start cursing on Wikipedia. · AndonicO ^Talk 14:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clear evidence you are doing something right when people like that spout off at you. A badge of honor! Edison 01:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well said, Seraphim. Medal of valor. =) KajiTetsushi 14:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

Just about any Bostonian would tell you Storrow is notable; you could have asked around a little. -- Kendrick7^talk 07:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm an anti-deletionist generally, but it's odd to me some things that are defacto notable. Any state highway with a number, apparently. But then it's just an accident of leglislation which roads are or aren't notable. Anyway, Storrow is the only way to go east/west in Boston without stoplights, except I-90, i.e. the Massachusetts Turnpike, which is a toll road — if you get on the Mass. Pike westbound in Boston you can't even get off until you are at the Cambridge/Allston tolls. -- Kendrick7^talk 07:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers

Thanks for reverting that vandalism to my userspace :-) Will 10:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Furverts

He's not stopping, he's sat right next to me. Block him now pl0x, he's been intending to go on a vandalising spree for the past half an hour. He's been obsessing about it...it's rather worrying. Anyway, he'll just make more accounts after he gets gets blocked; want me to keep you updated as he does? Vimescarrot 11:03, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is there no way to prevent people from making accounts from a specific IP adress? Vimescarrot 11:06, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. New one, User:Seriousaccount. Vimescarrot 11:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK I intended not to vandalise aparrt from those pages I was told I could vandalise, Seraphim blade you have a page you say if you feel the need to vandalise... do it here so I did. WHy warn me for that.

Whatever...Now he's editing my userpage. Vimescarrot 11:14, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry that was the guy sat next to me when I went to see the IT technician, he is also a vandal, he is my partner in vandalism however from now on we will respect your wishes and stop senseless vandalism.

That would be greatly appreciated. Seraphimblade ^Talk to me Please review me! 11:20, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He's sat right next to me, giggling away. Plus he's also a complete tosser bit of an idiot. Don't believe him, he didn't ven get out of his chair. And you're right, he's not particularly bright. Vimescarrot 11:21, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive comments, give him warnings Womble1234 11:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Gunbound: missing sections

Hey, buddy, what did you do? You deleted some vital sections! Now it's mixed up - some mobile and weapon classes went missing! I'm reverting it now. KajiTetsushi 13:43, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, but in that context, you unintentionally removed the weapons that exist! The mobiles and their weapon classes are mixed up. Let's say we have Mechanical and Bionic Mobiles. Where's the Shielded Mobile section? It's supposed to be in there. Or how about the weapon classes? Upon your editing, the Impact Weapons section went missing!

So, I took the action of reverting it because if you stated the mobiles in this article, you should include all relevant mobile classes as well. After all, I am a GunBound player and still play GB. I know what's going on here. And I also happen to keep articles in tip-top shape - I understand your intentions to make Wikipedia as perfect as possible. We are in the same boat.

There are no whereabouts of GunBound's development as it is not seen even in its own official website. I don't see any reason to put that section. Hope you'll understand. KajiTetsushi 13:59, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, apology accepted. No hard feelings. I was doing a change on the article that time, thereby, of course, ending in Edit Conflict. But rest assured, the GunBound article is under my watch. KajiTetsushi 14:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Im not advertising please read the full artical

Thanks for reviewing my site but why do you keep putting it up for speedy deletion for blatent advertising when i am just trying to put the history of my company on wiki!

If you just remove what you believe is advertising then we both will be happy!

I can assure you i am no spammer!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pacepowerskill (talk • contribs) 15:41, 22 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

You seem like a nice guy!

Thanks for getting back to me so quick, (you are quicker than the time it takes me to get 'over excited' when i watch girls of the Playboy mansion!)

I am honestly just trying my best to keep my wiki artical and i am very proud of it. The history and facts about my site are true and of interest and i realise your concerns for the potential conflict of interest so i am asking you to edit the artical to remove anything you believe that violates wiki's rules.

Please don't hold the fact that im English or young against me!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pacepowerskill (talk • contribs) 15:50, 22 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

A tag has been placed on ConceptDraw MINDMAP, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia

I think that this are quite enough trustworthy resources http://www.innovationtools.com/Tools/SoftwareDetails.asp?a=218 http://www.macnn.com/reviews/review.php?id=144 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jusperstb (talk • contribs) 15:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Understanding points of view

Hi,

I see that we travel a lot of the same discussions but sometimes end up on different sides of the semantics. I though that it might be good to talk a bit to see where we have common interests.

I describe myself as an inclusionist, but don't want to see spam or articles on garage bands, vanity spam, and local retailers any more than you do. I'm very concerned about some mindless AfD which often gets the right result for the wrong reason, but establishes poor precendents in common perception. I don't believe that Notability is definable without circular definitions using synonyms, which makes me question the objective value of the notability guidelines. I strongly oppose the CREEPing guidelines into all of the special cases and the snowballing of special notablility pages. If the content isn't verifiable and independent, it just doesn't belong here at WP.

What do you think?

Kevin

--Kevin Murray 00:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, as I suspected we pretty much agree on the big picture. Thanks! --Kevin Murray 01:25, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Copyvio

Hi Seraphimblade, I see you reverted another change to the Garrett A. Morgan article. Is there a series of copyvio warning templates kicking around somwhere? I couldn't find one when I warned that user, so I just typed in some stuff. Thanks. Robotman^1974 01:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool, that will save valuable seconds. ;) Thanks. Robotman^1974 01:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just a quick note -- many thanks for reverting the Morgan page -- not only was the replacement text a copyvio, it was full of inaccuracies!

Rapotter 02:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Drawball

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Drawball. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review.

Hi Seraphimblade, sorry if I did not follow the correct procedure to re-instate Drawball. I have taken your advice and requested a deletion review. Obviously you will want to have some input. Anyway thanks for the pointer. Cheers, AntiVan 02:55, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please certify user conduct RfC

Hello Seraphimblade,

Please help certify Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Bridge & Tunnel. Thanks! Bi 15:04, 23 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Your comment please

If you have time please look into this Talk:Kokkadichcholai massacre the discussion is specifically about 1987 incident. I found three WP:RS sources but I am unable to ge thropugh a potential WP:POINT discussion. I asked for third party opinion. No help yet so I am saking you for your point of view. I will abide by that. Thanks RaveenS 22:02, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:Schools

The statement that you removed as a "personal attack" was a direct quote from the previous remark directed at me. A tad more consistency would be greatly appreciated. Alansohn 22:30, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Breanna Conrad

I have seen your proposed deletion. It's said on the Laguna Beach show that she is the younger sister of Lauren, or LC. For the years Breanna has been active, I calculated what year it was at the time, coinciding with her age. I'm not sure if this is in violation with Wikipedia's policy, but I'm giving you a heads-up on what's going on. --DFW 22:29, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My RfA

My request for adminship has closed successfully (79/0/1), so it appears that I am now an administrator. Thanks very much for your vote of confidence. If there's anything I can ever do to help, please don't hesitate to let me know. IrishGuy ^talk 02:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

Stop removing sources from the Filmfare Awards South articles. They have been taken out as no evidence is given. You are re-adding them with no particular source. Give sources to show evidence.

Prince Godfather 12:39, 25 February 2007 (UTC) [reply]

UNESCO publications

Thank you for your response. Will you visit [[9]] and advise me on any additional steps you think may be required to make my scketch of the article image GFDL compliant. Barefact 19:21, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

{{PD-self}} is not accidental: I created my own sketch based on a photo of a page in the publication, but I retained the format of the original. I applied {{fairuse}} and {{PD-self}} tags, but I was not sure if they correctly apply to the sketch that retains the format of the original. As you suggested, I will change the format in the sketch, and then I would appreciate help with the copyright tagging. Barefact 17:30, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate you kind advices. I have another question: The author gave me permission to post materials of his book on the web. I used illustrations (which, I think, are the author's tracings of pictures given to him to be used in his book) to create a combination sketch which includes copies of the author's illustrations. Question: what copyright tag I should use in posting my sketch in the WP? If you need additional details to answer this question, I will be happy to help you to help me. Barefact 19:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would greatly appreciate you help via WT:FU, to eliminate potential defamation and attempts to delete the pertinent facts. ....And do I need to cross-post my question on your page to attract your attention, as I was doing, or is it a redundant hassle? Is archiving interfering with your talks? Barefact 19:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

City of Portsmouth Boys' School

Hi you've commented a lot on the schools article for deletion - CPBS. If you look at the article its a lot better now, with a lot more references (see the discussion and the article). I noticed that you commented to keep the Churchill county school article because it had two sources cited. I think the City Boys school article is at the same level as the Churchill school article and wondered if your opinion on the matter might have changed since the article has been improved? LordHarris 17:15, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey it was worth a try anyway! Just to say thanks for replying! You took a lot of time to present your argument carefully. I see you've done editor review a few times, if you do ever decide to run for an admin then let me know and (even though your a deletionist..) ill support you. LordHarris 18:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notability for figure skaters

Hey. Notability for figure skaters is based on, as per WP:BIO, competing at the highest level of amatuer sport. For Antoine Dorsaz, who is a junior level skater (one step below Olympic level), that is competing on the Junior Grand Prix and at the World Junior Figure Skating Championships, which are both elite-level major international competitions (see figure skating competition). He is a notable skater. :) Awartha 09:40, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, there are 319 google hits for him, so I wouldn't call him completely obscure. The highest level for figure skating are the ISU Championships, which are four championships held by the International Skating Union. They are the World Figure Skating Championships, the World Junior Figure Skating Championships, the European Figure Skating Championships, and the Four Continents Figure Skating Championships. To compete at those events, skaters have to be elite and at the highest level in their country. The World Figure Skating Championships are like the Olympics, except they happen every year. World Juniors is the same, except that it's targeted at skaters between the ages of 13 and 19 (but note the ages of competitiors at World Seniors. There's a major overlap, so what happens is that skaters at World Juniors are often skaters who just missed the Worlds team but are still skating at World Championship level). Senior level is Olympic level. Junior level is one below that, but junior level at ISU Championships is based on age, not skill level. Olympic champion Sarah Hughes, for example, could still have gone to World Juniors after winning the gold! Awartha 09:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's cool. Sorry if I come off grumpy. I've watched too many pages I've created get speedy deleted and prodded into extinction, while non notable skaters survive AfD. I think I should tattoo figure skating competition heirarchies onto my forehead. Awartha 10:07, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Hi,

Just a note to say thank you for your kind comment on my talk page. I've noticed your contributions to various AfD debates, and I'm always pleased to see them. I suspect we share similar views in several areas, so let's keep in touch.

All the best,

WMMartin 14:48, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from Joakim22

I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO WITH THIS. Hi there. I created the Football in Berlin page because, as I frequent Berlin traveller and lover of european football, I am repeatedly asked to provide friends and their friends with a list of Berlin based teams. I can't see how re-directing this effort to a list of all German teams is helpful. The reason I then erased my started list of clubs that are no longer around or have merged with other clubs etc, is because I realised that this is too much of an effort and require need much more time than I have got. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joakim22 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 26 February 2007

Replied on editor's talk. Seraphimblade ^Talk to me Please review me! 15:13, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again. I'm fine with that. What I really enjoyed doing was compiling the material. Is there a way of getting the page back somewhere where I can build it prior to publishing it or is the info I put together lost forever?

Comment from PeterHuntington

Since the work I did on the "Beccles bell tower" and "Beccles" articles were my own work, I am simply "reclaiming" them. That is to say, I am removing them. I have no time or patience for this sort of thing. Do with the articles what you will. I don't want any part of it. I regret my impulse to help improve Wikipedia. Again I am reminded of two things: "Americans are the police of the world", and "No good deed goes unpunished". I'm sure Wikipedia will do just fine without my help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by PeterHuntington (talk • contribs) 14:26, 24 February 2007.

Thanks for setting me straight

Thanks for your help on the "panocracy" discussion page!Will3935 18:25, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for what I did. It just doesn't make sense to me that the page I started was deleted (School of Excellence, Hattiesburg) and then I had to really dig to even figure that out. It didn't show up when I searched for deleted pages. When I found the page of the person who deleted it for being spam, I found the "user page" is basically a spam resume about the user. I have seen pages on Wikipedia from commercial businesses that were nothing more than an advertisement for the company and there was discussion for months about whether it should even be edited! At least I should have been given a heads up and a chance to chance to change the article in a reasonable time period. One more thing, I didn't understand the "code letters" for whatever it was that I did wrong when i put the article in catagories, and a search brought up nothing. I think Wikipedia need to do a lot of work to be more user friendly, unless the purpose is to let everyone know how superior the editors are, because that is the feeling that comes across.

Thanks, Rudy Leffler

Unhelpful comments

I'm sorry but I'm finding your comments to be incredibly unhelpful, and they are starting to feel like you are going out of your way to snipe at everything I say. I would hope you can see I'm investing an awful lot of time in this dispute attempting to build consensus on a number of issues which are central to the debate, and I would hope you can see that from the lengthy posts that I';m taking an awful lot of time thinking over my posts and researching issues. What I'm asking for is some good faith in the Wikipedia process. It's very easy to play games over the burden of proof, but ask yourself, what is better, a frank discussion or a fight over who started the argument? I'm not entirely sure what your motives are here, but I'm finding it hard to see how your comments are constructive in this issue. You seem to be like a bystander at a bar-room brawl egging people on. I'm finding it incredibly frustrating, and so I feel the need to make this comment in a bid to work through that and understand where you are coming from. Steve block Talk 08:31, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If it was that simple to prove a source was reliable or not, we would not still be having this debate. So far the debate has centred on people simply stating that so and so is a reliable source, and other people stating so and so is not a reliable source. Our policies make no clear definition of a reliable source, basically stating that it is contextual. Instructive reading might be the talk archives of WP:ATT, WP:IAR and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Webcomics. here's our policy on reliable sources:
• Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context; what is reliable in one topic may not be in another. In general, the most reliable sources are books and journals published by universities; mainstream newspapers; and magazines and journals that are published by known publishing houses. What these have in common is process and approval between document creation and publication. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Material that is self-published is generally not regarded as reliable, but see below for exceptions.
• Now we have a rule of thumb, but that's just a yardstick, and it isn't infallible at any rate. What we're basically stating is that sources need to be evaluated. There is no magic formula for reliability, but we do know that self-published sources are bad. there is a grey area introduced later regarding questionable sources, which are described as having "no editorial oversight or fact-checking process, or with a poor reputation for fact-checking." Now we have editorial oversight, so where Comixpedia may fall into this is on fact-checking. However, since the site mostly posts reviews and opinions, it's a grey area on whether the fact checking applies, since we are told that "how reliable a source is depends on context", and that reliable sources are ones whose "authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand". Now who decides which authors are regarded as trustworthy or authorative? Us wikipedia editors? Or do we have a look and see which authors are being cited by other scholars? Do you agree it's all a little subjective and grey, and if the burden of proof is anywhere, it is in proving the source is questionable, since we have a clearer definition there than we do of reliability? Steve block Talk 11:38, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, you seem to be missing the point again. I don't know, I just can't see this discussion going anywhere to be honest, you don't seem to have any input into how to determine the reliability or unreliability of Comixpedia, you just seem to be interested in debating debating technique. You do say a source isn't reliable just because someone says so, but that cuts both ways, a source isn't unreliable just because some says so, and yet you were happy to jump in and remove any burden when I asked for proof of that. I'm really not clear on how that helped the debate. You also state that you "imagine the new WP:ATT, state(s) unequivocally that the onus is on those who wish to add information to prove that it is reliably sourced." This will probably sound harsh, but I don't have the time for this. I quote you the passages, I put the time in and I research my position. Do me the favour of doing the same. Here's the relevant passage:
  • In principle, any edit lacking attribution may be removed, and the final burden of evidence lies with the editor wishing to add or retain the material. However, this policy should not be used to cause disruption by removing material for which reliable sources could easily or reasonably be found — except in the case of contentious material about living persons, which must be removed immediately. If you encounter a harmless statement that lacks attribution, you can tag it with the {{fact}} template, or move it to the article's talk page with a comment requesting attribution. If the whole article or an entire section is unsourced, you can use the {{unreferenced}} template. Absurd claims and original research should be deleted rather than tagged or moved to a talk page.
  • I'd suggest it doesn't read exactly how you quoted it to me. I've already made my case as to why Comixpedia is reliable, noting the citations of the magazine by scholars, the usage of one column run on there as the basis of a book. If you feel it is not your place to comment as to whether that indicates reliability, then I find that disheartening, since that does not build a consensus. Letting me and Dragonfiend discuss the issue between ourselves is unlikely to allow a conclusion to be reached. Still, if you have no opinion on the reliability of the source, fair play. Steve block Talk 12:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ANI topic relevant to an AMA case

For Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/Requests/February 2007/Rmagick please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#OTRS related assistance needed. GRBerry 18:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Book Sources

Well, I have two: both are Church directories for Saint Monica's (one from '96 and th eother from 2003), and they each have a preface stating that "Saint Monica's is the largest and one of the most active parishes in the Diocese of Burlington." The title is Saint Monica's Parish, Barre, Vermont, and I don't think there is a specified author, but the books are published by Olan Mills. I know this may be a little (or a lot) skimpy, but it's something. I'll try to contact the church and get some better sources. Bmrbarre 15:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Userfication of unsourced articles

I'd like to pursue the idea some more, but I'm behind on my other commitments in WP. If I don't see anything happening, I'll check back with you when I think I have some time to work on it. -- Donald Albury 23:48, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]