User talk:Slp1/Archive 3

Felton

The more I think about it, the more I'm convinced you're correct. This is a good example of how failing the WP:BIO guidelines risks a POV article. There are no real sources about the subject himself and I think divining the subject's views from his writing is borderline OR and certainly does not allow for a NPOV. Is there any reason to wait for protection to expire? I suspect not. DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:37, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Felton is not someone I am interested in. I created his page and figured that he was worthy and notable enough to have such; if other people disagree that's their preogotive and I respect their input. I find his accusations about me comical and annoying at the same time, but I am not going to bother with him or his page anymore. I voted to keep the page due to the fact I believe he is notable due to the controversial nature of his writings which are somewhat well known within the community who follows these events and writers. All you have to do is go to the subjects own site or run his name on google and you will what I mean. Anyhow, best regards and happy new year.

--Eternalsleeper (talk) 05:34, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Slp 1: No, no offence taken. I understand your position, but I have made a case that the page should remain up. (Please see comments on the discussion forum regarding deletion.) As far as eternalsleeper is concerned, his claim of disinterest is demonstrably false. Were it not for his "interest," my page would not have been created. I stand by everything I have said. 70.71.63.84 (talk) 07:10, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eternalsleeper: action, please!

Hi Slp!: As you appear to be a senior editor, I'll address this question to you in hopes that I will get a response on my talk page. Time and again eternalsleeper has claimed that my page is important because of the controversial nature of my writing, yet the minute that good researchers like Tiamut annd Hyperionsteel flesh out my page properly, he changes his tune: "This article has become comical. I could find more to write about a 2nd year political science student, let alone someone who maintains their own web site and pretends to be an "investigative reporter!" --Eternalsleeper (talk) 02:26, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Please explain to me why eternalsleeper has not been dealt with.

Thanks.

Voxveritatis (talk) 04:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting back to me. My problem is not that eternalsleeper changed his mind, but that he habitually behaves with utter contempt for honesty and Wikipedia rules of conduct.

My question had to do with the fact that he has a huge rap sheet of misconduct, has misrepresetned his attitude toward me, and still is allowed to muck about in Wikipedia. What does a person have to do to get banned?

Voxveritatis (talk) 20:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Slp1, I have not edited his page for 3 months until today when I removed something that had a dead link for reference. This users comments are becoming harassing to me. There is not a huge rap sheet of misconduct, the user in question has only contributed to what he claims is his own page. As this user seems to rely on you, please tell this user to back off making accusations about me. He is breaking a lot of rules and has not received a reprimand.

--Eternalsleeper (talk) 01:04, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response from Hyperionsteel

The references I made to Felton's work were certainly not self-serving, did not involve claims about events to third parties, did not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject, and, finally, there is no doubt that Felton wrote these articles. While there were few primary sources before, several have since been added.

It seems that you believe the quotes are contentious, but this could apply to practially anything, depending on your point of view. Even Felton himself, who apparently (although I can't say for sure) has contributed to the talk page under the name "Voxveritatis" of the wikipage, doesn't deny or protest that his views were posted. I believe that maybe you are interpreting these rules to strictly.

By the way, I added more context to the quote that "Al-Qaida doesn't exist."(Hyperionsteel (talk) 00:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

replied on users talkpage.--Slp1 (talk) 00:50, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to another of your comments

(retrived from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Greg_Felton) '::As an aside, Hyperionsteel, you seem to misunderstand Wikipedia. We don't need or want 'all of his views' here. The problem (as has been pointed out several times) is that you have been deciding (in this and other articles) which of a person's views are notable, which is Original research and has often appeared to be Quote mining.--Slp1 (talk) 01:31, 6 January 2008 (UTC)'[reply]

I disagree with your statement. Felton's views on Israel are one of the major points of this article. In fact, the largest section deals with the controversy over his views on Israel. What's wrong with, in addition to this, quoting articles that he has written in which he makes further statements on Israel. I didn't decide that this topic was important, but rather Tiamut did when he/she created the section which covered the controversy over Felton's views on Israel. How can quoting from his articles in which he discusses Israel not be important? I acknowledge that his views on the Holocaust and Irwin Cotler may not be relevant to this section but his views on Israel are. I am citing original sources (i.e. written by Felton) but aren't these relevant to the aforementioned topic? (Hyperionsteel (talk) 22:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Some thoughts on the Felton article

It's a difficult and frustrating issue for me. On one hand, I don't want to violate wiki rules, but on the other, Felton holds very extreme views on Israel, Jews, and the Holocaust which I felt very strongly should be included in the article. My concern is that Tiamut's version whitewashed Felton's views as they made no reference to his written comments that Israel shouldn't exist (or should be moved to Europe) and his questioning of the Holocaust (although I acknowledge is not an outright Holocaust denier). I believe these are important to the article, although I admit I can't find any proper secondary sources that discuss them (although there are plenty of blogs and chatrooms which discuss them endlessly). Do you have any thoughts as to how to deal with this? (Hyperionsteel (talk) 07:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Has the article been removed?

Regarding the article on Greg Felton, I can't find it. Does that mean that its been pulled? (If it has been removed, its actually a relief - I was getting tired of fighting over its content - I am ready to move on.)

Could the Felton article be Reinstated?

I have no plans to resurrect this article but its possible somebody else may try to. Is a block in place to stop this from happening? I ask because I'd rather not go through all this again. (Hyperionsteel (talk) 03:55, 15 January 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Attacks

You have a point that my last message may have been a bit intemperate, although certainly provoked by: "obsessive-compulsive behavior", "$#!+ or get off the pot. Move on, already. Find a new hobby.", "some deep and fundamental obsession that must lead to questions of your rationality" all of which Mr. Alansohn wrote about me on the Talk:Dane_Rauschenberg page. I will be careful to not stoop to his level in the future. Xcstar (talk) 19:05, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Xcstar (talk) 19:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I think we have accidentally started a second edit war: [1] Xcstar (talk) 19:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I understand. Things on Wikipedia come out in print different from the tone which would be conveyed orally. I am disengaging. Thanks, Xcstar (talk) 19:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Child Support

Appearing to violate NPOV is not the same thing as violating NPOV. Your CENSORHIP of criticism in a criticism section is completely unwarranted, and if it persists, I will bring in arbitration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.130.34.227 (talk) 01:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Categories

Hi,

I noticed this diff; the same category can be displayed, with a hyperlink, using a leading colon before 'Category':

[[Category:Endocrinology]] > [[:Category:Endocrinology]] = Category:Endocrinology

No need for the nowiki tags, and the link is a bit more functional. Also works for images:

Image:TylerDavidsonFountainAtNight.jpg

I always found this handy. WLU (talk) 11:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anytime. :)

No problem at all. There were so many diffs there--I've totally done the same thing. :)

BTW, since our charming POV editor has moved on to vandalizing my User Page, I did send a report about his activities over to WP:ANI. It seems as though he's getting angrier and angrier, so I figured I'd err on the side of caution and let the admins know about it. DanielEng (talk) 02:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A note of thanks

Thank you, Slp1, for your support during this unpleasant incident; I am most grateful. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

School Transcripts

FWIW, I read through the entire thread and it was a mistake to engage him on this issue. He's very combative (which is not necessarily a bad thing), but his whole Socratic dialogue approach to interpreting Wiki policies and guidelines is kind of pointless because at the end of the day "academic transcripts" or "university transcripts" or "school transcripts" are not identified as secondary sources in either the guidelines or the policies. Generally speaking, I think he wants them to be there (otherwise, why go through all of this?), but he attacks anyone who makes constructive comments. I don't know what he wants from the noticeboard. J Readings (talk) 00:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Galloway

Pleasse check that my addition is proper. I have quoted the most recent biography of Galloway.21stCenturyBuoy (talk) 09:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC) Could you please help on how we get a judgement on this? Thank you21stCenturyBuoy (talk) 13:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ernest Shackleton

Hey there, thanks for your comments on the Shackleton article. I think I've addressed the issues which you raised and was wondering if you could take a look at the article and see if you can see any more areas needing improvement. Also, thanks for fixing up the article a bit. Lazulilasher (talk) 15:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks much for the congratulations...and also for the contributions to the article itself. That sort of thing is always great! Let's see what else we can do....I'm eyeing up old Roald Amundsen :) Hehe...those guys were freaking rockstars. Lazulilasher (talk) 01:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gaijin

Thanks for your vigilance at Gaijin. As can be seen from the page history, the present issue and the cycle of reverts has been going on for a very long time. It has unfortunately driven a few editors away from the article. Yesterday I filed a request for semi-protection. However, it was denied. While I applaud your efforts, continuously reverting is bound to get registered users blocked (WP:3RR), while IP users merely just need to change their IP, so I advise caution. Bendono (talk) 00:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Despite my better judgment, I took a look at the gaijin page today after retiring from the article and, sure enough, the POV-pushing anon SPA is back in force. This guy is clearly disruptive, possibly a sockpuppet, and based on his edit history, cannot be reasoned with since the IP editor won't discuss anything on the talk page and disrespects WP:CONSENSUS, which is why I left the page. I believe someone should request that the page either be semi-protected or the POV-pushing SPA be blocked indefinitely. This nonsense really needs to stop. J Readings (talk) 07:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Apology from Marvin Shilmer

Slp1: I want to apologize for conducting myself in a way felt by you as uncivil. As you can see from my lack of complaining about editor Cfrito’s conduct toward me, I have a fairly high tolerance for individuality. Even the serious accusations of plagiarism I left alone until my firm request that he cease was ignored. My tolerance for individuality is something that is, to me, a good thing. I assume the same of others. Accordingly I tend to speak frankly and straight to the point. So, for example, when I read a non-answer response to a specific question I state that the response is a non-answer. From me, this is not an insult. I have no need or intent to insult anyone here. I do not even know anyone here personally, to have an opinion one way or another to feel compelled to insult. During our brief exchange I was not assuming bad faith, though I can understand why you felt that way then, and again on the arbitration page where you offered your views. To be honest, the most insulting thing anyone can do to me is to namby-pamby around rather than saying what is on their mind. I appreciate and value that on the arbitration page you did just this. I have expressed the same thing to several editors who offered frank assessments of my person. I only want to add that you have my profound apology for conducting myself so that you felt insulted or otherwise treated uncivil. We all learn from one another. It is the way of life. You have taught me a thing or two, as has Cfrito by the way. Thanks.--Marvin Shilmer (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Been extremely busy in real life

...but logged onto Wikipedia to notice all your good and hard work. People who cannot read (let alone follow) policies and guidelines, assume bad faith, start altering direct quotes to POV-push, can't be bothered to do research in the libraries, foolishly declare their POV in crystal clear language all over the talk pages, and then engage in edit wars, are operating on borrowed time. Continue doing what you've been doing. Admins and established editors aren't stupid. When the time comes, the writing is already plain for everyone to read on the wall and those who are disruptive (and they sadly exist all over Wikipedia) will politely be shown the door as has always been the case. Best regards, J Readings (talk) 23:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hoary's talk page

In case you didn't notice, I commented again over there. Thanks, J Readings (talk) 01:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could You Please Intervene...

Hi. I noticed you have been reprimanding User:Freedom4korea for his vandalism, so it seems appropriate that I report to you the fact that he was been recently vandalizing my user page, as you'll see in the page's history. Thanks, aido2002talk·userpage 22:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stuttering#If_a_stutterer_reproduces.2C_would_his_offspring_be_a_stutterer_too.3F

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stuttering#If_a_stutterer_reproduces.2C_would_his_offspring_be_a_stutterer_too.3F —Preceding unsigned comment added by Radiohumor (talk • contribs) 21:23, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunate

That's all I can say. More than 20 Japanese and English dictionaries saying that, in the post-war period, gaijin is a simple contraction of gaikokujin. They're ignored. Another 10 sources in reliable sources saying the word is harmless. Also ignored. I could spend a few hours putting them together in citation templates, but someone could just as well take them down. Then there are all the Japanese language sources that say it is a contraction. Those will also be dismissed. Instead, we bicker over extrapolations of what the reliable English sources "could be" saying instead of what they say. I'm beginning to think that WP:ATT needs to be invoked in order to simply have quote after quote after quote along side the author's identified credentialed standing per WP:RS: journalist, academic, activist, etc. Originally, I was thinking that this was the way to go anyway. That way, the reader knows in advance what he or she is getting. It will read like crap, and it will definitely never get a GA rating if done that way, let alone FA, but I don't see any other way of avoiding the distortions. I want to assume good faith, but frankly, either everyone should just give them what they want--an article about how terrible the word "gaijin" is--or find another ways to avoid distorting the source materials. Incidentally, invoking WP:ATT is what saved us when editing the Essjay Controversy page. It was the only honest way to gain consensus. I'm actually proud of my work on that page. That article remained stable, too. (Knock on wood!) J Readings (talk) 10:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

mediation successful?

Arbitrator Newyorkbrad has requested clarification on whether mediation has been successful. Is arbitration still required? Could you please consider adding a concise update (one or two sentences) to your statement at WP:RFAR within the next 12-14hrs, regarding your level of satisfaction of the resulting article, and whether the user conduct issues have abated.

If there are outstanding content issues, please list them at the talk page. John Vandenberg (talk) 05:30, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/New World Translation

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/New World Translation/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/New World Translation/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, John Vandenberg (talk) 21:24, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MEDMOS

Hey, Slp1, can you peek in on this discussion of changes to WP:MEDMOS to reflect devices ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request of Comment

Hi, I would suggest that a request for comment might be useful way of solving the issue as a start. There are other options too, including mediation, but an article request for comment will get uninvolved experienced editors involved. --Slp1 (talk) 22:41, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, that's the most constructive thing I've heard all day. I appreciate it. I've been trying to cut through all the legalese crap on the other options, without success. Chris (クリス • フィッチ) (talk) 22:45, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Appropriate

Sure :) Thanks for the message (LakeOswego (talk) 02:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

User: Freedom4korea

Hi, the above user having just changed my userpage (see [[2]]) - I had a look at his page and noticed that he has been down this sort of road before. I also noticed that you had said he would be blocked if he vandalized any more pages (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Freedom4korea#Your_recent_edits) Any chance that could now happen? regards Marcus22 (talk) 15:38, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh-oh. Got your comment. Thanks. Will do the same myself. Marcus22 (talk) 16:28, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AIV

It happens... ;~) LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:59, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the understanding and the laugh! --Slp1 (talk) 16:03, 5 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Flood

"Michael Flood states that Men's rights advocates ignore the unreliability of the Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS)."

This sentence is not that far from "Michael Flood states that MRA ignore the fact that the CTS studies are unreliable." Better attribution is possible and the following was my suggested edit:

Michael Flood states that studies based on the Conflict Tactics Scales (CTS) are unreliable and that men's rights advocates ignore this when they cite statistics based on CTS studies. Best wishes, Michael H 34 (talk) 18:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34[reply]

Looks good to me. Thanks! --Slp1 (talk) 18:37, 6 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting

Either Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting is critical of men's rights, or the inclusion of the statement by FAIR in this section is irrelevant and/or OR and should be removed. I'll note that according to the Wikipedia article, FAIR acknowledged that they should not have published a statement about how domestic violence increases 40% during the Super Bowl. I leave the decision to you. Best wishes, Michael H 34 (talk) 19:34, 6 March 2008 (UTC) Michael H 34[reply]

Wikipedia:Meetup/Montreal

I see you are a user located in Montréal, you may be interested in: Wikipedia:Meetup/Montreal. Please add your name to the "Interested" or to the "Not interested" list. Date is set for May 3rd 2008 and Buffet La Stanza is the proposed location. If you have another idea for the location; propose away! Please pass on to any Montreal Wikis you maybe aware of and who are not yet listed as interested, may be interested, or not interested. Pro bug catcher (talk • contribs). 04:55, 8 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Quick reply to your msg

I just saw your comment now. Since you're so concerned, I'll try to work on the page again later when I have time and better document some things. In the meantime, please see my more detailed explanation just posted.(Tortugadillo (talk) 20:46, 12 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

• I see you removed some stuff. Thanks for taking such an interest in the page. I notice, though, that you only removed negative facts but nothing that shines favorably on Hoofers. Why didn't you remove the completely unsupported statement about Soma being painted with black spots..? Are you a current Hoofer leader? I'm going to restore the item about the Code of Ethics which, contrary to what you claim in your edit, certainly does have lots to do with the club. I won't restore the other material about the Union which is less directly related, although Hoofers is part of the Union and does function in that environment. Please consider carefully NPOV before selectively removing only positive or negative material. Unfortunately, some of the negative material is better documented by third parties than the positives.(Tortugadillo (talk) 21:52, 12 March 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Mmm, it would be a long way to go for a sail, so no, not a Hoofer, and not biased for or against the club, just in favour of appropriately citations for controversial material, which for whatever reason, you don't seem to understand despite multiple repetitions. --Slp1 (talk) 22:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William Wilberforce

I'm back from an extended break and, with the encouragement of Malachirality am keen to tidy up the minor issues that have been highlighted.

However, I'm aware that you have been continuously improving the article and have made a whole host of edits – and I don't want to tread on your toes. It's possible that I may inadvertently change things that you have already corrected. Please let me know if this happens, or if you disagree with anything that I am trying to do to get this article up to scratch.

It was I who submitted this for A-class review back in December and am surprised that it's now up for GA. I note from your comments to Malachirality that you think it might not yet be ready. If we can work together then maybe it can be improved quicker – or, if necessary, perhaps we could ask for another extension.

Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 16:19, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've made a number of minor corrections, as you will have seen, along with a few additions where I've come across relevant information – trying to utilise sources we haven't used before. I hope that, between us, we've now managed to address all the points highlighted by Malachirality – please let me know if you think we've missed anything.

I'm now doing a complete read-through, literally to try and pick up every comma or full point that is out of place. I find the best way is to copy the text into a Word document or similar and print it out – it's amazing what you can pick up that you've never noticed before! There's still a little bit of duplication, I think, and one or two sentences that need to be moved or deleted – but I'll let you know what else I find. – Cheers, Bruce Agendum (talk) 14:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits are great! They fill in the gaps that I was aware of when I ran out of steam last year, and are certainly better written than I could have achieved.

I've been through everything once, but will do another read-through. I have a few little queries, such as the correct style for the MP/M.P. abbreviation - I'm not sure what the Manual of Style says on that. I also want to check facts on who was part of the Teston circle at the time WW became involved, the date of foundation of the Committee for the Aboloition of the Slave Trade, and similar details for the Clapham Sect. Can you see anything else we've missed from the items highlighted by Malachirality?

If there's anything else you can think of that I could help with, please let me know. Like you I don't have a great deal of time, but tomorrow is a holiday here in the UK, so I may be able to do a bit. If you still think we cannot finish in time, then please let me know and we can mention it to Malachirality.

Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 23:22, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're right – Pollock has them watching debates from the gallery in 1779–80, prior to his running for Parliament in August that year. Pitt was (he says) "reading hard for the Bar but determined on a political career, encouraged Wilberforce to join him in the House as soon as they could get seats." (p.9)

Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 13:12, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've done just about as much as I can. I did another read through and picked up a few things – it may be that I'm getting too fastidious, but I replaced all curly quotes and inverted commas with straight ones, just for consistency (I actually prefer the former, but it was less work this way). The curly ones are quite obvious when printed out on my computer, as they are straight but clearly slanted at a strange angle.

If you still have time, and I appreciate that you may not have, it may be worth just looking at two sections that are not strictly about WW – but are relevant to the story. Strictly speaking, maybe they should be deleted, but I'll follow your judgement (I felt it might be OK to leave them in) – #1 The last clause in the first para under the heading 'Initial decision', about Ramsay and the Testonites (I guess it explains who they were, as WW joined them at the end of the next para. – and #2 The fourth para under "Emancipation of enslaved Africans", second sentence, about Thomas Clarkson > to the end of that para. Not strictly about Wilberforce at all. But, again, crucial to the story.

Good luck if you do any more. It's looking good. Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 00:35, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not at all sure how to sort out this image problem that seems to have affected many pages, including William Wilberforce. I have tried purging both the server and bypassing the cache on my local browser, as instructed – and have now left a message on the Village Pump pages, asking for help (which I should have done in the first place).

It's really frustrating (and quite unbelievable) that this problem should coincide exactly with the week when this article is up for GA Review. Still, c'est la vie, as you guys say! Do you have any other ideas? Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 18:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just a thought, slp1. It doesn't look as though anyone's done much on reviewing the article yet – I was looking through once more, and wonder whether the most recent para in the lead strikes a rather negative note? Could this be better placed further down the article, I wonder? I understand why you've inserted it, and the need to demonstrate NPOV, but is this the right place?

I'm in two minds about it, and didn't want to revert or alter an edit which introduces facts which are demonstrably true without running it past you. Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 15:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine, Slp1 – I just wanted to get your take on it. I had read the Lead section Style guidelines and I now see were you're coming from. I'm happy to leave it as it is. Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 23:41, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Telly Awards

An article that you have been involved in editing, Telly Awards, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Telly Awards. Thank you. Enric Naval (talk) 17:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merci

Merci Slp1 pour tes ajouts à l'article Christian Polak! Je ne pensais pas vraiment que son activité entrepreneuriale mérite mention dans une encyclopédie, mais pourquoi pas. Christian Polak est aussi Président de l'Association Franco-Japonaise de Kanagawa, et membre de Comité de Direction de la Chambre de Commerce et d'Industrie Française du Japon. Cordialement, PHG (talk) 13:18, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Polak

Hi Slp1. May I ask a favor? I'm trying to track down this citation:

• Pons, Philippe. "Sabre et pinceau", Le Monde, 2005. "Christian Polak, le meilleur specialiste de l'histoire des relations Franco-Japonaises."

I checked several sources and could not find it. Would you happen to have better luck? I don't know who added it, but it suspiciously lack a hyperlink, a page number, or even a month. I think it needs to be verified, to be on the safe side. Any help would be appreciated. J Readings (talk) 06:42, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, it turns out that PHG incorrectly cited the information. See [3] Thanks, J Readings (talk) 07:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not quite :) As clarified in the discussion, the quote was re-formatted by other editors in the meantime, but what I did write is:

"Christian Polak, le meilleur specialiste de l'histoire des relations Franco-Japonaises", Philippe Pons, Japan correspondant for Le Monde, in "Sabre et pinceau", 2005 [4]

This, I think, can hardly be clearer or more straightforward. Cheers PHG (talk) 08:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, no I disagree. It's not "straightforward" at all as I'm sure you realize. Assuming the information is accurate (and I haven't checked the source at the library yet), it's simply a preface to the author's book, thus hardly making it an independent, third-party source at all. J Readings (talk) 09:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is accurate (I can send you a scan), and I did say that the quote came from one of Polak's books ("in "Sabre et pinceau", 2005). Cheers. PHG (talk) 13:03, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(Outdent) What I would like to know, in all seriousness and after great scrutiny, is why we are unable to find serious third-party academics (indeed any academics at all) and third-party journalists (emphasis on the word "third-party") who have reviewed Polak's work. Surely this is a puzzle and problem for even PHG because he is essentially relying on the limited soundbite quotes of a Japan Times staff writer (who made the "expert" comment in passing), two ostensible colleagues and/or friends of Polak writing in 2 of Polak's book forewords (hardly reliable third-party sources by any means), and the passing mention by an outside author of art books to make the case that Polak is a notable academic. Slp1, DGG, and I have looked through several databases and indices without being able to find anything of third-party substance on Polak. Rather, what surfaces is always the same: the sporadic throw-away comments of someone who is occassionally used for soundbites for an obscure newspaper staffer. The argument that these -- what I would call "throw-away" -- comments somehow merit an encyclopedia entry are still a puzzle in need of explanation. J Readings (talk) 13:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William the Good

Hi Slp1

Well, many thanks – congratulations to you too. You certainly deserve it!

Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 22:10, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Treatment of Multiple Sclerosis

Thanks for your message. I know warnings are not usual on drug treatment pages but perhaps they ought to be as Wikipedia is very vulnerable to manipulation by pharmaceutical companies. The following is long - please bear with me because I believe that it is important. A bit of background: drugs companies have very high front-loaded costs in terms of research (clinical trials are very expensive) and most therapies fail either in terms of toxicity or efficacy. For these reasons and because they are financially motivated, there are pressures on drug companies to positively manipulate their results to present a favourable picture of their product. Pharmaceuticals are not allowed by law to advertise directly to patients in the UK and in the US there are strict controls governing such adverts. However, because anyone can edit pages in Wikipedia with almost complete anonymity, they provide the less scrupulous drug companies the opportunity to reach potential patients with very little regulation. This gives them an opportunity to oversell their products directly to patients. Because patients are typically ignorant of the clinical trial process and of what constitute adequate controls, the companies can omit to mention trial flaws and statistical errors. The multiple sclerosis drugs in question cost about 10,000 GBP per patient but, because of the front loading of expenses, the vast majority of that is profit – quite an incentive! Cochrane reviews exist to aggregate trial data and review methodology and have found that none of the drugs in question were proved to delay disease progression, the single most important goal for any MS treatment. One of the cited interferon beta studies in the Wikipedia article was heavily criticised for failing to include trial drop-out data nor to control for the fact that drop-outs tend to be patients fairing poorly on the drug - this obvious skews results in favour of the drug. All the trials cited in the article were conducted before the unreferenced Cochrane reviews and it is generally acknowledged amongst professionals that the drugs have not been proven to delay onset of the progressive form of the disease. Rules were introduced in the leading journals a few years ago (but after the cited drug trials) to ensure full disclosure of conflict of interests by those carrying out the trials and they are now a little more transparent as a result (although not fully so). Even before that, peer review was mandatory in leading journals but it is completely missing in Wikipedia. I strongly feel that measures need to be taken within the Wikipedia framework to protect vulnerable patients who, particularly in the case of multiple sclerosis, have quite enough on their plates as it is.

All the best, Paul, Laetoli (talk) 02:07, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Death

I am not trying to engage in an edit war. He is reverting my edits as much as I am his, and I feel he should have been given the same warning, in all fairness. And if you will notice, the person making the edits that I am undoing has admitted to being one of the members, actually the lead singer, of Christian Death. Not only is this a biased first hand account, but it is mercilessly riddled with formatting, grammar and spelling errors. I am merely trying to revert the page to its previous article, which came about through much discussion and hard work amongst editors. Thank you.98.220.43.195 (talk) 15:28, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HELP! After all the hard work we have tried to do on this article, INCLUDING adding and IMPROVING on the submissions Valorkaend made, he is STILL trying to undo all of our edits OUTRIGHT and insert his original article, poor spelling, grammar, punctuation, formatting and all! He needs to be put on ice from editing! HELP!98.220.43.195 (talk) 01:26, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Male editors

Quoting your talk page: "As someone with an interest in language and communication, I am very intrigued that other editors have assumed I am a 'he' when I'm not. Do I use a register in my internet posts that appears male? Or is it just because most editors here are male? Scope here for someone else's PhD perhaps."

I think there is a strong tendency to assume other editors are male. My impression is that the great majority are.

Many editors take such a belligerent approach that it is natural to assume they are male.

Cheers, Wanderer57 (talk) 05:01, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your message. You have the same general theory that I do about the preponderance of male editors, though it is a bit discouraging to have people assume a male gender when they really shouldn't in this day and age. Though to be honest I often do it myself, though I try and catch myself as much as possible. I hope you are not implying that I take a belligerent approach, though! It is not my intention at all! Funnily enough in a recent little problem I have been assumed to be male AND congratulated for my polite, calm approach in the face of an uncivil editor. So who knows! ;-) --Slp1 (talk) 13:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Slp1: No, I was not implying that you are belligent, combative, hostile, militant, pugnacious, quarrelsome, scrappy, truculent, warlike, bellicose, or even abrasive. Not in anything I have seen. I suppose that you maintain an alter ego to use when you wish to make ill-tempered edits. (If not, the name "Miserable SOB" is available. - ;o) Wanderer57 (talk) 23:45, 18 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See User talk:Doc glasgow#Simple instructions. Not for the main discussion therein; the last three paragraphs are relevant to our colloquy. I gather from the context that Risker is female. Wanderer57 (talk) 17:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

low dose naltrexone

Hi, that guy who posted on "low dose naltrexone" on the MS page has a point, it is like novantrone, a low-dose chemo, and is used quite a bit off-label, more so in the EU. If you do a google for "MS" and "LDN" you will get a lot of hits. However I have not looked at his citations, and perhaps they should be excluded. Maybe you want to approach him and suggest a mention. Or if you like, I will do it...ps....I love your city having visited this time last year, sunshine and snow together..io_editor (talk) 01:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, will do, thnkx. Will tell him/her that I will come back to it mid-week when I find something better.io_editor (talk) 02:09, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple Sclerosis Treatments reversion

Thanks for your note. I have followed up your suggestion with this text:

"My removal of this table was because it contains unsupported assertions which are not generally accepted by neurologists. Two professional reviews have analysed the interferons and both concluded that it was unproven whether they affect disease progression. The table's author is replicating this work without allowing for control group selection, drop-out group constitution and other factors. It also counts as original research. The table is the reason for the NPOV dispute. See the talk page for more info. While the dispute is being resolved, it seems to me to be inappropriate to display the table, especially in view of the fact that it may influence people choice of whether to use these drugs (which have significant health & financial implications)."

Reluctantly, I shall leave the table as it stands. I hope people with MS are not influenced during the intervening period. Laetoli (talk) 18:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wilberforce

That's a tough one. This article strikes me as right up Awadewit's alley—have you met her? She's quite a specialist in late 18th-century British history, but she's popular and busy too. She'd give you a very thorough peer review. I could attempt some copyediting, but the article doesn't look particularly in need of it, at a glance. You could also check Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers for peer reviewers interested in history. –Outriggr § 01:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to look at it tomorrow. If not, probably the weekend. Do you want me to comment at the peer review or on the talk page? qp10qp (talk) 15:03, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting this moving, Slp1 - I feel bad that other things have prevented me from doing as much as I wanted to progress this further. I may have some time (but not much) over the next few days, so will try and do some bits, as and when possible. Meanwhile, I'm following the various Talk pages – it's great to have folk so willing to help! Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 16:05, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Awadewit (talk · contribs · count) says she will help out probably this weekend. See User talk:Awadewit#William Wilberforce. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've hopefully fixed the quote re Prince of Wales and W's singing. I'll go through the list of proposed peer review changes again, and also look at standardising the date range style – I've added one or two that may not be consistent. It'll be tomorrow now, though. Let me know if there are any of today's changes you disagree with, or just revert them. Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 22:52, 20 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a niggling doubt about that last image I inserted, and I wonder whether I, and the designers of at least a couple of other websites, have been fooled! At larger size, it's so like a photograph that I find it hard to believe it's not. Theoretically, it's just possible that an early dagguerotype of Wilberforce could just about exist, but the composition of this is too perfect, and I suspect that it was taken at a much later date than his death in 1833. I think it could be a "reconstruction" of the painting by George Richmond that the original engraving was based on (see the picture reproduced in Hague's book, last plate). If you agree with me on this, I'll have to replace it ASAP with another illustration, as everything has got to be absolutely correct this time. Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 21:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think it's an early use of a "look-alike".... I've found another now. Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 22:32, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with moving Sierra Leone higher up William Wilberforce. It's looking good – you've been working very hard on this in the last couple of weeks, and your additions have improved the article no end. Hopefully, I'll be able to do a fair bit during this weekend (it's a holiday weekend here). Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 14:12, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Brava! Bravissimo!

Wanderer57 (talk) 21:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Genie

Hello Slp1:

I made the change back.

Best wishes, Wanderer57 (talk) 11:37, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help Wanted

Hello Slp1:

I posted the following on the WP:BLPN page. I'm putting a copy here in case you are interested.

Please will some people with an understanding of BLP policy look at

this discussion, and provide some input if you think it is warranted.

Thank you, Wanderer57 (talk) 23:45, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It will probably help if I explain that "MOFB" is used in the discussion as an acronym for the subject of the article, (Viscount) Monckton of Brenchley.

The Viscount's grandfather, by the way, was made a Viscount in recognition of extraordinary service to the British royal family.

Wanderer57 (talk) 00:03, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chiropractic

Take a quick look at the main chiropractic article. I am on a journey to reach the ever elusive GA status. Feel free to join in. It's fun. QuackGuru 00:04, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Take a quick look. It is very interesting to see how various content disputes evolve year after year. The chiropractic article has always been under dispute. From beginning to end. QuackGuru 00:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you may be interested in this discussion. I find it to be very interesting. The source is reliable per WP:SPS. QuackGuru 03:30, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I read your third-party opinion about the article but some editors have dismissed your comments that the source meets Wikipedia's standard.[5] QuackGuru 08:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a feeling even if I purchased a Ramey book and added information to the article about the safety information it could be deleted as no consensus. Anyone could say the book is not a peer-reviewed source and say take it to the noticeboard. Then if a third-party observer said it is reliable they can still say no consensus as they are doing now. Your third-party opinion was that both sources are usable and the book can be a substitute for the article. I think there is consensus based on your third-party opinion for the inclusion of the article. And the book can be used in its place after someone has read the book. But the info on the book can easily be deleted too. QuackGuru 15:50, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It has already started. At least one editor claims Ramey is not a notable expert on this topic.[6] If a book is used, the author must be an expert on the subject. Oh well. Thanks for all your help anyhow. QuackGuru 05:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Friendly

Hi Slp1,

I think you might already be using the Twinckle script, so I wanted to let you know about another useful one. See:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:FRIENDLY

I tested it. It saves the editor a lot of time when searching for edit tags, welcome signs, and prods. Give it a try. You might like it. Best, J Readings (talk) 12:58, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Watson

I can't do anything about it. It doesn't meet any criterion for speedy deletion. Just wait out the prod or take it to CSD. ;) Malinaccier (talk) 00:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I rolled back that little stunt to your userpage. He's now blocked. Keep up the good work, Malinaccier (talk) 00:40, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Polytechnique

Thanks, though I'm not wholly confident that it'll do any good. Mainly because the whole Cheri DiNovo thing has thoroughly sapped my confidence in patient reasoning as a strategy against POV vandalism. But meh, I guess we'll see... Bearcat (talk) 19:47, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Targetting

Compare this to this. Targeting is clearly the preferred spelling. Have a nice day! :) asenine ^say what? 21:23, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I read that a while ago but clearly didn't remember it correctly, thanks for the link, I will revert myself. Have a nice day! asenine ^say what? 21:40, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just to say hai

Tinucherian has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend or a possibly new friend. Cheers, and happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Have a great day ! -- TinuCherian ^(Wanna Talk?) - 10:43, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William Wilberforce PR

Hi Slp1, I reverted my archiving of William Wilberforce - just keep it active (make an edit at least every two days on PR page) until you are done (although there is also no real problem with adding to the peer review after it has been archived - that just means it has been removed from translusion at WP:PR). Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC) PS Always nice to cross paths with you again, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 17:08, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

William Wilberforce images

Hi, I dropped a note on the talk page a few days ago, do not know if you saw it. If not here it is - I got some photos of the monument from my trip up to Hull, do not know if they are suitable for you. I have put them here for you to have a look, I can put them on commons if required. Keith D (talk) 21:49, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Interested in being an admin

Hi Slp1, Your name was passed to me as a person who would make an excellent admin. Having done a quick glance at your talk page/edit history, I'm inclined to agree. You already act like an admin, which in my opinion is a key. If you are interested, I'll take a closer look at you and potentially nom you. (I can't promise as I'd have to spend more detailed time checking you out.) If you are interested in seeing my past nom's feel free to check out my talk page. (My last 3 nom's have all exceeded 100 supports.)Balloonman (talk) 21:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC) [reply]

Hello, Slp1. You have new messages at Balloonman's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

• I would support your nomination, if you choose to try an RfA. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 01:59, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

5/13 DYK

On 13 May, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Samuel Gesser, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Bedford 22:09, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletions

Hi Slp1, I'm going through your edits right now... as I am not a fan of Speedy Deleter's I really take a close look at what they tag and how they tag it. So far, most of your tagging has been fine, but some of the things you tag G1 should be tagged with something else. G1 explicitly excludes, poor writing, partisan screeds, obscene remarks, vandalism, fictional material, material not in English, badly translated material, implausible theories, or hoaxes. Thus your tagging of Alvin and the Chipmunks meet Garfield should probably have been tagged with a vandalism tag instead.Balloonman (talk) 05:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfA

Hi Slp1, I went ahead and created a nom for you. Before answering the questions, I would suggest reading my essay How to pass an RfA. One thing that I need to add to the essay is guidance on when to transclude the RfA. When you decide to run, make sure that you have 2-4 hours to respond to questions and can watch the RfA. There is an expectation at RfA's that the candidate respond to questions/concerns almost immediately if the RfA has just begun. In other words, when you decide to transclude the RfA, make sure you do so at the start of your editing, not just before going to bed! I'm going to let Sandy know about the RfA as she is the one who recommended you to me.Balloonman (talk) 06:58, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Slp, if you would like for me to co-nom, I'd be happy to !! Just say the word, and I'll add on a blurb (after I've had my coffee :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:32, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Great; I work better on this sort of thing in the evening, so I'll work on it later. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:10, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I would just like to add that I would also support you if you are interested. We don't know each other but you have intervened in articles that I have on my watchlist. I find your contributions to be informed and even handed when trying help with the most contentious areas such as "here". You give your opinion and even went and found links to help try to get the editors to co-operate with each other. Plus your comments on your talk page and others talk pages about [7]. I think you would make an excellent administrator from an outsider's opinion. Good luck with whatever your decision may be. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:42, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Slp, I've been feeling really unwell since last night; don't know what it is, but I can't shake it. I haven't forgotten your RfA; just don't want to try to write right now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I added my bit ... I'm really not feeling well, so if something doesn't read right, pls say so and I'll fix it :-) Be sure you finish the questions, sign, and transclude it to RfA *before* anyone else signs. Good luck! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you are interested, would you please weigh in

Since you have tried to help with the Chiropractic articles I thought you may be interested in weighing in here [8]. The talk page is tedious to read in my opinion and that's unfortunate because it makes it difficult to read for an outsider. But if you have time and/or the desire I thought I would bring it to your attention. Just for your knowledge, I do not edit this article and I have very little editing on the talk page, mostly I try to turn down the heat. But I really think that more outside opinions are needed for this Rfc before things get boiling again, which looks like a small simmer is starting already sadly. If you are not interested, don't worry, just ignore my post to you, I promise my feelings won't get hurt. ;) Have a good day! --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:59, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response; things are definitely heating up since I last posted to you, over night no less. :( An editor is listing changes made recently "here" which I think may make it easier for you to check into the problems going on without reading a lot of verbal vomit on the page. (Sorry, but I think that terms is very useful on a lot of talk page discussions, no offense intended.) Most of the changes were done by an editor just off a block to the chiropractic pages. There is mediation being attempted which can be found at the top of the talk page, I can't seem to get the link to work, not awake enough I guess. I am just trying to help you catch up when you are ready to so you might know where to start to get an idea at least of what is going on there. Reading the talk page is an all nighter for someone who would want to try to catch up and add anything. There was an Rfc [9] recently on the page about the first major edit which to me showed that most outsiders' views approved of the change. Now things are spiraling quite quickly out of control. Question? Why do an Rfc if no one at the article is going to accept what the outsider's have to say? I have to admit I am quite confused about this aspect of things. Thanks, --CrohnieGal^Talk 12:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness, you're on this, too? See Eubulides (talk · contribs) talk page where I commented on the MedCab; I recommend moving to another venue. MedCab is informal, any editor can offer to mediate, and there's no guarantee an experienced editor will take the case, which is the situation here. It needs an experienced mediator or a new venue. (User:Eubulides wrote most of three FAs, including Autism and Asperger syndrome, as well as Daylight Savings Time, and is an extremely civil and knowledgeable editor). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your RFA

Best of luck for your RFA -- TinuCherian ^(Wanna Talk?) - 15:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RfA thanks!

		RfA: Many thanks
		Many thanks for your participation in my recent request for adminship. I am impressed by the amount of thought that goes into people's contribution to the RfA process, and humbled that so many have chosen to trust me with this new responsibility. I step into this new role cautiously, but will do my very best to live up to your kind words and expectations, and to further the project of the encyclopedia. Again, thank you. --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 05:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

jbmurray harvard question

... I answered it. Cheers. Ling.Nut (talk) 13:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I only fixed Hague 2007. Go to note 4, or any note that refs Hague 2007. Click it. It takes you to the ref at the bottom... Ling.Nut (talk) 13:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ping

Email headed your way. Risker (talk) 18:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed Pollock

.. on Wilberforce. The problem was a mismatch in the years in the templates: that the harvnbs all had the year 1997, whereas the ref at the bottom of the page had 1977. Ling.Nut (talk) 08:43, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the whole article. Ling.Nut (talk) 12:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• These refs are repeated, so you can use named refs:
• Hochschild, p.139
• Hochschild, p.252
• Hague, p.511
• Hague p.446
• Ackerson, p.12
• Tomkins, p.207
• Pollock, p.9
• Ling.Nut (talk) 13:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Back

Yey - major improvments! It turned out I was away for two weekends, and just couldn't find time to contribute in the last two weeks. But I'll try and get up to speed today and see what I can do during the remainder of this week - we have another Bank Holiday weekend coming up, so I may get more time then. But well done on getting things looking even better.

I'm still slightly worried about images (the column looks as if it's falling over!) and we could possible use a different one that Keith took. It's proving difficult to use some images which I've negotiated for use taken by non-Wikipedians, as there are copyright issues I wasn't aware of, unless they upload them personally (which is a lot to ask of someone who doesn't understand the complexities of Wikipedia licensing). Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 07:47, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll talk to Keith about that later – I think this is the least good of the new photos he came up with. I'll suggest that we use instead one of the others which has more impact – and without that dreadful building in the background!

Regarding your unreferenced quote from Hague: "Later in the same year he was publicly denouncing slavery itself, though he did not demand immediate emancipation, as They had always thought the slaves incapable of liberty at present[144]", I have looked for it but haven't been able to find it yet. Was your point to contrast his view at that time with his later change of mind and speeches in favour of emancipation? See p.434. Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations

I've pressed the button, and you're now an admin. Have fun using the new tools to make this place better. Spend some more time on the admin reading list and I'm sure you'll do well. Don't hesitate to ask if you need help. - Taxman ^Talk 02:48, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Slp; I've never been so confident that the tools will be put to good use. All the best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:50, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Woo-hoo! Congratulations - for what its worth, I found Admin school useful Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand completely. The first time I updated DYK and knew if I made a mistake it would be on the Main Page I was very nervous. One of the tricky things about being an admin is that most admin tasks don't have directions, but the new admin school explains most of the common tasks well (I have gone back to it on occasion). Let me know if I can ever be of assistance (i.e. reveal my ignorance ;-) ) Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 23:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! I'm honoured to have been granted access to the tools in the same month as you. Risker (talk) 03:15, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats... never had any doubts!Balloonman (talk) 04:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations on getting the special mop. -- TinuCherian ^(Wanna Talk?) - 06:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, Slp1. It's well deserved. Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 09:16, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the Club - please don't swing it too vigorously at first! LessHeard vanU (talk) 10:44, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to congratulate you. Take care,--CrohnieGal^Talk 11:14, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats! --jbmurray (talk • contribs) 11:29, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! J Readings (talk) 17:58, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm gonna add my name to this list! Congratulations! Don't make us regret it ;) Regards, CycloneNimrod^Talk? 19:42, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

All the best! Vishnava _talk 01:43, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message on my talk - yours was an easy one! The fact that you were "nervous about RfA" means you were an excellent candidate - only insane people would ever be "comfortable" there. Nice work, enjoy the buttons, you'll do fine. Welcome to the club! Keeper | 76 | Disclaimer 20:10, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congrats, and thanks for the note! Daniel (talk) 11:17, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations, I'm sure you'll be an asset. Also the thank-spam that showed you'd actually glanced at my page was kinda nice! Olaf Davis | Talk 20:33, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want to say congratulations too, and tell you that it was your posts at the Genie talk page that made me give you strong support rather than just support. Keep up the good work. Ashton1983 (talk) 22:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ivana loudová

With all respect, this article does meet WP:CSD#A7 because it doesn't assert importance in any way. Simply being a composer is not a claim of importance. If she is notable, someone needs to modify the article to explain why. --Rividian (talk) 20:49, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response to comments on my talk page.

Hey, I understand how you are a little burned out from the nomination to it being passed. Don't worry about the problems over at the chiropratic article. I suspect the problems to remain for quite some time so take your time to get yourself settled in and learn (I assume you have a lot to learn now) your new tools and new responsibilities. I think you will be an admired administrator by all and I was honored to be able to vote for you. I voted for you because of the way you handled yourself with others (and me of course) about the chiro page and saw some other threads of yours after that helped my decision to vote for you even though I didn't know you well and we had limited conversations. I saw what you tried to do at the MS article too when you tried to calm the waters there. Good luck and good health on your future administratorship. Again, don't worry about the chiro page right now, I totally understand as I am sure the others that have talked to you about it will too. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If I could ask a favor . . .

An editor has repeatedly removed a speedy tag from the article No Harm Day, which he created himself. I'm not sure if I'm allowed to continue to revert the change, as it may violate WP:3RR. Could you take a look and assess the situation? Thanks for your assistance! TN‑X-Man 01:54, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I guess I've learned something today. I thought the speedy tag itself was what caused it to be listed on the noticeboard. I'll file that away for future reference. Thanks for the help! TN‑X-Man 02:09, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

istartedsomething page

Thanks for the help! - Thekittenofterra (talk) 02:00, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Admin Candidates

Hey there Slp1, Thanks for the excellent recommendation of J Reading as a potential admin candidate. I agree he would be a great one, but he currently isn't interested in running. If you know anybody else who would be a solid candidate, let me know---I'll be happy to take a look at them.Balloonman (talk) 07:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

G12

Hi. I see you're already doing the good work. :D I just wanted to drop you a note to point out that WP:CSD#G12 is a little idiosyncratic in that it is the only copyright speedy deletion criterion where we are required to notify the contributor the reason for deletion. (See the CSD page and administrator notes in the category). Not sure why the exception here, but I suspect it may be a protective measure to demonstrate that we're making all necessary steps to be sure that copyright violations don't happen. It's been that way since before I came on the scene. :) I'm sure you know about {{Nothanks-sd}}. I always felt a little odd using that one, since it suggests the article hasn't been deleted yet. With substantial help, I created a template for my own use at User:Moonriddengirl/carticle based on the then-wording of Nothanks. It's been a little wonky, as sometimes URLs don't stick, but a more tech-savvy user than I may have fixed that. You're welcome to use it yourself if you'd like. It saves me some time, anyway. :)

The inspiration for this note is the article Adrian Carvajal. The user who tagged it for notability concerns came by my page to ask if I agreed, and while looking into that I noticed that the creator had not been notified of the copyright policy. I know that it might have been an oversight in this particularly case, but figured I'd point it out to you in case it was an idiosyncrasy of which you were unaware. :) I've gone on ahead and notified this one, so it's taken care of.

Hope things are going well, and I am glad (though unsurprised, based on your contrib history) that you came through the RfA process okay. It can be grueling. :) --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:22, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. While I replied to your note at my talkpage, I just wanted to note that the advice and help thing is a two-way street. :) I'm always open to input and assistance myself! --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 13:34, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Laugh...

I know I am disobeying your no RFA thank you message edict, but hopefully you won't mind a personal message on a related subject! Your vote on my RFA gave me the biggest and most prolonged laugh of the whole week and I know I wasn't the only one. Thanks a lot! --Slp1 (talk) 13:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. And you are right, I don't mind. Congratulations on your RfA. Perfect score! I'm thoroughly impressed. But you didn't answer my question! The Transhumanist 14:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welldone. --Realist^2 (Come Speak To Me) 18:29, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

you're welcome...

... for the !vote of confidence, and the tidying up with Wilberforce. :-) Ling.Nut (talk) 02:43, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Thanks

You're more than welcome. I thought the patience and thoroughness you displayed while working on Christian Polak were admirable. You do good work here, and I doubt you'll "goof up." :) Kafka Liz (talk) 10:01, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Should you accept ...

... the mission, this situation needs the kind of thorough investigation and careful attention to detail you are famous for :-) Since I've got to catch a plane, I know I can drop on it on you and count on you not to mess anything up, or take it to AN/I if it doesn't settle down. Someone needs to spend some time in google to figure out the coordination aspect and if SPA/disruption blocks are needed or warranted (ah, the joys of being a lowly editor and not knowing blocking policy :-). That's why the admins get paid the big bucks :-)) I'd help, but I'm not going to be home for another week. Laser brain (talk · contribs) really didn't deserve this. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Have a good trip wherever you are going. I will try and keep an eye on things, though it looks like the most immediate sock has been blocked. I'm afraid I am still very foggy on lots of this stuff, but will do what I can, as best as I can! --Slp1 (talk) 00:37, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hellw (Rt. 66 Article copyright)

Im sorry ill be working on it and make it into my own words sorry for the inconvinience ohh and i have family that live in Montreal, Quebec too! Salcan (talk) 04:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Thanks

no thank you for the last message it should really help me! Salcan (talk) 23:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Congratulations on your promotion. I'm very happy for you! Hope your adminship life is getting off to a good start. Take it easy, I know you'll do a great job. :) --PeaceNT (talk) 07:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]