User talk:Dhartung/Archive 3

Mike Patton

Yu recently took it upon yourself to remove data from the Mike Patton article requesting referenced citations. I have provided them in the discussion page and request that you replace the stuff you deleted. Please do not edit pages on which you clearly have NO knowledge, I found having to reference Patton for your benefit quite tedious and would appreciate it if you left the page alone! Kenscanna: Kenscanna

Ok fair enough, I just assumed you had edited out of some kind of 'spite' or something similar...so i apologise. Can I now add the references into the entry?

Adminship?

Have you ever considered requesting adminship? You seem to have the experience and you're quite involved in Requested Moves. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 00:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

MPs by Parliament

I have just posted a lengthy reply to the CFD for MPs by Parliament, and wondered if you might like to reconsider your vote for deletion? I have just put a lot of work into creating and populating these categories, after extensive discussion, and am sorry to see them risking deletion so soon. --BrownHairedGirl 17:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikilinking Years

Hiya,

Regarding the years on the Planet X article, it seems we're on different sides of the wikilinking years debacle (WP:DATE#Partial_dates). Since you've reverted the years, I'll leave them unlinked, but I'm of the belief that the years in the article in question should be linked (for example, in 1930, six astronaughts were born). Whilst the information isn't directly relevant to the article, it is of general interest to the likely readers of said article. I know that I have in the past gone searching for things which occurred in the year in which Pluto or Neptune were discovered, and so I think they should be linked. Plus, more routes from Hitler to the Royal Family are always a good thing. ;)

--Veratien 01:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

In general I find the longer editors are here the less they disagree on this (i.e. overlinking is increasingly deprecated). In concert with WP:CONTEXT I think that some important dates, perhaps the discovery as you say, might be linked, but I don't see the point of linking every single year -- your examples are more random searches than things that are relevant to the article. The hypertextness of Wikipedia is tempting but distracting, and lead to overlinking -- one example of which is "low-added-value items" such as years. --Dhartung | Talk 02:06, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

How doesn't my source corroborate?

How doesn't my source in the article about the '92 LA riots confirm that riots happened in SF, Dallas and Madison? 1ne 06:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Why do you consider my articles spamming and not others?

The first time I thought it was because of a pop-up I had on my site. I took those off and you still continue to delete my external link? The entire story is about the link it is under, it has factual information that can't be found in other places because I have interviewed different people. Other people have emailed me saying they find the articles interesting and appreciate me putting them up. Others have emailed and asked if they can run them and yet you keep taking them down.

Please explain.

Lou Ann Hammond CEO, www.carlist.com —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Carlist (talk • contribs) .

They're spam because you, as an editor, have a conflict of interest. In the past year we have had increasing attempts to game Wikipedia; you may have heard that staffers from the House of Representatives were caught editing their bosses' articles. The concern is that they may introduce bias because they are not themselves neutral. In the same way you are not the best judge of your own website's usefulness. If you feel a particular news story is important to an article, as an editor you should have the responsibility to link to that news story from a generic site like Yahoo. It has nothing to do with pop-ups, and everything to do with self-interest. See Wikipedia:Spam#External_link_spamming and you will realize this isn't about whether or not I like you or your website. --Dhartung | Talk 03:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't think this had anything to do with whether you liked me or my website. These were articles by me and I did put a piece of the story that was relevant to the area of interest and a reference. There are other groups that have done the same and you didn't take their piece from their article and the reference down. I don't appreciate you comparing what I did - sharing a relevant and timely article, with editing an article to make someone look good. I actually brought information about the subject to that page that wasn't already on that page. Just like the other articles before me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Carlist (talk • contribs) .

Eight edits to Wikipedia articles, eight edits which add links to your site. I don't know why there's anything to discuss here. If there are other editors adding links in which they have a vested self-interest, they too are violating Wikipedia rules. If you wish to continue as a Wikipedia editor, with the intent of adding useful information to articles, you are of course welcome to do so. But abusing that position to create links to your website is an obvious conflict of interest, and contrary to the goal of creating an encyclopedia. Why is your article on smart pigging, for example, the best article on the web to link to? Are you capable of answering that question objectively? Of course not. --Dhartung | Talk 04:57, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you - that is all I was trying to do, was show that the story had changed - that only half the pipeline had been shutdown and why. Dhartung, I never said my article was the best article, but AOL appears to think so, since it is on their frontpage this morning. http://autos.aol.com/article/general/v2/_a/pipeline-perils/20060816172609990001 I appreciate all of you that wanted the article to be on this site, and emailed me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Carlist (talk • contribs) .

Great! Good luck with your further ventures. --Dhartung | Talk 14:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Article count

HI. what the hell are tthey doing removing the article count? Wikipedia has thousands of new visitors every day and now there is no info straight up to suggest the size of wikipedia. While the number of articles is clearly not as important as the quality it is always good no know how the project is developing. I SERIOUSLY suggest they change it back. I know that one of the first things that attracted me to wikipedia was seeing how many articles and the sheer size of it in figures which made me very curious. I see you agree with me. What can we do to make them return it. I also believe if they do not car about the article count at least start improving articles to feature status James Janderson 08:43, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, generally I agree with you, but I don't have any more sway in this matter than you. --Dhartung | Talk 14:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

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

Stubs Joe Theismann Shafig bin Laden The Chicago Reader Half-handed Cloud Seven Swans Gary Berntsen Tweez Julaiden Tayseer Allouni David Eisenhower Through the Wire Julie Nixon Eisenhower Dorothy Walker Bush The Two Faces of Islam Janet Weiss William Asher Duquesne Incline Jason Aldean Lauren Bush

Cleanup Palestinianism Quiet Riot Ahmed Huber Merge John D. Rockefeller 3rd United States withdrawal from Saudi Arabia Religious terrorism Add Sources Saad bin Laden List of the most popular names in the 1910s in the United States Mohammed Jamal Khalifa Wikify Homegrown Madison Opera Supermodel Expand Santiago Segura Second Lady of the United States Prince (musician)

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

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

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 13:31, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

David Horowitz (conservative writer)

Hi there:

Per your comment on Talk:David Horowitz (disambiguation), I have added a request for move for David Horowitz (conservative writer) → David Horowitz. You may want to go to Talk:David Horowitz (conservative writer) to provide support for your contention that the conservative writer is the primary meaning of “David Horowitz”. I have also amended the requested move of David Horowitz (disambiguation) → David Horowitz to make it contingent on the results of the David Horowitz (conservative writer) → David Horowitz request.

— DLJessup (talk) 15:18, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

lowercase template at bin Laden family

I can sort of see your point about not wanting editors to change the capitalization in the article, but what the template claims is not actually true. If there were no technical restriction, the first header on the article should still say "Bin Laden family", because that's how it appears at the start of a sentence. How about putting a warning to editors in an HTML comment, so it displays to editors but not to readers? --Trovatore 05:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but an article name is not a sentence, it is more equivalent to a listing. Britannica and Columbia both use the lowercase B at the beginning of an alphabetized entry. And I don't think the notice is useful simply for editors, anyway. Think about it -- if article names were all the beginnings of sentences, the lowercase template would have practically no use at all. In all such cases, a proper name with a lowercase first letter would still be capitalized under English rules and most style guides. --Dhartung | Talk 05:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

The first point is interesting and surprising. The second point is not so. The first usage of the template mentioned by Ed Poor, who created it, was for e (mathematical constant), and e is never correctly capitalized. Other uses are for things like eBay. In any case it's not our job to find uses for the template; the question is whether the template adds value to the article, and I don't think it does in this case. --Trovatore 06:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Fortunately, all Wikipedia editors are as familiar with the rules of grammar as you and I are, otherwise I would worry. --Dhartung | Talk 06:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't follow. Did I miss an irony? Wikipedia is not for editors; it's for readers. The template claims that the article, but for the restrictions, would display as "bin Laden family", and I think that's not so; certainly I would argue for the capital B in the title. --Trovatore 06:13, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, then, try starting a sentence with the words "Bin Laden family...". --Dhartung | Talk 06:29, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

How about in the vocative? "Bin Laden family! How do you feel about your famous relative? Please tell our reporter exclusively at 10!" OK, that's a little strained, but I think it makes the point well enough; you wouldn't think of starting it with the lowercase b. --Trovatore 16:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I looked up "dog" in your Brittanica link, and they lowercase it as well [1]. We don't, so the comparison with Brittanica is not the right one. --Trovatore 22:16, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Comair 5191

I"m not going to get into a pissing match with the hard-heads on that thread, but I'm a producer for the NBC station in Atlanta. Delta, Comair and the NTSB, in all their communications with us have referred to the flight as Comair 5191. I'd wager that the persons who are so married to 191 have no other logical reason to remain married to the term. --Mhking 05:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Transportation attracts its share of otaku/anorak types. I've been well acquainted with train and highway geeks in the past (warning: do not debate Interstate highway numbering systems with a roadgeek, unless you have hours to spare). There seems to be a mass delusion here that the technical designation is the "correct" one for some reason, as well as some other POV and OR interpretations. Anyway, I've already had my Talk page vandalized once over this. --Dhartung | Talk 05:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I also think you're spot-on regarding changing the name back to Comair 5191. This is by far the most common name by which this incident will be referred to, so per WP:NAME that is the name that should be used. Not to mention that it is supported by many many sources; whereas I have yet to see the proponents of Comair 191 provide a single reliable source for the name. --Sykes83 05:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I wouldn't normally mind except for the utter, flagrant disregard of policy (we're right and we don't care about the rules) and the technical mumbo-jumbo paternalism (we are airplane geeks and know better than you proles) on display. --Dhartung | Talk 06:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The flight was initially known as Comair 191. The flight plan is a reliable and verifiable source that has been cited in talk page discussions. A google for Comair 191 reveals that a number of news agencies (reliable sources) also referred to the flight as Comair 191 initially. It seems now, however, that nearly everyone has adopted Comair 5191, including the NTSB in the preliminary report. While it annoys me that such authorities have apparently redesignated this flight with a new name (for whatever reason, I won't bother to speculate), I do recognize that the page should probably be moved back if in fact the new name continues to stick. What you should recognize, Dhartung, is that your numerous interjections all over the talk page are inflamatory and unnecessary. Once is enough; relentlessly berating people with rules is not helpful. If you tone it down a little and relax, I suspect you'll get your way in the end anyhow. 165.236.112.245 14:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

"Inflammatory"? Oh, good grief. I engaged in no personal attacks. When Wikipedia insists on using a name for an article that's different from what, well, everybody else in the world is using, for reasons that only make sense to airgeeks, I have no regrets about enforcing policy. Rules are sometimes unforgiving. If you don't like rules, you're not going to like Wikipedia, so I suggest you remain unregistered. --Dhartung | Talk 04:59, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for the good reorg on Outer planets in fiction. RandomCritic 13:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thank you for creating it! That solved an awkward problem where the list sensibly related to more than one article. --Dhartung | Talk 18:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Laura Bush

The list just had her name, and I couldn't find any reference. WP:LIVING sets a fairly high standard for talkin' about living people - generally, unsourced allegations like that need to be cut. Doesn't matter now, though. WilyD 20:27, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Eric Robert Rudolph

I was already 1 step ahead of you - see the talk page for that article Lordkazan 21:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

"Bucky" Phillips Article

Thanks for the greeting, but Im not precisely a new Wikipedian. In your message you state that plagerism is bad (thanks for the tip!), but Im really not sure what you mean by that. I didn't add much new information, only a few facts from an article i read, and, as I never even added a complete sentence of new information, I dont think the term "plagerism" applies here. Thusly, I can only assume you were refering to information that was previously present on the page. I see in your edits you deleted almost all of the previous information, which I assume was copied from the "Americas most wanted" site as someone stated at the deletion poll. First of all, I did not add this text. Most of it has probably been altered beyond relevant similarity to the original text, since I reorganized a considerable part of the article. If any is left, feel free to reword it, but dont delete it. We dont want to copy sources, but they are how we recieve our information. When I saved my copy of the article, I merged the information from your copy that wasnt present in mine and wasnt redundent with my version into mine, as that was easier that adding my much larger article to yours. Kindly explain how you believe I plagerized. You also mentioned my edit summary. i like to be specific in my summaries to make histories more complete. Im assume you took offence in my stating removal of non-neutral POV material? perhaps i should have been less sure of myself, but the said material was rather obvious. it went something like, "... is obviously a dangrous man who must immediatly be captured". is my asumption correct? Urukagina

What I was trying to say is that I didn't write the Americas Most Wanted stuff. sombody else copied it onto there, and during my edit I ended up changing a lot of those sort of sentences, but not all of them. obviously, any that remain should be changed\deleted. maybe AMW isnt a good source, but a lot of that information was also backed up by other sources. Urukagina

Mike S. Adams

Your recent edit summary (“think tank? THINK TANK?”) on the Mike Adams (criminology professor) article seems to be unnecessarily inflammatory. There is nothing wrong with your edit, but please try not to work up emotions when that kind of behavior can be done without. Chicken Wing 04:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I hope you can work up a sense of humor. It's simply ridiculous to call TownHall.com a think tank, as much as it would be to call HuffingtonPost a think tank. I'm sorry if you took offense, but it was simply a wildly inappropriate characterization. As far as "inflammatory" edit summaries go, I'm sure you yourself have seen much worse. --Dhartung | Talk 06:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I've seen worse, but because there is worse out there doesn't mean that your comment wasn't bad. I never said I was offended. I just didn't think that was needed. I'm just trying to help you out. If you step on the toes of an administrator with a comment like that, they'll block you. There is more than one admin out there that will bend the rules to block somebody if it involves a political dispute. Chicken Wing 17:27, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Tallest structures - "Paris area"

A few of us have managed to come into agreement over an "in the Paris area" title - as a former participant in the discussion, your views and vote on the matter would much be welcome at Talk:List of tallest buildings and structures in Paris. Thank you. THEPROMENADER 17:42, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Yellow Bird Project

I am not trying to advertise my web-site. I am trying to report fact, that they did in fact contribute designs for this initiative. How can I elucidate this fact, without having it taken down, and reported as vanity or whatever. Perhaps I can post this information without an external link to the Yellow Bird sight? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.82.60.156 (talk • contribs) .

Ah, but it's also a fact that I just had ice cream for dessert, so you can see that not all facts are equally notable. I don't think there's any reason that the encyclopedia article on a band -- usually about 1000-2000 words -- reference one specific obscure charity project they're involved in. That is, it isn't something inherent to the understanding of the subject. Especially when it isn't specific to any one band -- that actually manages to make it less notable for each individual band, compared to if one charity and one celebrity hooked up for a long-term exclusive venture. You seem like a reasonable person, but I hope you realize that additions to Wikipedia should be judged on their overall encyclopedic value. In the long run, your project may indeed achieve that, but brand-new things generally do not, it's just the way things are. Ultimately you should be able to see that if Wikipedia just let anybody add URLs to band articles the value of the encyclopedia would be destroyed, so we have to have some sort of regulation. Our external links policy is pretty strict for this reason, and so is our article creation policy as you found. I'm much more permissive than many editors so understand that I'm serious when I say I thought about your project and I don't think it belongs. There are many ways to get out the word on your project using the internet, but Wikipedia isn't one of them, because it exists for things whose word is already out.--Dhartung | Talk 03:40, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi there,

The Yellow Bird Project has garnered a lot of independent press, as you can see from the press section of their web-site: YBP Press. I think this qualifies this as a notable article, at the very least, an article with strictly basic content... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Doddi663 (talk • contribs).

It does look like there is starting to be information from reliable independent sources. The next step is to post at deletion review, pointing out that there are new sources that were not available at the time of the prior deletion. It's best to be able to point to articles at the publisher's website rather than your own. --Dhartung | Talk 01:01, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Hufcor

Any reason why you want this restored, it's copyright violating material and a blatant advertisement. I can restore it, but I'd also have to copyvio it. Let me know your thinking. Steve block Talk 10:31, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh! In that case I don't need it; I had no idea what the contents were (I'm basically assuming it's the local company), and I wondered if it was something fixable. If you can, could you tell me the source of the copyvio? --Dhartung | Talk 10:33, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

here. The first, third and fourth sections, word for word cut and paste job. Steve block Talk 10:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Steve! --Dhartung | Talk 10:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I'll remove the request from Wikipedia:Deletion review/Contested prod. Steve block Talk 10:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Yenta Claus

Yenta Claus Has been extensively edited and new links added including a Play written by a Pace University Professor with Yenta Claus being Santa Claus' wife in the "Case of the Claus'" [2] November 2000. Please reconsider your vote.--Bhires 16:41, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Great addition to Mimi Gates

I forgot all about the Mattise ordeal! You may also want to consider adding that tidbit to Henri Matisse page. If you're feeling really ambitious, you could probably even fashion an article for the Yellow Odalisque. Agne 22:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Tripuris

I noticed you voted on the CfD dicussion for merging. The problem with merging into Category:People from Tripura (and subcat Category:Tripura cricketers) is that ethnic Tripuris are a minority (Tripura issues) in their own state (only 30% of people in/from Tripura are Tripuris, the rest are Bengalis). Then, well meaning users would put famous Bengalis from Tripura into the People from Tripura category, and it would dilute the importance of native Tripuris in their own ethnic homeland. I am not Tripuri or Bengali, so I have no emotional interest, I just feel that since Category:Bengali people and such exist, discriminatory merging policies should not shut out the little man/ethnic group. Thank you for your time.Bakaman _Bakatalk 22:55, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Desiderata

Sorry I cannot be of any help in this case. The only reason I had such good information about I Have a Dream is because of correspondence with a lawyer over the copyright of orations. I was looking for answers on how to deal with these things at Wikisource. I got detailed reply explaining how often the answer to copyright questions is unknown and using that court case as an example. It is a common misconception that these sorts of things are cut and dry. I would probably just add a line to that article stating "Because of these discrepencies the copyright status is uncertain in most juristictions."--Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 18:10, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

John Hanson

I agree with "theory"- the use of urban legend, on its own, is unfair. The definition of "President " is too vague to completely disregard Hanson, thus making it a theory (especially considering the Treaty of Paris, "creating" the USA, occured in 1783, while G. Washington was several years after). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.199.84.170 (talk • contribs) .

It is not a "theory" that Hanson was the first President. He was the third President of Congress, which is not vague, and is amply discussed in the article. The urban legend that he was the "first" President of the United States is nonsense. It has nothing to do with the Treaty of Paris. What history books are you using for this "theory"?--Dhartung | Talk 03:55, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Frank Lloyd Wright

Nice job on trimming down the list of buildings. I thought the list almost unusable, but I never would have done a good job of paring it down. Some of those choices must have been tough. I'll admit, I'm a little bummed that the link to my first article (Weltzheimer House) was swept off of the main page, but I can't claim it was a major work. Douglas Anders 16:30, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! And sorry, heh. There were some tough choices, as I was trying to cover not just the works he's best known for but types of works and all with a slight bias toward created articles. I claim expertise in that my dad is a big Wright fan since the 1950s and has many of his books, and I've visited quite a few of the buildings! Anyway, I'm planning to give the article a touch-up. This should at least be a Good Article. Getting the list out of there is just the first step... --Dhartung | Talk 16:38, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:Organic Architecture

It looks like you tried to cfr-speedy this, but you nowiki'ed your entry on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy --After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 23:48, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

• Why, so I did! Thanks for the tip. I must have copied it from inside the edit window or something boneheaded like that. ;-) --Dhartung | Talk 00:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Re: Reconciliation

Hello! Thanks for your message. About "Oberg writing about Ramadan and how it is calculated astronomically" - as I have written my problem is not with his opinion, but his writing this opinion in connection to Ansari. If the Japanese gentleman had gone up instead of Ansari, would he have still made this speculation in connection with him? The issue is that Ansari has never made an issue of religion, example: if she wore hijab or requested halal food onboard the space station, it might make sense for Oberg to speculate this. But as it stands, Oberg is out of line. His opinion is 100% okay for a newsgroup posting, but not for a journal or newspaper - or Wikipedia, which is supposed to be an encyclopedia.

To answer the second part of your question, this is a complex issue, but no more complex than understanding Christianity. The issue is not even "cultural" because most Muslims - like most Christians - do not share the same culture. And there is more conflict between Muslims than there is between the "Islamic world" and the "West" and there is no such thing as "Muslim unity". So the issue is not about understanding Islam, but about understanding the way different peoples perceive and practice Islam. Do you know what I mean? For instance if we go to Mexico and we see how Christianity is perceived and practiced there, it is extremely different than what we find in say Alabama or North Carolina among non-Hispanic Americans. And the same situation we find in Ireland which is Catholic but also extremely different society and culture than Italy which is also Catholic and those two with France which is Catholic but mostly secular today.

So the issue in the end is not simply about religion but about religion in relation to different peoples, and also religion in relation to secularism. In other words there is no need for you or anyone to understand Islam differently than any other religion. In the United States most Americans identify as "Christian" but in reality they are Christian in name only. They may believe Jesus Christ is God and that he died for their sins but thats about it. They don't go to Church and they are not what we would call "observant" except maybe for Christmas but this has become a secular "holiday" as well. The same is true of American Jews. And the same is true of American Muslims. Someone I once knew was shocked when they learned I celebrate Christmas because to them it didn't make sense for Muslims to do so. Ironically a fundamentalist Muslim would also be shocked and if they are radical they would condemn us as heretics.

But even though I am Muslim, I don't observe Ramadan and never have. Many Muslims do, but many don't. Again a fundamentalist Muslim would be shocked or confused and might say that I am not Muslim because of this. I also don't pray very often, sometimes I don't at all. The fundamentalist would have the same reaction.

But a non-Muslim might also be surprised or confused: "I thought all Muslims did this and that" or "I thought all Muslim men are supposed to have beards" or "I thought Muslim men are supposed to have a dozen wives" or "If you're Muslim, why are you drinking?" and so on. It's silly but there are many people who make these assumptions because they expect that all Muslims are the same. Which is why when Oberg writes that opinion about Ramadan, he automatically assumes that because Ansari is Iranian, and most likely Muslim (whether he knew she is Muslim for a fact is unknown to us), that she also must be observant and likewise definitely observes Ramadan.

As Edward Said says, this is "orientalism" because the same person would not be making the same assumptions about the average American who might be Christian or Jewish because secularism amongst them is already standard whereas those who are observant are the minority. One of the reasons Khomeini became popular among Islamic radicals in Iran was because of the widespread secularism and liberalism - the average Iranian was not and is not 100% observant nor did the average Iranian woman cover her hair. Far from it. Iran back then was very hedonistic and women often wore very revealing clothing in public and people frequented night clubs and drank alcohol and so on. The religious and observant people were a minority. But these are the same people who identified as Muslim and still believed in God just as the average American identifies as Christian and believes in God. Iran today is still decadent but only behind closed doors obviously. In public it's all fake because the rules are imposed.

Is the same in Israel. The religious and observant people are a minority and they are able to impose some things on the country but not to the degree as in Iran. A lot of people assume that because Israel is a "Jewish state" that it must mean Israelis are religious and observant. It's not true. It's mostly a secular society even though people identify as "Jews". But the issue of Israel is even more complex because there is an ethnic character to the religious identity.

Anyway this is my view of things which I hope answers your question and you can take it with a grain of salt for what its worth. :) Khorshid 10:44, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Aspen dieback

Just to let you know I've moved this para to the relevant species page Populus tremuloides. A better ref would be nice, the current one contains objectionable advertising (the sort that returns you to the ad however often you hit the 'back' key) - MPF 20:36, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Lyrics links

Hi, thanks for keeping me updated on the lyrics2search links. I was wondering, though, does it really qualify as spam? A brief look through the site didn't turn up any ads, and in my experience spam links are almost always added to increase ad revenue. Any idea why someone would add so many links to a site with no ads, and do you think it's worth removing all of it? Wmahan. 05:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Hm, I hadn't given it that close a look, to be honest. I know that there are copyright paranoids who would rather we not link to copyright violations, and I know there are WP:EL exclusionists. My concern is that it's an open door to other self-promotional/vanity linking even if it isn't a money maker. Note the reception given wikilyrics. --Dhartung | Talk 05:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for helping with Dwayne Morrison

Thank you for making changes to the article. Much appreciated - --D.F. "Jun Kazama Master" Williams 16:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

User Miamitom goes on...

This is incredible...after your requests and warnings, this user goes on and on...David 11:13, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Miamitom 13:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC) Thanks for writing to me [mysterious wikipedia person], I have no problem being cooperative and will leave things as they are.

I don't mind that you or some [mysterious wikipedia person] deleted my comments on that page, but you left the arrogant comments from the David user, which were very insulting, and I was not about to let his condescension and provincial arrogance stand.

Please delete also his remarks, which were especially condescending to those of us here in the US and Miami.

I do have a couple more photos to round out the Vizcaya Museum article and will attempt to upload or link them as best as possible.

Thanks Miamitom 13:07, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit]

Jane Hamsher Deletions

Dhartung,

Your removal of the recently contributed text titled "Firedoglake Comments Section" under the entry on Jane Hamsher is out of line. Your comments justifying that reversal violate all three of Wikipedia's content-governing policies [No Original Research, Neutral Point-of-View, Verifiable]. These policies are 'non-negotiable' and your violation of them as an editor is a serious offense to contributors at Wikipedia. While I commend the accuracy of your comments on the previous submission regarding Original Research, you have no right to suddenly switch arguments to suit your opinion that the corrected post is unworthy of a sectional entry in Wikipedia.

Your comments accompanying the deletion were: Dhartung (Talk | contribs) (rv: seriously, 90% of blogs moderate comments, so what? this reads like an axe-grind)

"Seriously, 90% of blogs moderate comments" Where do you get your facts? Is this your opinion or do you have a reference? Your reversal on this comment alone is a violation of the 'No original Research' and 'Non-verifiable' Policies. In addition your opinion is directly contradicted by Wikipedia itself...

Check out the Blogs entry on Wikipedia. It clearly states that comments are used in blogs and that they "are a way to provide discussion on blog entries. Readers can leave a comment on a post, which can correct errors or contain their opinion on the post or the post's subject." Where does it state that blog readers can 'attempt' to leave a comment but that 90% of blogs moderate them?

Further, follow the link to another entry on Wikipedia entitled Feedback comment system. This entry states that Feedback comment systems "are usually placed on blogs". It also states that "Collecting comments from visitors is very important, especially if your website is for commercial purposes. It can help you understand what your visitors are looking for and what your visitors do not want." If a commercial site implies it has a commonly accepted 'Feedback comment system', but does not, then that is an interesting piece of factual information about the site. It could be that it uses the system to create fictional dialogs, market a story, or any number of purposes. The post you deleted does not accuse this site of any of these things. It simply states that the site does not allow comments under the generally accepted definition of a "Feedback comment system" that is used on many "Blogs". It is up to the reader to draw any conclusions or conduct further research, and it does not by inference imply any particular scenario.

"so what?" Do I really need to address the inappropriateness of your comment in regards to an entry in a FREAKIN Encyclopedia??? It is especially troubling to hear this point of view emanating from an Editor of encyclopedia that is an online collaborative effort. Besides the fact that you justify your cavalier 'so what' attitude with only NON-Verified speculation, the larger point is that you seem to have some attachment to this particular page. Which brings me to my final point

"this reads like an axe-grind" How so Dhartung? You seem to be trying to read between the lines here. The entry contains no Point-of-View, it is completely neutral. It is fact based and would be relevant to someone looking for more information on the Firedoglake blog, especially someone having trouble submitting comments. In the future it can be easily abridged with the addition of a documented policy on commenting by the site. Do your frequent additions and contributions to this page cloud your judgment? Based on your complete deletion of the text (with no effort to edit), your varying and contradictory arguments to suppress the contributed content, and your substitution of speculation for fact, I believe it might be you who has the axe to grind. I suggest you re-read the Wikipedia policy defining a Neutral Point-of-View. It applies to deletions and edits as well as contributions. You should know better.

I will resubmit as is. (oops, looks like someone else already has) I am open to your improvements as long as the facts remain articulated, and the content remains in keeping with Wikipedia's three fundamental policies - Original Research, Neutral Point-of-View, Verifiable.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.174.121.17 (talk • contribs)

I am confident that I have removed the section per Wikipedia policy. I have argued that the content is a) unencyclopedic (not notable), b) unverifiable (no citations to third parties), and solely constitutes your personal observations. If they were neutral and to the point, they could stay. I do not believe the section is neutral. --Dhartung | Talk 03:41, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

We could moosh two sentences and take out the line:

Regular 'front page' posts at Firedoglake are often in convergence with the Progressive and Libertarian blogging establishment (see blogroles at Atrios, Wolcott, Billmon and other commonly accepted Libertarian or Progressive blogs).

So it reads as follows:

The comments section at Firedoglake implies that comments are accepted from the internet community at large. There is a comment submission form attached to all 'front page' posts. However, there is no documented or published policy that explains the criteria for acceptable comments at the site and no registration process for creating accounts capable of submitting comments. (see Firedoglake) Comments submitted with a valid e-mail address do not register in the comments section so there is no way to verify the authenticity of comments or commenters on Firedoglake. (Select the Firedoglake comments link on any homepage post and enter your comment with a valid e-mail address). Jane Hamsher has not publicly addressed the fact that the comments section at Firedoglake is censored and edited.

That should help cut to the chase and make the entry 'too the point'. I really don't know how to address your assertion that it is not neutral. Exactly what point of view is the section advocating? It does not say this is wrong or right, it has proper tone, its fact based, its a major feaure of the site whether it is spam protection, censorship, a bug, or marketing ploy, and is relevant information to a user of the site of any political persuasion. Go to the site...its completely verifiable.

I don't want to get into this much more with you but you really haven't argued much of anything...just stated your beliefs and opinions.

Resolved via discussion in RFC. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Jane_Hamsher

Sawney Bean

... is never, if ever, referred to as "Alexander Bean". If you said this to most Scots you would get a blank expression, though many have heard of "Sawney Bean". I suspect he may be termed "Alexander" somewhere, but Sawney Bean would be the name people would look for commonly, therefore, it isn't really appropriate as a title. --MacRusgail 15:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Never is wrong, as three of our external links (all from .co.uk domains) call him Alexander "Sawney" Bean. That said, the article name should be the most commonly used in English, thus Sawney Bean. --Dhartung | Talk 23:00, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

And there are people who have talked about "Charles Marks" (he did end up dying in an English speaking town, I suppose), but Alexander Bean is an extremely uncommon form, possibly a backformation and almost certainly a gentrification, since it has been suggested that Sawney in this case may not be from "Alexander", but a corruption of something else. He is a legendary figure so his background information is often dubious. In Scotland we tend to use diminutives more than south of the Border, due to the influence of both of our languages, and they don't always have the same kind of connotations. --MacRusgail 10:21, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I don't object to the article title being simpler. But the name Alexander is used in some of our sources, whether it's culturally likely or not. Anyway, wasn't the first story about him in an English newspaper? --Dhartung | Talk 10:30, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Don Murphy

... you need to stop reverting to inaccurate information from a new source that previous moderators have agreed is incorrect. Subject himself has issued statement as to inaccuracy. [3] Either find reputable news source to back your claim or stop reversion once and for all. --ColScott~~

E! Online is a reputable news source, as is the article on Murphy's site where he admits to an altercation. Seriously, anybody following Tarantino's career in the 90s heard about this even if they had no idea who Murphy was. He can't just sweep it under the rug. --Dhartung | Talk 18:37, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like you have an axe to grind with Murphy and might not be a neutral party sir. I added a link to Murphy's site where he specifically notes that your paragraph is factually inaccurate. And no, E ONLINE is a gossip site. --ColScott--

You're hilarious, you know that? I think you're way wrapped up in somebody else's decade-old Hollywood drama. Keep in mind this edit history: delete the story here, add the story here. That's basically prima facie evidence of POV-pushing. --Dhartung | Talk 21:58, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me please keep your insults elsewhere son. The only person who is hilarious is he who is referencing E ONLINE as a major media source. It is basically NOTHING and prima facie is too big a word for you to be using. You can do whatever you want- you clearly are not seeking accuracy when the subject himself goes out of his way to comment on the incorrect content of the post. Furthermore, you are NOT taking the special steps required under the rules for a biography of a living person. Tread more carefully, since you seemed mighty obsessed with Ms. Racist Hamsher. --ColScott--

It is you who do not understand policy, it is you who wishes to apply policy selectively, it is you who are throwing around insults, and it is you who are trying to eliminate cited material -- which has appeared in other major media and books, even. There was a lawsuit. The "subject" has not said what is inaccurate nor supplied information to correct it. He doesn't get a veto over verifiable material. Certainly not by a vague comment on a message board. Go ahead; escalate this situation if you feel this strongly about it, and we'll see who's right. I would rather cooperate with you to create a fuller article, but you've chosen this molehill on which to make a stand. (And you're taking sides between two people who don't seem to have had a falling out. What's up with that?) --Dhartung | Talk 08:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

First off I understand policy very well, whereas this talk section seems to be full of people correcting you about policy. Just sayin. And I would never insult somebody who cannot fight back. You called me hilarious and I replied, thanks. And yes, the subject did supply information that was inaccurate- I suggest you go back to the Gotta Love Wikipedia posting he made where he specifically calls out the inaccuracies- not the least of which being that the lawsuit was settled out of court and no monies were paid. You probably didn't read the link at all is my guess. And yes, the two split up their partnership because of Hamsher's book and drug abuse- why do you think she is no longer an active producer and had to turn to the realm of the scoundrel, politics? Shows how little you actually know, Mr. Encyclopedia editor --ColScott

Talk pages are where people discuss policy, friend. If we all magically agreed with one another we wouldn't need Talk pages at all. As for the case, I write what the sources say. Now, obviously you seem to have some personal insider knowledge about their falling out, and I recommend that you consider whether that is biasing your editing here. Please try to stay focused on making a better encyclopedia instead of defending your friend and trashing your friend's former friend. --Dhartung | Talk 15:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you show me whare I trash Hamsher in her entry? Oh right, I don't. And I never said I was a friend of Murphy's. I asked you to read the Wikipedia Response from the man himself. He laughs at you for using E ONLINE. He specifically tells you that Tarantino paid NOTHING and that the case was settled out of court. I am the one trying to get this entry correct and you insist on making stuff up. What is your relationship with Hamsher anyway? Well, when the E ONLINE stuff is pulled down as inaccurate where will you get your next libel from, son? Sesame Street.com?--ColScott

What, I'm supposed to read somebody's message board to keep an article up to date? I don't think so, I have neither the interest nor the time. If there is a verifiable reliable source that we can cite in-article about the lawsuit's outcome, of course we should include it (I seriously do not care whether he won, lost, settled, or appealed the Supreme Court, nor am I moved by reports that he's "laughing" -- I would hope the man actually has a life). From what you say, Murphy seems to have a problem with E! Online. I suggest that he contact E! Online to handle that. If they have an inaccurate account of the lawsuit, how is that our fault? Or mine? --Dhartung | Talk 17:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It is your fault for including a gossip source that is not a credible news site which the person living states clearly is not correct. What you are saying is WHY SHOULD I BE CORRECT? My panties are fine. What is your relationship with Hamsher anyway? (2nd request)--ColScott

I have no dog in this fight, but I would recommend that the material from E! Online not be presented without some phrase like "according to E! Online". It's not enough to just put an inline cite; that looks like we're saying "this is the truth and here's the proof", not "this is what so-and-so says". This is the kind of thing that makes Jimbo nervous, and I can't blame him. --Trovatore 18:41, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

That's a fine suggestion, Trovatore. (By the way, I have already tried to soften the language; this was originally added by Evan1975.) If ColScott were making constructive suggestions such as yours we might have made more progress sooner. --Dhartung | Talk 19:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Dhartung refuses to read the guidelines to biography of living persons.--ColScott

Hmmm it has been about a week- what is your relationship with Hamsher, he asked again. --ColScott

Greek island affair

Thanks for enforcing WP:BLP. Contrary to what ColScott seems to say just above this comment, you do understand the policy. DRK 21:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome, and thanks! I do my best to be reasonable. I would hope he would do the same. --Dhartung | Talk 22:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Donkey work

That was good work on donkey punch. Uncle G 15:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks, heh. I just have this thing about rescuing bad articles, especially from the AFD axe. In this case, though, I fell short, as the article omits major parts of the topic simply because I couldn't find a WP:V source that wasn't primary or a blog. I guess I consider it an exercise ... --Dhartung | Talk 18:08, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Rewriting articles at AFD has a long and honourable tradition. ☺ You didn't fall short. You set a good example for others to follow in any further edits to the article. Uncle G 19:31, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Butterley Tunnel

This is the first time I have taken part in a deletion discussion. Each time I entered a Let it Grow comment I was responding to a previous comment. In your case, for evidence of why this tunnel is remarkable I refer you to the Further Reading entry provided by Uncle G entitled "Butterley Tunnel Underground Wharf" which states that this tunnel may well be unique. You will notice that the source (The Institute of Civil Engineers) is reputable.

Dear Dhartung

Since writing the above message. Citations have been added, more detail has been included. Images have been added and the general look improved. Please, would you consider re-visiting the page and changing your vote to keep.

Yours Faithfully Martin Cordon Martin Cordon 21:10, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Category:Ancestors of President Bush

I'm thinking it probably ought to be merged with Category:Bush family ... do you agree? -- ProveIt ^(talk) 06:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I believe all members are already in that category, so it can just be deleted. It's a unique category as far as I know (no other "ancestors of..." examples turn up anyway). I just don't see the point for its existence. Inherent qualities and all that. --Dhartung | Talk 06:52, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I've nominated it... I think this one will probably go through, but I've been surprised before ... -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Perfect game

I have replied to your comment about the renaming of the Perfect game article here. Can you please reply on the Perfect game talk page. Cheers. Joaq99 14:59, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Did you know

On 2 November, 2006, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Nellie Y. McKay, which you created. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--GeeJo ^(t)⁄_(c) • 08:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Iran hostage crisis

Hi, I edited this article and tried to wikify. Also I add some facts and references. I hope you agree with this changes.--Sa.vakilian 12:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately some of the documents about this event are in Persian. I put some of them in Talk:Iran hostage crisis. I believe this article can't be NPOV and complete unless we use persian documents too.--Sa.vakilian 09:37, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

+advertisement on Internationale Schule Frankfurt Rhein-Main

Hi, some time ago (10:43, 5 October 2006, link to edit), you flagged Internationale Schule Frankfurt Rhein-Main with an advertisement box. I've gone through the article several times and shown it to several sources outside the school, and they all say it's fine. The only thing that could be considered as an advert would be the mission statement, but then again Frankfurt International School has that too.

Is there any specific section you don't like or can the advertisement tag be removed? --Zabadab 13:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Requested move of Hercule (Dragon Ball) to Mr. Satan (Dragon Ball)

Okay - Some users decided to request a move from Hercule (Dragon Ball) to Mr. Satan (Dragon Ball) - See: Talk:Hercule (Dragon Ball) WhisperToMe 20:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It's happening again at Talk:Hercule_(Dragon_Ball)#Survey WhisperToMe 03:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Sting

I was glad to see your response to this whole "Sting inviting fans onstage to sing with him" drama. This fellow just insists on putting this information into the article, and though he claims it is not for purposes of self-promotion, he includes his name everytime. I have really grown tired of reverting him, and I may have broken the 3RR policy. Other opinions would help, especially since he is so insistent and irrational. ---Charles 07:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Vanity is a powerful motivator. I think you had exactly three reverts, which is the daily limit. Note, sometimes it's better to wait a little while and let somebody else do it, that way it is more obviously an editorial consensus! --Dhartung | Talk 07:32, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I saw this note very early this morning, and decided to follow your advice. I am going to leave it alone, and see what other editors think. Since I am not the first person to revert this guy's edits, I know that I am not alone in believing they are inappropriate. However, he (I can't recall his name at the moment) is convinced that I am singling him out for persecution, and that I have some personal animosity towards him. Nothing could be further from the truth---I have no feelings about the fellow whatsoever, and perhaps the best way of indicating this is to back off a little and not feed his ego/persecution complex. Thanks for your thoughts. ---Charles 18:22, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Bay Lop

Pease see the Film The Picture (Tu mot tam anh), (use:wikipedia; pass: wikipedia): Nguyen Van Lem or Le Cong Na?

It is "Film Documentary". Thank.

222.252.248.143 04:15, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

You made me laugh out loud. I'll let you guess where. Dina 23:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Boston Group

Hello Dhartung I notice you have contibuted to some Boston articles - I am looking for some people to join Wikipedia:WikiProject_Boston. Markco1 04:51, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry, I have never actually set foot in the city proper (came close by once, though). Good luck. --Dhartung | Talk 11:18, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Category:Pro-choice actors and Category:Pro-choice musicians

I imagine I ought to drop you a line to let you know that I removed the {{db-repost}} tags from each category in view of each cat's being taken to CfD concomitant to its pro-life counterpart (viz., under an umbrella nom here), principally because a new substantive discussion ought probably to be permitted to unfold and because, as part of a broader schema apparently proposed here by members of the abortion WikiProject, the categories are arguably other-than-substantially-identical to those that were deleted and thus not speediable per G4. I think you to have been altogether right, of course, to have applied the tags, and I'm inclined to think each was speediable; my removal was purely procedural and toward our dealing consistently with the four now-nominated categories. You should, of course, feel free to retag should you think that the previous CfD ought to control (it's a CfD with the disposition of which, FWIW, I surely concur); I surely won't revert (although Severa, who created the categories ostensibly consistent with the abortion WP discussion, might once more tag for {{hangon}}).  :) Joe 05:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I knew this was one possible outcome and I don't have an argument with a proper CFD. --Dhartung | Talk 10:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kurt Benbenek

Hi, I've added a reason for deletion since the original nominator didn't. :) Daveydweeb (^chat/_review!) 07:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I fell for that. It was blanked, so I've reconstructed it. Daveydweeb (^chat/_review!) 07:12, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Save the cokemachineglow!

I saw you additions on the article, if you want to make a vote in the save/delete debate, I'd appreciate it.

Triumph Brewing

Interesting to see you fighting to save such a crappy article. Unfortunately, the link you put in goes to the wrong page -- it's about the marriage of the brewer, not the fight for brewpubs, although I guess they're similar. Mikebe 16:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Bill Slavick AFD

Noticed your comment about being ambivalent to the existence of this article since the Maine election was missing. You have the wrong link for the Maine election article. The convention is <State> United States Senate election. So in this case, Maine United States Senate election, 2006. Not trying to change your vote, just giving you the all the information. --Bobblehead 00:27, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Triumph Brewing 2

Just wanted to thank you for your comments. Coming from someone who obviously doesn't give a crap about the errors they make (and you're a computer consultant? wow!) tells me I'd be a fool to assume good faith. Mikebe 14:41, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

If you persist in making personal attacks, Mikebe, you will have a short, unhappy time on Wikipedia. Civility is a policy of Wikipedia, not an option you may discard in a dispute. This is not a web board or USENET where flamewars are part of the culture. They are inimical to cooperation and consensus and if you are not ready for this type of culture, I suggest you find another hobby. --Dhartung | Talk 15:44, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the offer, but, actually, I'm already having an unhappy time on Wikipedia (as a result of the many clueless people "contributing" to the beer articles) and an apparent lack of concern about this by anyone at Wikipedia. Secondly, when I am the object of an unwarranted personal attack (by User:Goethean), nobody says anything. Thirdly, as you know, I had pointed out the error of your link to you both here on your talk page and on the delete discussion page. You gave me a flip response I read as "so what?".

Frankly, I find it incomprehensible how you could say that you found an article ("That is now cited to a print source (at least the campaign part)"), then it turns out to be an article about a wedding. How can someone, a native English speaker at that, make that gross a mistake? How can I or any reasonable person "assume good faith"?

Further, when you added the "citation needed" tag, you felt no need to remove the mistaken reference? I mean, it was in the same sentence, for god's sake! I look through the comments on the discussion page and it really seems like you have some kind of drive to keep the article. Why is that?

The biggest problem, Dan, is that the beer articles don't belong in an encyclopedia and nobody seems to give a damn. Mikebe 18:30, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

First, if you find clueless newbies intolerable, you will not enjoy Wikipedia. The philosophy of this project is firm that "anyone can edit". Most mistakes are deemed reversible or something that a better-informed editor can work into the article properly, which is where you and I presumably come in. If you want a place with more editorial control, look into the Citizendium project.

Second, when you are personally attacked, remind the user who has attacked you of policy. Administrators aren't moderators, they don't step in unless requested, and for the most part have few extra "powers" to resolve disputes anyway.

Third, you pointed out an error, and I said it was a mistake -- probably three times. Here I said "citation does not support claim". Here I said "my mistake" both in the comment text and in the edit summary. The second, being on a talk page, was the only possible text that you could judge as "flip" and I fail to see how an honest admission of error is possibly flip. Please re-read that text and explain to me what you found offensive.

Fourth (as you have brought up many points) is that I made a mistake. You will find that people on Wikipedia make mistakes. We're all human. They cut and paste to the wrong place, they don't close tags, they put footnotes in that don't correspond to the thing cited, or they make mistakes about sources. In this case the culprit was probably tabbed browsing. You called my attention to my error, and I corrected it. I seriously must ask what further I am supposed to do, if correcting an error is not sufficient. Again, this does not seem like the sort of project that you will enjoy, because we are humans here and we make mistakes.

Fifth, the "wrong reference" as you call it is a source for the names of the three founders. That's where I moved the citation to, making the political claim a separate citation needing research. Since you removed the citation, will you put it back in? Otherwise the names of the founders is a "citation needed" now.

Sixth, I have a drive to keep many articles. In fact, I specifically read Articles for Deletion with an eye toward salvageable articles or ones that have been nominated in bad faith (obvious keeps) or simply through ignorance (not everybody knows everything about everything). I find particular enjoyment in discovering a neglected article in a musty corner of Wikipedia and turning it into a worthy one. This wasn't the first and it will not be the last; and I am not alone.

Seventh, "beer articles don't belong in an encyclopedia" is a particularly broad and personal point of view that is not supported by policy. Category:Beer contains literally thousands of articles already. Feel free to indulge your position by nominating for deletion the articles you don't like, but you must find a justification in Wikipedia policy. The bottom line is that articles in Wikipedia must be verifiable in reliable sources, and article topics generally have to be something notable; that excludes a lot but also includes a lot.

I reiterate -- you don't appear right now to understand this project, and you will probably continue to be unhappy. I suggest you start by reading some of the Wikipedia policy and guideline articles or essays and meditations like the Five Pillars of Wikipedia. If after that you still think you can fit in here, I wish you luck. --Dhartung | Talk 20:58, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

First of all, thanks for taking the time. When I wrote "the beer articles don't belong in an encyclopedia", I expressed it badly: I meant many of the beer articles here on Wikipedia. The problem is not so much the concept of the "anybody can edit", the problem is more that groups of like-minded people can get together and try to force the "neutral" people out. Here is a specific example: Märzen (look at the talk page).

If you can read German, take a look at this: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%A4rzen_%28Bier%29 This article contradicts the English one on most major points (where the beer was developed, when it was developed, what the name means, etc.), and since it is a German beer style, you would expect the Germans to know better. I bring this up because people have tried to fix the English article, but User:afitting is under the impression that he is the master of this article (read his user page) and removes changes that people make. The User:Goethean helps him with this. If you look at the discussion on that article, you may see a bit of it. It is not insigificant that User:afitting is the owner or former owner of a brewpub (Triumph Brewing, surprised?) that makes a beer in this style and, of course, puts his brewpub in that article.

Part of the problem in the beer area is that many contributors have set such a low barrier for inclusion that an ant could crawl over it. We may disagree here, but I see an encyclopedia as an edited view of life, not as a mirror of life. Also, the beer group is convinced that Wikipedia/english is an American site for Americans and that attempts to change that are somehow subversive (for the record, I am not American). To get back to Triumph Brewing, this brewpub may have some extremely minor significance in New Jersey history, but to anyone outside the US, this is completely meaningless. I even saw one comment on an edit that said something like this: "This is an American site! Look at the domain registration".

And, finally, your error: I agree that you mentioned that it was a mistake. What I have said all along is that, in addition to declaring it a mistake, it seemed to me you should also correct it. Frankly, I don't understand why you want to put it back to verify the names of the owners, when that is not the question. Since, you correctly asked for a citation for the main event (campaigning for New Jersey brewpubs - yes, of truely international significance!), any peripheral information -- like the names of the owners -- should come in the same document. Doesn't that make more sense than including an irrelevant document simply to establish a small and largely insigificant point (names of the owners in 1995 or whatever)? Mikebe 07:50, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I thought I must have misunderstood your "beer articles etc." statement. In any case, every category likely includes some non-notable articles or lousy articles or articles that are worse than no article at all. It's just a fact of life on an unfinished encyclopedia.

As for the Märzen issue, I'm not qualified to say one way or the other what's right, but that's partly the point -- nobody is. The proper way to handle a dispute over standards is to show both. "The German brewers say X. The American brewers say Y." I'm well aware of the longstnading issue of German beers and French wines and Italian cheeses (for example) that have their names used in other countries as a style when they'd prefer to control it as a brand, and I perceive this as part of the issue. But from Wikipedia's point of view, which is neutral, neither is "right", both are just as entitled to their definitions, at least to the extent that they describe real beers being brewed today.

That said, if there are issues with the content in an article between one (or more) editors on either side, there are a variety of dispute resolution avenues open. The simplest might be a request for comment from editors without a previous history on the article. If that doesn't help there are mediation options. If you'd rather stay informal for now then you might just post something to the village pump about your concerns (preferably stated as a question as much as possible). You don't have to just slog it out with other editors. Ultimately I always like the more eyes solution; it promotes transparency and harmony. Sometimes it just takes someone else suggesting a compromise wording or whatever.

As for being an American site, certainly that is not policy and it should never be promoted as such. We're an English language site and favoring the English language for names, for sources, and the like is appropriate, but we obviously encompass British, Australian, Indian, and international English as well. The encyclopedia is intended for a global audience, though, and it isn't for promoting an American or any-other-English point of view. See Anglo-American focus.

On the what may be included question, I'm of the opinion that Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia -- so why not be inclusionist? I'm flexible and forgiving on standards of notability. But it certainly isn't the case that a brewpub must be "meaningful" to somebody in Europe before it fits. New Jersey, after all, is larger than many countries. I wouldn't expect an American to know of a brewpub that's in two cities in Belgium. But that's why we have guidelines that are more objective, such as whether there are independent third-party sources that satisfy WP:V and WP:RS.

Finally, on retaining the citation: it's a citation (and all the better, a print citation). It really doesn't matter that much unless we already have a different citation. I don't see why including a citation even for a small fact is problematic, because it satisfies Wikipedia policy. The more citations, the better. Really, removing a citation of a fact is hedging on vandalism and I wouldn't recommend it generally. Certainly, it's always more meaningful to link to something as a reference than it would be as an external link.

As a postscript, I believe generally you still have issues with assumption of good faith. You're asking me questions that seem to be about motive, and you seem to think that other editors are also acting out of motive. Well, we all have motive. The problem is when those motives subvert policy. It's impossible to read someone's mind but it is possible to call out behavior that disrupts or acts to the detriment of the project. It also leads to more fruitful problem resolution if you're not putting everybody under a microscope all the time. That's my reading, anyway. --Dhartung | Talk 20:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

This is proving to be a very useful discussion for me, but I would like to ask if it would be possible to continue via email, as the length here is getting a bit awkward. Thanks. Mikebe 14:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm glad to hear that! Just click the "E-mail this user" link in the toolbox, should be on the left side of the page. --Dhartung | Talk 19:43, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

James Girvin

FYI, it appears a "campaign" has begun where people are signing up to Wikipedia for the purpose of saying "Keep" on the James Girvin AfD page (Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/James_Girvin). This is the first time I'm seeing such a movement, if you wish to call it that... :) Have you seen something like this in the past? JRHorse 00:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It happens occasionally, usually w/r/t vanity articles and obscure websites. There's a template {{afdanons}} for this purpose, which I've added. Generally it's not as influential a problem as it may seem, because even though there may be many such "votes", they usually don't refer back to Wikipedia policy, which is what the closing administrator should take note of. --Dhartung | Talk 02:50, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:UW

Hi,

You have put yourself as interested in helping out atWikiProject on user warnings. We are now at a stage where we are creating the new templates and are wondering if you are still interested? If so please visit the overview page and choose a warning type you wish to work on. There is a base template available here, which you can copy and use to get you started. Have a look through the redirects and see what old templates are affected and incorporate them into the the new system. Anyway, any questions please don't hesitate to give me a shout. Regards Khukri ^{(talk . contribs)} 08:42, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

oh hi

Good work on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/A Rape in Cyberspace, Dan, thank you. It's still Caturday night by my watch, so please accept this complimentary kitten. — coelacan talk — 13:15, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Fair use image deleted off this non-mainspace page per #9 of WP:FUC. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Book of Ezekiel

Ok, what needs to be cleaned up there exactly?! Please let me know. Thanks. frummer 08:13, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Clarification

Hi. Your edit summary here includes "wk" which I assume means me? But the comment you responded to wasn't mine. Just a quick FYI... —Wknight94 (talk) 13:51, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Ah, sorry about that. My "wk" means a "weak keep" vote, nothing about you. You'll probably see it again.... --Dhartung | Talk 21:25, 23 December 2006 (UTC)