Sigh. Okey lets go through this point by point. Don't upload photos. Err this account doesn't upload photos. The vast majority of my uploads are to commons. And copyright wise they are fine. Don't even try and argue with the point unless you know a lot about crown copyright (even then don't I phoned up OS twice and went through the law with a toothpick). "don't add them to article" Ah a clue to what you are actually talking about. Image:Jena Malone downstairs at Union Hall.jpg yes? Well you will note I didn't upload it. Still you've only been editing since 2006 so a mistake like that is I suppose understandable. Anyway you want more copyright info. Fair enough so did I. The difference is that I went looking for it asked as was given it User talk:Bow Wow is a real Musician. If you had bothered to check the image history you would have discovered that. You don't seriously think I add {{Multilicense replacing placeholder|class=people|reviewed=1}} to pages without some level of checking do you? "until you thoroughly read and understand WP:NFC and WP:IMAGE.". Um I helped with writing some of them. "You have added images that are either copyrighted" oh dear oh dear anything under say the GFDL is copyrighted. The GFDL doesn't really work otherwise. "have no copyright information on the image page" actually it does. See those cats at the top of the page oh wait people use that fancy new monobook skin now I guess they are at the bottom anyway that one saying "Reviewed images of people replacing placeholders" should give you quite a bit of info. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars and take it to heart because seriously no one is going to block me for copyright issues and you will save yourself some sarcastic messages. In short I admire your enthusiasm but probably need a bit more thinking before acting particularly when your actions are queried.18:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
How condescending! This contribution was perfectly valid and hardly 'experiment'. verifiability policy refers to material that is 'likely to be challenged'. Freud's time under Charcot, and the latter's influence on him is so well understood and documented as to be very unlikely to be challenged. The correct response, I suggest, if you feel this needs verification, would be for you to add a citation, or mark it for citation. Reverting is not a proper response. --Memestream (talk) 17:39, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, verifiability policy applies to all edits. It is a cornerstone of Wikipedia. "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiablity, not truth". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not your personal website. If you look at any other legitimate encyclopedia, you will see that all information is properly attributed to a reliable source. The editors don't wait for information to be "challenged". And look at any article on Wikipedia that is classified as a good article. You will see that virtually all of the information is cited.
There is no need for a challenge; you still have to include a citation to an appropriate source. But to cut to the chase here, I challenge your edit. So put a citation after the edit if you restore the information. And please thoroughly read Wikipedia policies before accusing someone of being "condescending". My challenge of uncited information is not condescending; that's the way it's done on Wikipedia. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 17:56, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One more point: You appear to have copied much of the information in your edit from this source instead of the one you just cited. I believe you may have cited the wrong source (whether intentional or not). I also ask that you place direct quotes within quotation marks, per Wikipedia policy. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 18:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I wrote my own words, after reading many sources. There is no requirement to quote, and I don't like 'cut and paste editing'. Inevitably, certain phrases will always repeat in sources. I cited a source which I think supported what I said. If you think there is a better one, by all means use it. --Memestream (talk) 18:29, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do not revert good faith edits. In other words, try to consider the editor "on the other end." If what one is attempting is a positive contribution to Wikipedia, a revert of those contributions is inappropriate unless, and only unless, you as an editor possess firm, substantive, and objective proof to the contrary. Mere disagreement is not such proof. - quoted from WP:Revert
Do not revert changes simply because someone makes an edit you consider problematic, biased, or inaccurate. Improve the edit, rather than reverting it. - quoted from WP:Revert --Memestream (talk) 18:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to think that a cite supports material copied from the cite. I say it only needs to support the essential facts. Do you realise that if you attempt to cut and paste a section from a web article, you are likely to get an immediate challenge from a 'bot' which appears to search for every edit made on Google and will remove your edit on grounds of 'plaguarism'! It happened to me! --Memestream (talk) 18:42, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you deleting my questions? I just joined Wikipedia and I am not vandalizing. I have the same right to contribute to Wikipedia as anyone else. If you're having a bad day, don't take it out on me. Just because you've never heard of a psychologist doesn't mean my edit was vandalism. And I don't appreciate your threats. Futurefriends (talk) 02:53, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not intend to spam the page. What I like to do for all references is to provide redundant information for each reference cited, and identify the author etc if I can. This works less well for "external links" sections, and I probably should have figured out how to turn that into a footnote. Anyway, that is why I put the front page of the website there.--Filll (talk) 22:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. I don't quite understand the reason for removal of the Scary Movie film series template from the bottom of the page. Could you explain? Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 16:08, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. That one was just an accident, probably from looking at the wrong line on the list while removing the template from movies not in the series. That one certainly belongs. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Best, DoczillaRAWR! 17:06, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Concerning my commentary on Natalie Portman's article discussion section: I first thought there was a mistake in the article, but later I noticed it was not a mistake (does not matter what it was...) so I removed my message... Sorry :)
I put his ethnicity at Jewish simply because it is widely (but not unanimously - see Who is a Jew?) accepted as an athnicity. Ashkenazi, which was listed before, is not considered by anyone to be an ethnicity, but rather a cultural subgroup with different traditions from, say, Sephardi Jews. As such, listing his ethnicity as "Jewish" is appropriate, seeing that it is commonly accepted that he was. Eddy23 (talk) 03:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)Eddy23[reply]
Plymouth Brethren are a sub-group of the Evangelical (capital "E") family of denominations. In any case, if GK is not a member of that religion anymore, it's hardly defining and Category:Plymouth Brethren people should be removed too. I've been adding Evangelical-nationality categories to those in the Plymouth Brethren category in a batch-fashion, which hardly qualifies as "original research" warning requiring a template on my talk page. You might be confusing capital "E" Evangelical (which is a religious "family" of denominations, etc.) with small "e" evangelical, which describes a mode of Christian behaviour/worship. Calling someone a small-"e" evangelical would definitely require citation to include, but someone who's already cited as being a Plymouth Brethren member automatically qualifies as a capital-"E" Evangelical. Thanks, though. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, We had a discussion some months (?) back on the Portman article. I proposed that we gloss the Erdman-Bacon number concept, on the grounds that few readers are probably aware of it. You suggested that no gloss was needed, since the reader could click the link. I just found a justification for not relying too much on internal links. The Manual of Style section on piped links reminds editors to "remember that there are people who print the articles." If a person prints the article, then they won't be able to click on the handy blue links. ThanksOnBeyondZebrax (talk) 11:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am pleased to see that tomorrow will be two weeks since my last edit on the rorschach talk page and nobody has posted an objection to my standing proposal. I maybe should not be so happy since nothing at all has been posted on the talkpage.
I want to make sure I get proper consensus on the proposal. But what if nobody types anything in 6 months? How about 4 months? I doubt that it will happen and I will stay patient. But I wanted to hear from you what your impressions are so far.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 17:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Next will be the edit wars, followed by the page protection.Ward3001 (talk) 21:52, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't doubt that you have good reasons to say it. I still think if we seek to side with common sense we are better off. I would love to see you voicing strong agreement with my proposal. You already made the consensus objection and I took it to heart, plus it has not been contested. In other words voicing strong agreement does not negate the consensus requirement, but it helps to maintain consensus. Even if you thougth it is not viable you could say it's the ideal case.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I selected them based on their substantively edits of the article and related articles. Now how about you stop posting negative messages on my talk page, and go contribute to Wikipedia. That's what I'm going to do! Dimension31 (talk) 00:49, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dimension31 would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Wikipedia:Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Dimension31 to accept or decline the nomination. A page will then be for your nomination at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Ward3001 . If you accept the nomination, you must formally state and sign your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so.
If people go around reverting any attempt to remove silly trivia, then how exactly is trivia being "discouraged"? WillOakland (talk) 04:19, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for letting me know about the better link on Rorschach inkblot test for Norm. I think I have another article that also will link to Psychometrics after second thought. Thanks, Lisatwo (talk) 13:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My name is starskydogg and I am a fluent speaker of ASL! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Starskydogg (talk • contribs) 03:44, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You sent me this note "Your edit makes no sense. "this fails to support the claim..." has the opposite meaning of "which would support the claim..." If this was an honest mistake, I ask you to be more careful in editing technical articles in areas for which you do not have sufficient expertise. If it was intentional, let me caution you against vandalism. Thank you. Ward3001"
I was extremely bothered by it and pointed this out on the talk page of the article in question. I don't want to rehash all of that, but rather, I wanted to point out my frustration with this on your user page as a friendly reminder to place nice and as an indication to others that I did have a problem with your attitude.
I said on the article talk page that you "read me the riot act". I hoped this would be seen as hyperbole, however I do regret that choice of words and I apologize for it. However, I would like to point out, you "cautioned" me against vandalism when there was absolutely no evidence of it. I have been registered for almost 2 years and done a relatively small number of edits, including one on that very page. None of my edits has ever been reverted or even modified. A perfect record which you chose to break and mention I may be a vandal at the same time. I believe a retraction of this on my user page would be the polite thing to do.
I still believe my edit did not give the sentence "the opposite meaning". I explained this to you on the talk page and direct you there when time permits. However, I don't think we necessarily have to wait to hear "what other psychologists have to say". I think we both understand the point the sentence is trying to make, our dispute is more about logic and grammar than psychology.
I noted a number of other posts on your user page and archive where people complained of being talked down to. I highlight User_talk:Ward3001/Archive_1#Psychological_Testing_edit_comment as one example and respectfully remind you of the advice user Fremte posted there: "Perhaps you would consider being a little less abrupt in your posts to others' talk pages and refrain from stating conclusions until you have data on which to base them. Such would be consistent with a data-driven approach versus relying on initution. It would involve minimal psychological acumen to anticipate that such abruptness would not be particularly well-received by other users. This response is only to respectfully provide you with some feedback re this exchange with you". I would only add that even stating conclusions on which you have data to base them is best avoided, if those conclusions can be perceived as a personal attack. In plainer English, if you ever find yourself telling someone they do not have "sufficient technical expertise", stop! It can come to no good. You can only be wrong or hurtful and neither option is good.
If you feel that errors are made by people who do not have sufficient expertise and this is bothering you, then I suggest you lobby for a rewrite to Wikipedia:About. Specifically the lines like "Visitors do not need specialised qualifications to contribute ... Anyone is welcome to add information, cross-references or citations, as long as they do so within Wikipedia's editing policies....There is no need to worry about accidentally damaging Wikipedia when adding or improving information, as other editors are always around to advise or correct obvious errors, and Wikipedia's software, known as MediaWiki, is carefully designed to allow easy reversal of editorial mistakes."
Let me close by saying that the dedication you have to fighting vandalism and improving Wiki has certainly earned you plenty of "Good Karma". It would be a shame to waste anymore of it with posts like you sent me.
Gwilson (talk) 02:13, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding what others write on my talk page, I remind you that you do not know the history of someone else's comments. You know nothing about the other editors, their vandalism habits, or whether they have a history of making negative comments on others' talk pages. If you wish to remind me about what others say on my talk page, that's your choice. For example, if you look at the edit immediately above yours on my talk page, you will see that an editor called me an "asshole faggot" because I politely reminded him not to add unsourced information to articles. You can make of that what you wish. I personally never assume anything about an editor based on what others say on his/her talk page (except for blocks). Thank you.Ward3001
I did see the immediate previous post and that certainly was not the kind of thing I was referring to. Granted, I didn't research the full history of the Fremte post, the striking similarity between the words attributed to you by Fremte and the words you posted on my user page were enough. I quoted Fremte advice because it said, in a respectfully manner, what I wanted to say about your behaviour towards me. It makes no difference if it turns out Fremte had a history of vandalism or a history of making negative comments on others' talk pages, [User:Fremte|Fremte]]'s advice is good advice to us all. I concur with it. I hope you do to. I don't believe I wrote anything which assumed anything about you based on what others wrote on your talk page, I merely noted that there were a number of others who had complained of being talked down to. I noted a fact. Are you suggesting that all these complaints are from vandals and people who have a history of placing negative comments on people's user pages?
I just want to add that the verbal back and forth has taken up a good deal of valuable time for both of us. That time would have been between better spent coming up with improved language for the page in question. You could have reverted my text and simply added a note in the talk page which said "I have reverted this because it appears to me that it gives the sentence the opposite meaning it had before. If I am in error, then I can at least say the sentence is open to misinterpretation (since I, for one, apparently did misinterpret it). In that case, please suggest some alternative wordings we can work toward consensus on". I think that simple and polite wording would have eliminate all of this discussion and better served the Wiki. Gwilson (talk) 15:38, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I disagree with your basic position in regards to the inkblot issue, you do put that position across very well and if you have the time would appreciate your input here. I'm not looking to rehash the inkblot issues but rather think that a general discussion about the broader issues around the use of medical and other factual material would be of benefit to the community. --Fredrick day (talk) 21:03, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
opps wrong page but I'll leave this as it might be something you are also interested in. --Fredrick day (talk) 21:04, 27 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My opinion doesn't matter. The talk page doesn't matter. What matters is that the sentence isn't referenced. If it can be backed up by a reliable source, we can add it back in. -- MisterHand (Talk to the Hand|Contribs) 16:59, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the article it claims Eric Clapton was associated with The Beatles. I am aware that he recorded several songs with them, but he was never an official band member (as far as I am aware). Therefore I think that this affiliation should be removed, unless I am wrong and recoding one song constitutes band membership.Andypandy2020 20:07, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The list is Associated acts, not Bands belonged to. He wasn't part of Roger Waters either (a solo artist). I've always been confused myself about what an "associated act" is, but I think The Beatles belong there as much as others in the list. What I'm even more confused about is that you argue that The Beatles should not be included, then you added "The Glands" (whoever they are) without a citation. Who are The Glands, and was Clapton a member of that group? Ward3001 (talk) 21:24, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I fully understand what you're saying about the confusion and ambiguity over the problem with associated acts, and after reading what you've put, I would think it wise to leave it there. The Glands is a band he was an official member of from August to October of 1965, and which more information can be found here [1]. There is also information and facts about the Glands in his autobiography. I've put in this citation now, and so I think it's all good. Thanks for the advice. Andypandy2020 (talk) 20:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for paying attention to my various additions of categories and my errant use of the "minor edit" checkbox. I apologize for offending you and for being "rude." I'm forever changed by this revelation and will behave accordingly. --Caponer (talk) 00:38, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Someone is asking for the reference for the statement I put in, that it's necesary to get an unfilteed first impression of the inkblots (thus, that seeing them first might invalidate the test). I'm reluctant to provide a reference to manuals for it because 1. the Exner system was copyrighted in the 1970's and the information (including methods)shouldn't go on the page, and 20 someone's probably going to try to put up more information than is necessary. Do you have a general reference book with the information about the importance of not being contaminated?Faustian (talk) 19:32, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have added the recently uploaded image Image:Academy Award Winning Film.jpg to the Infoboxes of Academy Award
motion pictures, mostly winners of Best Picture, as a way of identifying the movie as an academy award winning film. So that the reader can recognize the film being an Academy Award winner. I noticed that it was hard to recognize that the arctile about the film did not say on the Infobox if it was an Academy Award winner or not. So I made a small icon for the reader to identify as an Oscar, and relate to as an Academy Award. The Oscar next to the title is to note that the film won Best Picture, the icon can also be used in the Awards section of the Infobox. Thanks for asking, if you have any more questions,
I will be happy to answer. Jughead.z(1) (talk) 22:16, 2 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for my post if you think that sarcasm was inappropriate on the talk page; even though the current discussion may be relevant, it is still more a "meta-discussion" than a discussion on the topic itself. Sure it is allowed, and I have nothing against it per se, but I still observe that we are not getting closer to a resolution to the main question. But in a sense, it does not really make a difference and I don't think discussion on this talk page will get us any closer to anything: we have read every possible argument, I think everyone understands all of them, but different people prioritize them differently, and this won't change easily. Getting external opinions seems the only way to go for me (and my opinion was external until a few days, since I had never edited the article before).
Anyway, more importantly, I have warned the anon editor on this talk page for his attack; I personally don't condone modifying someone's comments, but if you do it, I think it would be a good idea to clearly indicate the change, either within the sentence to indicate where words have have removed, or right after the original poster's signature ("Comment modified by ... to remove personal attack"). Sure, the change can be seen in the history (or in the discussion below), but a reader should not have to check every single diff and edit summary, or every single comment on a long talk page, to see if someone has changed some text. It's just a suggestion, you're welcome to do whatever you want with it. Cheers, Schutz (talk) 08:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
you can go kiss my Canadian Butt.. I was updating the Lindsay Lohan page.. putting a newer more relevant Picture up on the site.. And I was also adding factual evidence into the site.. jackass. Go do something constructive buddy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcmlxxviii (talk • contribs) 17:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, you have a good point. I was not sure because in some places, it is labeled Little Inez and others Li'l Inez and I was not sure but thank you for the correction.
RPlunk2853 (talk) 21:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I noticed that in my watchlist; thanks for tidying them up, I was intending to do that. His heart is obviously in the right place, and he now seems to be getting the hang of things. I'll keep an eye on things. Regards, --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've heard of Mark Lewisohn, and he has given an ISBN, so I reckon that's good enough. I have most Beatles' stuff on watch anyway, so I'll drop him a note if he seems to be getting over-optimistic with his sources. Thanks. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 23:13, 10 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note that for and against arguments have been presented at the RFC, I don't think my 'for' is comprehensive by any means, so please feel free to expand, modify or completely remove my point if you think there is a stronger way of presenting it. Strike it through or delete it if you wish, you've my blessing/permission/acknowledgment that I've probably done a shoddy job. WLU (talk) 14:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen User:TimVickers comment at Talk:intelligence, I propose we wait a bit longer, perhaps a week, in case someone else wishes to provide a comment then attempt to resolve the issue. WLU (talk) 19:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If I find something, I'll post it. But I think it's a losing battle anyway. that is quite alright. I may take this all the way to arbritation, it would be a bad solution, but better than leaving the issue unresolved. I hope you find something.--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 03:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for not knowing the difference between "psychiatrist" and "psychologist"; I'm not involved in the case... I think someone else was looking to pick it up. Just curious is all. Xavexgoem (talk) 20:46, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When I used the term linkspam, I am referring to WP:SPAM. On wikipedia, "spamming" could be the act of promoting a single website by repetitively adding it to multiple articles. I had previously tried to communicate with the user why the link was inappropriate, yet the user re-added it. On top of that, and much more importantly, the link clearly does not meet WP:EL. A) the page does not give more information about the topic. In fact, the link on that webpage about the topic takes you back to wikipedia. B) the page seems self-published/amateurish (hosted by a "free" company) C) the page is about a church, while the wikipedia article is about a person. The link is therefore off topic. D) wikipedia is not a web directory, especially not a place to link to everything that used and individual's name. Hope this explains my link removal. I'd be interested in hearing why you think it meets WP:EL, if you believe it does. Thanks for contacting me regarding this. -Andrew c[talk] 16:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have much experience in developing sock puppet cases or advice on doing so? The time has come to do something about a situation, which may well be a difficult one to prove. Thanks. Wildhartlivie (talk) 11:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for getting back to me. This is something that another editor and I have had to deal with for some months now. We submitted a sock puppet report in November here but the time frame conspired against it, since it was Thanksgiving week. A lot of the activity at that time came from the UCLA library. I responded about it here. Since that time, two other ids have been used, including User talk:Debbiesvoucher and User talk:Nyannrunning. The articles in question are essentially the same as in the sock report, but have concentrated mostly on Dorothy Kilgallen, Janis Joplin and Johnnie Ray. The editing and grammar usage styles, talk page commentary, logic and reasoning, and edit summary styles are all the same. We opened a dispute resolution regarding Johnnie Ray, with the Dooyar identity, but he or she simply disappeared and it was closed. Since then, Dooyar returned briefly, but mostly it's been Nyannrunning. By now, all four of the registered identities have edited on some of these articles, especially the ones which tend toward dispute. Since some of these articles are actually quite obscure, it's odd to me that four people, using the same language style, would work on the same articles using the same obscure references (for example, discussing kinescope copies of TV shows or the same book), with the same points of view regarding relationships and sexuality, yada yada. Everything I know tells me they are the same, and since at least one of these articles is likely headed back to dispute, it seems to me it's an early effort to line up "support." I don't know, I just know that it's getting crowded. Wildhartlivie (talk) 14:57, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I've started a section in this article's talk page so we can establish some consensus and avoid constant reversions. Please see Talk:List of keytarists#KeytarJeff/Jeff Abbott and weigh in with your view. Thanks. Nick Graves (talk) 02:16, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I went ahead and reported the IP user for violation of 3RR. S/he reverted one more time after you warned hir. Nick Graves (talk) 08:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi. We do not use Wikipedia itself as a reference, so telling me to "read the article" in an edit summary is unhelpful. Please provide a reference for the category you wish to add as it is not mentioned in either of the references. Thanks. --John (talk) 16:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey I'm the same guy that uses the account PadlockMan. I have a problem. I forgot my password for that account and I cannot remember that password at all. How do i get it back? Or what else should I do? I tried deleting that account but I couldn't do it. Any help please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.118.146.54 (talk) 23:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for my inconsiderate behavior when it came to my edits. I suppose I misunderstood the definition of a minor edit, but I understand it now and I'll not make the same mistake of marking larger edits as minor in my future edits. As for summaries, I suppose I thought I didn't need to explain some of them, but I shall in the future, for the sake of clarity, etc. Thank you for making me aware of my errors, and again, I apologize. TakaraLioness (talk) 02:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have my own set of problems with Miss Neiva, so I keep an eye on her talk page. Your last warning seems a bit strong to me. Why do you think there is a policy against links to foreign language resources in Wikipedia?Kww (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is the English Wikipedia, and there are lots of English reviews. How many English Wikipedians can read Portuguese? And where do we draw the line? Shall we insert links to reviews in every conceivalbe language to any Wikipedia article? I don't want to get into an argument over this. If you wish to revert my edit, go ahead and I'll leave it alone. But I would seriously question the logic of what you're doing. Ward3001 (talk) 21:05, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would hope that most English speakers could work their way through a Portuguese article, but that probably just shows that I moved to South America. My concern really isn't the review, it's the warning. You warned her that she could be blocked for including such reviews, and I don't think she can, because, unless you can show that she was being disruptive by including the review, it isn't a blockable offense. I don't want to put the review back, but I would like you to soften the warning.Kww (talk) 21:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone. With all due respect, I'm getting more than a little tired of you self-righteously telling me (and probably many others) what to do. You've done this to me, quite unjustifiably, in the past, as well as refactoring my comments on someone's talk page. I'll revert my comment on the talk page, and I'll also be watching your edits. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 21:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry you interpreted my request as a demand. I certainly tried to phrase it as a request. As for losing my temper in the face of an editor that kept edit-warring and refusing to talk, I most certainly screwed up. If I remember right, I got a couple of warnings from admins over it as well.Kww (talk) 21:25, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Although my edits to American Sign Language were sloppy, I do think that it needs a serious clean up. The list in the beginning needs to be put in a more-fleshed out History or perhaps Distribution section; it's too much detail for the summary that the lead is supposed to provide. And the gigantic Linguistics section definitely needs to be merged somewhere. ALTON.ıl 07:41, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I apologize for that. No, I don't know the language, I just have an interest in the idea. If you prefer then, I will not do any work on it. ALTON.ıl 19:49, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Her father was at most half-black (based on her word only); making Carol, at most, a quadroon. To label her as African-American, would be silly and unrealistic.
No, Tiger Woods is "CaBlAsian" by his own self-definition - a quarter black, a quarter white and half Asian (his mother is a Thai, from Thailand). He has never described himself as African-American to my knowledge. Underbilled & Overworked (talk) 17:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, you state "Many people consider him African-American. He is identified in his article as African-American" without sourcing this claim. I am not crazy about your disrespectful and accusatory tone. Remember WP:AGF. Underbilled & Overworked (talk) 17:14, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Fortunately, Wikipedia isn't written just on the basis of your knowledge" is disrespectful. And you have not yet even won the prima facie battle, much less the war. Let's see some hard evidence for Woods and especially Channing. Underbilled & Overworked (talk) 17:25, 12 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The "I am the Walrus" lyric DOES appear in Chicago's song South California Purples. Don't just go around different Wikipedia pages deleting stuff because you think it isn't true. I spent a lot of time researching that and putting it on there. Here's a reference:
http://www.seeklyrics.com/lyrics/Chicago/South-California-Purples.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kstern (talk • contribs) 15:04, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not the person who added that post back. I removed it and placed a template on the page so i am removing your comment from my talk page.Awotter (talk) 20:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I created the category. Now the links are blue. Yes, Cedar Hill is a cemetery, not a town. I guess it could be misleading, but I thought Cedar Hill noteables sounded better. Chrissypan (talk) 18:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Relax, dude. I'll change it. Just tell me how, since Id on't know how to edit the title of the category, and I'll use the naming suggested by the other member. Chrissypan (talk) 18:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll fix it later on tonight... I have to get going. Thanks for the guidance. If you want to, you can go ahead and do it. If not, I'll just do it when I get home tonight. Chrissypan (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I made the changes. It's a confusing process but I'm pretty sure I did it correctly. Chrissypan (talk) 14:35, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comment. I had found out about that a bit ago. (Wikilinks were a headache before!) I didn't use it here, because I didn't want to mess things up too much and there might be a page for dislocation going up in the future. There is a problem on that page , though because the conditions that have the multifactorial inheritance are actually cases of hip dysplasia. Dislocation is only part of that complex. The term "congenital" with regard to hip dysplasia/dislocation is considered obsolete by most sources these days. The condition is not yet fully understood, but there seem to be cases that have mainly mechanical causes with no apparent genetic link. --Lisa4edit (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me, but how is THAT vandalism? There are plenty of other pages that have interviews linked to them that the celebrity has dne AND aren't references to the celebrity's Wikipedia page. I don't get what the big deal is and I find it strange that you seem to be the only one that keeps editing out what I put on Liesel's Wikipedia page. There is nothing wrong with it. I also see that you have claimed vandalism on some other people on your discussion page. Hmm. --MadisonGold (talk) 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Ward3001, can you reconsider your decision to remove the link to the interview for Liesel Matthews? You removed it saying that it adds no new information however most of the interview talks about her acting career and experiences yet currently there is very little in her article about her acting. And Wikipedia:EL#What should be linked #4 says links to interviews should be included. Granted, there isn't much there but there aren't that many interviews for her available so I don't think it would be asking for much to let this one stay in there. For An Angel (talk) 21:58, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't mean to say that everything in the interview was useful, my point was that your saying that it added no new information was incorrect. Besides, what difference does it make if it's used as a reference or an external link? For An Angel (talk) 23:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mean to make any assumptions either but you seem to have a very condescending attitude. You say that if I feel strongly enough that there's anything in the interview that is worth adding that it's up to me to add it but you already said that you don't think there's anything there worth adding so I know you'll just revert me so what would be the point? For An Angel (talk) 23:52, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But you already said that you think that there is nothing there worth adding so anything that I add you will think should be removed. Anyway this is not something worth arguing about. I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill. For An Angel (talk) 12:55, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just letting you know I am restoring the link to parallel cousin. You said that it didn't have anything to do with cousins marrying, but the article does in fact directly discuss the different attitude to marriage between parallel and cross cousins in some cultures and has a section discussing the possible reason for this. I think there should be a paragraph on this in the Cousin couple article itself, but it's not my area, so I just added the link. Robina Fox (talk) 23:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the advice. I would have taken it, but see you are ahead of me. I still think the article is relevant enough to justify a cross-reference under See Also, but okay. Robina Fox (talk) 23:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your note on the definition of a "Minor Edit." And I will definitely keep this in mind on my future edits.
Sorry that you think I'm being "rude." Sometimes someone does things out of ignorance, and with no malice intended, which was truly the case here. I certainly wasn't trying to pull a "fast one" on your or anyone else at Wikipedia. Asc85 (talk) 15:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the heads-up; I've realized that I should have been clearer in my edit summary. Let me know if my revisions are acceptable, though I think it may be worth mentioning the other awards, too, to lessen the focus on the Oscars. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 18:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, his edits were quite correct. "The Beatles" refers to a single entity--the band--therefore, as a singular noun, the use of singular verbs is quite correct. That it is made up of many people does not change the fact that, syntactically, it is a single entity. Kurt Weber (GoColts!) 17:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, it's generally known that British bands are referred to as "are". He'll learn :-) ScarianCall me Pat! 17:50, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
From EoGuy:
I wish I knew how to repond to these criticisms.
"The Beatles" is the name of a group. So, "Beatles is" in that context is correct.
However, when you are mentioning appearances by that group "Beatles are" is correct.
EoGuy, Mesa AZ, USA (in English Wikipedia)
EoGuy, Mesao, Arizono, Usono (in Esperanto Vikipedio)
(Eo is the abbreviation for the Esperanto language.)
PS - I am a retired English teacher and compulsively make corrections. In the near future I may continue so to do.
PPS - You may contact me directly at azespero@yahoo.com if you wish.
az = Arizona, espero = Esperanto for "hope" —Preceding unsigned comment added by EoGuy (talk • contribs) 22:25, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No where did I say the following quote:
"staff found her in the bathroom having sex with another patient"
Neither does the url link I posted mention that. The url I posted talked about how Tony Allen's wife is divorcing Tony Allen because she believes the allegations that Lindsay Lohan had sex with Tony Allen in the bathroom at a rehab clinic in Utah.
I would appreciate it if you did not threaten me anymore about blocking my account for defamation. Even if I made an argument that relied on a quote that is a rumor, that is not defamation.
Furthermore, your script must be outdated and in error. First, it did not give any link for "policies against defamation." Second, the phrase "inserting controversial, unconfirmed, defamatory content into any Wikipedia page" is in error. My comment was controversial, unconfirmed, but it was not "defamatory." However, for that phrase all you have to do is say "inserting defamatory content into any Wikipedia page," which I did not do. It is a rumor, something that has not been verified to be true or untrue through reliable third party sources.
Thus, I do not understand why you threaten me with a defamation warning about a discussion about a rumor. The most that is, is something that is not verifiable, but you were threatening based on "defamation." Sp0 (talk) 04:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No where did I say the following quote: "staff found her in the bathroom ...": You said it here, here, here, and here.
"a rumor, that is not defamation"": Wrong. Making public statements (and a Wikipedia talk page is very public) about someone based on rumors IS defamation. Ask any attorney.
"it did not give any link for "policies against defamation."": Read WP:BLP and WP:LIBEL. Please read them thoroughly. You are in violation of Wikipedia policy. The first time may have been because you did not understand. Continuing to do so after it is explained constitutes vandalism and will result in a block. I don't plan to continue arguing basic Wikipedia policy with you. If you don't add more libelous content, we're fine. If you do, I will not discuss; you will simply be blocked. Ward3001 (talk) 15:15, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First, I did not say the said quote. I paraphrased what I read.
Second, a rumor is not necessarily defamation. Defamation is making a false statement and expressing it to be true. For this rumor, it has not be proven to be false. Furthermore, Wikipedia says that burden that it is a false claim is placed upon who the statement was made out [3]. Again, it is a rumor. Therefore, future justified grounds for blocking me would be based on verifiability and not on being defamation of libel. To illustrate this, if Lindsay Lohan did have sex with a patient in a bathroom while she was at a rehab clinic and someone tells lots of people this information; then, it is a rumor and it actually happened. That is not defamation. If you ran a stop light and I do not know you, yet I publish in a newspaper that you ran a stop light; then that is not defamation because it is not a false claim. It is a claim that has not been verified. Sp0 (talk) 05:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) This is my last round with you because I don't have time to argue fundamental Wikipedia policy that everyone is required to follow. As I said, if you add rumors that could be considered defamatory again you will be blocked. That's the bottom line no matter what kind of excuses you try to come up with.
"First, I did not say the said quote. I paraphrased what I read": You did not indicate that it is a paraphrase. You said "staff found her in the bathroom having sex with another patient" as if it was a fact. And secondly, whether it's a paraphrase or not, you are the one adding the information in a manner to make it look like a fact, and that is defamatory.
"[Defamation]] is making a false statement and expressing it to be true": Correct, and that's what you did. You don't know what Lohan did, but you wrote the statement as if it was true.
"Furthermore, Wikipedia says that burden that it is a false claim is placed upon who the statement was made out [sic].": And when you placed it in the article without indicating that it is a rumor of which you have no knowledge, then you are making a potentially libelous statement based on rumor. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Not a tabloid. It has no place for rumors, especially when they are written as if true.
"if Lindsay Lohan did have sex with a patient in a bathroom while she was at a rehab clinic and someone tells lots of people this information; then, it is a rumor and it actually happened. That is not defamation.": But you DON'T KNOW that it actually happened, so when YOU wrote the statment (four times) "The worst thing I remember about Lindsey Lohan in the news was while she was in a drug rehab clinic, staff found her in the bathroom ... (etc.)", YOU added defamatory content to Wikipedia.
Once again, no need for you to continue this debate because I'm not wasting my time any more. But you will be blocked if you add defamatory content to any part of Wikipedia again. Ward3001 (talk) 15:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
I added poorly verified content to wikipedia. You cannot say it is defamatory unless you prove it is a false claim. I do not understand why you persist on arguing that it is defamatory because that line of argument is unsound, unfruitful, and a waste of time unless you wish to understand semantics of "defamation." You arguments that is what I did are unsound. This can simply be said by saying that the claim has not been proven true or untrue; therefore, it cannot be judged to be defamation or not defamation. You give me truism statements, but that does not matter. It does not matter if I make a bunch of guesses about Lindsay Lohan because that is not a necessity to something being defamation. Defamation is making a false claim to be true. By that token, I could make a bunch of guesses about something I do not know and about someone who I do not know, if those claims are guesses that are also true claims; then that is not defamation. Again, it is fruitless to continue to argue that I defamed someone when those claims have not been proven true or untrue (neither one nor the other). Therefore, judgment of defamation has no backing. Now, if you argued that the comment is poorly verified; then, that is grounds for being blocked, based on wikipedia's policy. However, in three comments to me, you continue to pursue defamation even after I told you that being unverified is a more sound argument. Sp0 (talk) 22:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"You cannot say it is defamatory unless you prove it is a false claim": With that kind of pitifully absurd logic, I could claim that you secretly are a Satan-worshiper, and you could not argue defamation because you can never prove a negative. So go ahead: prove you are not a secret Satan-worshipper. If you say no one has ever seen you worship Satan, remember that you have to prove that no one has ever seen you worship Satan, and you have to prove that you've never done it secretly. Want to accuse a politician of having sex with children? With your logic that's just fine as long as the poltician can't prove that he doesn't.
No court, judge, or lawyer in the world would buy such an argument that flies in the face of page one of an elementary logic book. The more you argue this, the deeper you dig yourself into a quagmire of nonsense. I don't know how you came to conclude that anyone can say anything about anyone as long as it can't be proven that it's not true. Even more baffling, I can't understand how you concluded that Wikipedia condones this kind of editing. End of discussion. Ward3001 (talk) 00:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
In that quote, I was restating what I cited in the previous comment. Wikipedia's article on defamation says that in many legal systems, the plaintiff has to prove that the statements/claims are false in order for a person to be guilty of defamation. [4]
I could easily prove I am not a "secret" Satan worshiper by showing that I worship Satan openly. However, if the slander against me was that I worship Satan, instead. I could prove that I worship some other god and worshiping Satan would go against worshiping that other god. Or, I could state that I do not worship anything. The proof of that would be based on interference of little bits of information to form the argument that I do not worship Satan, for instance I worship many other gods, a god that is directly opposite of that god, or I do not worship any other things. Again, the argument would be based on inference and the proof of the argument would be inferences/premises.
A politician could also argue by inference, such as that is not part of their character or that they love their wife too much. They could also argue based on inference that the accuser has no way of knowing such information, the politician does not have a history of being a sexual predator, and also also inference of people who know the politician's character not to do such a thing. Again, such a general claim could be argued against by using inference logic/arguments. I am not sure about jury, judges, or any other judgments of inferential arguments.
Specific claims about a specific place, time, and incident could be based on deduction and easier to judge as to what is true or not.
I personally, have some trouble with the absolutely of inferential arguments. The judgments might be bested on who or what is presented as the best argument or arguments. I am not sure about that matter. However again, I said that comments are not defamation unless they can be proven false. That is what wikipedia's article on defamation says. [5] I have also given you ways how something can be proven false based on your examples. They can be proven false through inferential arguments. I think inferential arguments are not as great as deductive arguments because I think they are not necessarily absolute, but they are judged to be the best arguments. Now, talking about inferential arguments in relation to truth in particular is another topic.
You are right that anyone can say anything about anyone, but it does not matter about proof truth or falsity. Freedom of speech is something difficult to stop because it is something that seems to be inherent.
Now, saying certain things has consequences and matters might be brought to court. In court, the plaintiff would have to prove that the claim is false, and they can do this based on inference for general cases like you stated or deduction for specific cases of a certain time, place, and incident. There could be other ways to press charges of defamation.
Now, I am not sure what you are assuming that I think Wikipedia condones. I did not say that Wikipedia condones poorly verified statements/claims, which are what my comments about Lindsay Lohan were. I also did not say that Wikipedia condones defamation, which my statements have not been proven to be by you.
Good bye and good luck. Sp0 (talk) 05:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You know your way around these parts much better than I do. Would you know to revert the vandalism back to the previous version by the user named Ashton? Chrissypan (talk) 18:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry! The article about Pauly Shore has been vandalized. I don't know how to revert it back to the way it was prior to the vandalism. Do you have to do that by hand, or is there a code for that? Chrissypan (talk) 18:53, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Per your comment, "If others don't weigh in, we might need an RfC to get more opinions." If you still think it might be helpful, would you post that on the talk page? I tried but was not able to format the header and reason correctly. Thanks. Ward20 (talk) 21:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I practice the "be bold" philosophy encouraged in the Wikipedia guidelines. You mentioned the dysfunction of the Wikipedia project on your user page. In my humble opinion, some of the problems with Wikipedia articles are 1) inclusion of trivia (laundry list of every person an actor went on one date with, being pulled over by police for having an expired registration) 2) a lack of editing (in the sense of cutting and pruning, as is practiced in newspapers and magazines) 3) a sort of hodge-podgy structure, as new sections and headings keep being added. The "be bold" philosophy helps to resolve these three issues. OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 04:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Thank you for the suggestion to use more of a consensus approach. Regarding the gloss, I don't have an official Wikipedia rule to back me up, but I think that the text should be reasonably self-sufficient, so that a typical reader can go through the text without clicking on Wikilinks. For example, while no gloss is needed in a sentence like "George Harrison learned to play the sitar for the album XXXX", I would suggest that a gloss would help a reader for a sentence about a little-known instrument (e.g., "For the album XXXX, George Harrison learned to play the bazooka, a rare, novelty brasswind musical instrument which is several feet in length and incorporates telescopic tubing like the trombone.") On a technical note, could there be cases where the article is licensed to another location, in such a way that the Wikilinks don't work? (I don't know, it is just a question).OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 04:15, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Thank you for your note in reply. By the way, I looked up the consensus guideline you sent, and than reviewed the "Be Bold" guideline, and I must admit to doing a rather selective reading of the "Be Bold" guideline. I think I was interpreting it as "just go onto the page, and do whatever you think needs to be done, without reading the talk page discussions." The "Be Bold" guidelines clearly state that IF you are practicing "Be Bold"-ness, you should do it carefully, and read the talk page first, to get a sense of the way editors are thinking about the page...................................................Back to the technical issue...When Wikipedia articles are licensed to other websites (under the GFDL), I was wondering if the licensees always import the wikitext HTML markup, including the Wikilinks. Could it be that in some cases, a Wikipedia article appears just as "text", with inoperative Wikilinks? If this were the case, then it would help to justify adding glosses. Thanks for the advice on seeking consensus. : ) ..... OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 17:26, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I must take issue with being accused of being a "POV-pusher". In the Michael Medved article, PZ Myers never directly asserted that he was racist, true, but he ironically asked "Is it National Flaming Racist week, or what?". And keep in mind, Medved was saying that Americans are genetically superior in the area of enterprise.
Plus, the changes to the Enoch Powell and Richard Dawkins were in a spirit of neutrality. The idea of British nationality is extremely controversial, whereas the idea of English or Scottish or Welsh nationality is not. I do apologise if I came off as a "POV-pusher", but I believe I'm quite the opposite.
Of course, I haven't edited to Wikipedia in quite a long time. so I might be a bit rusty. I'll try not to make the same mistakes again, and I certainly won't edit those articles to say English instead of British again, although I'd be very relieved if we could get some solid expert anthropological opinion on the status of British nationality. Cheers. --78.16.67.223 (talk) 21:26, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Recently a few edits have been undone by you on the Winona Ryder page. Apparently my username and account was indicated to be the perpetrator. I have never edited anything even closely related to Winona Ryder. My computer is secure, as are my passwords/log-in inoformation. Not sure how these edits could be attributed to my username or how my username could have been used to make them. thanks.
Jpj681 (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if you're aware, but you shouldn't revert anymore on this article today per WP:3RR. I'll keep it in my watchlist. --Ave Caesar (talk) 18:23, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No problemo. Both accounts have been blocked, so now all we do is wait for the next sock, or more legal threats. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 03:47, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the treatment by the media of the Lindsay Lohan/Samantha Ronson story is admittedly crass, but the attention over it justifies its inclusion in these ladies' respective articles. I never had any intention of including tabloid fodder on wikipedia just for the heck of it. The info is now duly referenced. Wedineinheck (talk) 08:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On Feb 6, 2007, I created the 'Family taboos and kinship' section in parallel cousin, citing the source as Maynard Smith, 1978. Today, I noticed that one erroneous and one poorly written edit had crept into that section over the past year, and I fixed them earlier, clarifying the logic behind the error to prevent repetition of the misunderstanding. I added no novel content requiring further citation, certainly nothing beyond the limits of the section I originally created, yet you undid my edit, claiming "unsourced changes". The source is clearly cited at the beginning of the section; if this source was inadequate to support my corrections today, it must also have been an inadequate basis for the very creation of the section, for I added no further factual information today, but simply clarified a point of logic which had led to a mistaken edit.
Your reversion resurrected the erroneous claim (added on August 2 2007) that it is possible for apparent parallel-cousins to be "half-siblings, borne by the same mother". This is not possible: two children of the same mother would not be classified as cousins: they are siblings, and it doesn't take a further source to support that logical point. As I pointed out in my clarification, which you also removed, the only potential source of confusion lies on the father's side, and paternity uncertainty is the basis for the argument. This is all quite clear in the source I cited. Your reversion also changed my statement "This possibility is much less likely for cross-cousins" back to "This possibility does not exist for cross-cousins". The possibility DOES exist, as was pointed out (in flawed English) on August 16th, and I had updated my original text to reflect this insightful addition.
Perhaps you could take a little time to read the full details of each aspect of an edit and consider its logic before you decide to make a wholesale reversion of all the work under the umbrella justification of "unsourced changes". Just because an edit is 1) recent and/or 2) made by an unregistered user, does not make it entirely invalid, and even if certain parts do not meet your interpretation of citation policy, other parts may represent important corrections or contributions that should remain. If you still want to revert certain of my changes, perhaps you could do so more selectively and thoughtfully, on a claim-by-claim basis.
The only new claim I made which might require further support was the following: "However, such wife-sharing is less likely to occur between Ego's father and Ego's maternal uncle than between Ego's father and Ego's paternal uncle." Accordingly, I removed this claim when I undid your revert. Thank you for bringing this to my attention, but the rest of my edits are necessary corrections and clarifications that need to remain.
The source is cited right at the bottom of the page, under External Links. It contains the book title, year and publisher, and in undoing your latest reversion, I also added the ISBN and page number. I must note that none of the other content on that page has anything resembling an academically legitimate source, rather, it contains links to unsourced websites maintained by various anthropology departments. As a professed academic, you should realize that these links are far less verifiable than my contribution, and less clearly cited in the text. If my contributions are not cited properly, then nothing on that page is, and shouldn't you remove the entire page to conform to your verifiability notions? It seems you are irrationally privileging older information and applying lower verifiability standards, for no other reason than that it is older. Again, just because a change is more recent does not mean it must bear a heavier burden of verifiability than an older version: if my corrections are inadequately sourced, then so is my original section, and indeed the entire page.
More importantly, I cannot understand why you would revert all the changes at once, even though I've shown you that the earlier version is factually incorrect. If the citation is inappropriately formatted, why would you not fix it? Why instead choose to revert to erroneous information? Your actions are inconsistent and incomprehensible. If you want to be useful, you could fix the citation to whatever format you deem correct, rather than reverting the whole page to give incorrect information. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.202.79.74 (talk) 19:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You don't mention which aspect of the citation policy has concerned you in this case, but I've created a references section and linked a reference to the source in the text, and I can't see how it can still be inappropriately cited. I hope that's the problem you had in mind, but if there is some other aspect of the citation policy I need to fix, please just let me know so I can fix it, rather than undoing all the corrections again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.202.79.74 (talk) 20:17, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You sent me a message about unsourced info on Taylor Momsen, well, my cousin goes to her school and is in some of her classes. I couldn't find a source on the internet, but I know that it's true. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.10.205 (talk) 02:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's the school, Winston Churchill High School in Potomac, Maryland. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.10.205 (talk) 19:31, 2 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Recently you told me I was going to be banned if I vandalised again because I wrote on Samantha Ronson's page about a report I read in LOOK magazine that LIndsay Lohan told her ex Calum Best she was going to marry her in July at Dolly Parton's Theme Park. Well this is unfair because I read it in an article in LOOK magazine. If you don't believe me buy a LOOK magazine from England. It reports it. Please RSVP as I do not like to be accused of vandalism when there is no evidence that it is untrue.
Here are some sources I have found for you -
Also I noticed how I said it was recently reported in Look magazine I never said it was true. I'd really appreciate it if you'd get your facts right if you intend on acting like a vigilante.
You recently erased a revision I did on the Samantha Ronson wiki page. The TMZ video you referenced is MISLABELED and if you actually watch the video, you can hear the paparazzi ask her to clear up the ENGAGEMENT rumors, not any relationship or gay rumors. Listen to the video. When I made that revision, I also added a spot on the discussion page asking for input and have yet to receive any but I'm clearly hearing "engagement rumors". I'm reverting your edits. She has not made a denial of any romantic relationship to my knowledge. TheGifted1 (talk) 02:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I watched a programme on June 4th at 6.30pm on BBC2 in Britain ("A Taste of My Life") which featured Thandie Newton.She clearly stated while being interviewed that she was born in London (not Zambia),but emigrated with her family to the African country stated in early childhood before returning again to Britain to settle in Cornwall.Your assumption that I deliberately 'vandalised' Miss Newton's page on Wikipedia is very misguided and with no foundation whatsoever as I've always,and will always,attempt to be truthful and honest in contributions to Wikipedia.
I think confirmation from Miss Newton's own lips herself that she was born in London is pretty reliable evidence. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.22.238 (talk) 23:39, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think its best to leave it till tomorrow, hes clearly on a mission and isnt going to stop. Rod will hopefully do something but hes gone to bed now. --— Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 02:59, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty sure he didnt remove the Winston part of his name. I once read his will online and he refered to himself as John Winston Ono Lennon.
Here are a few links to his will I found using Google
[6][7] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Omarraii (talk • contribs) 14:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What policy are you referring to that mandates that categories be verified by sourced statements? The policy you linked to (WP:V) does not discuss categories. Furthermore, only direct quotations and statements likely to be challenged require sources, according to WP:V (are you challenging the fact that he's Jewish?). Maybe you would do well to read Wikipedia:When to cite.
Honestly, your objections strike me as petty and hypocritical. None of the categories for the Tim Wise article are sourced because the article has literally no sources. Why are you objecting to the insertion of this one category? Additionally, why did you remove the category and respond snarkily on my talk page when you could have easily included the word "Jewish" in the article with the source?--Irn (talk) 02:50, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's so obvious it beggars belief. When else were the Beatles (and Lennon with his later used Epiphone Casino instead of the black Rickenbacker) filmed with all their instruments in a forest? Speedboy Salesman (talk) 16:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Does mean we have to start finding sources that New Delhi is the capital of India, or that fish and chips is popular in the United Kingdom? Speedboy Salesman (talk) 17:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your input in the The/the Beatles edit war of which I'm in the "The Beatles" camp. Can you add you input into another stupid edit war involving the Dutch financial institution ABN AMRO in which some anal retentive editors insist on calling "ABN Amro"? Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually Special:Contributions/118.93.189.62 added the reference to jewish-christians first!! See here. I never re-added anything, once you removed the category, it STAYED removed!! Thank you and goodbye... 90.209.255.78 (talk) 19:57, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I assume the warning you left on my talk page was in error. If so, could you please strike it out? Thanks! Gail (talk) 18:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, I didn't notice you had already removed it. Thanks for the quick action :) Gail (talk) 18:33, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, I'll back down on this one. However, while common, these are optional. The reason they are so common is because an editor, David Gerard, utilized AWB to put them in every article and regularly runs AWB to ensure they stay in. I am looking into my own counteraction. I would be satisfied with using a basic no-image placeholder, without gender. -- Guroadrunner (talk) 05:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My edits of the Galaxy formation article were well within the wikipedia guidelines.
Your reversion of such edits is somewhat pretentious. Hurricane Floyd (talk) 04:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Quoted from my talk page: Well, let's just take a little look at the edit you made here. WP:V requires a source ... oops, you didn't provide a source. Next, let's see ... does it have an edit summary? Oops again, no edit summary. And let me check the guidelines for marking an edit as minor ... nope! Removing an entire sentence is not a minor edit. So it looks to me like there are three policy/guideline violations. So please ... don't tell me to stop pointing out your policy violations when you don't bother to read and/or follow the policies. And more importantly, don't call me "pretentious" when I follow Wikipedia guidelines. That is a personal attack and can get you blocked if you do it again. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
My use of the word "pretentious" was not meant as a direct personal attack, I apologize.
Although I do not agree upon the result of your reversion to the edit, your enthusiasm for keeping what I perceive as redundant syntax in the paragraph of the article outweighs my enthusiasm to change it and thus it will remain in the original state before my edit.
I myself can see it is not worth such a conflict for a single sentence that in itself does not make the article less understandable.
As per this message, it would appear that substantial citation exists to corroborate Omarraii's contention that his name was John Winston Ono Lennon during the writing of his will. The citations provided to me by that user are:
and are both reliably and verifiably sourced. I have advised that user to bing these citations to the discussion page for everyone to see, so as to avoid contention now or in the near future. Let me know if you hit any stumbling blocks along the road. :) - Arcayne(cast a spell) 20:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please cease and desist with the continuous, childish, ill-considered, and unthinking reverts to inferior editions. Thank you. ReverendLogos (talk) 04:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello! Please, try to come on to the Jesse Jackson talk page again so we can try to form some kind of consensus with 72.0.180.2 (aka "Fancy Cats") over the disputed content on the article. I have tried my best to explain my position, but i am only one person. I cannot keep doing this on my own. I need you and others to come to the page so a consensus may be reached. Thanks! dposse (talk) 15:12, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to direct your attention to the articles on Nell Carter and Aaron Freeman. Both these folk are catergorized as Black Jews despite the fact that there is nothing in the article that discusses thier Judaism.--Briaboru (talk) 19:00, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a bit stunned at your calling anyone else out about edit-warring at Lindsay Lohan, you seem to be in the minority hold-out about including this sourced content with Kww. You also may consider don't template the regulars a bit of useful advice that would have suited you with both Dev920 and myself. Banjeboi 02:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have properly reverted your edits. RFC means exactly that. It doesn't mean that your view must prevail until enough people weigh in against you (which seems to be the case). The section is sourced by three reputable newspapers. If you don't like it, I suggest a letter to the editor (though that might be time-consuming, seeing as the LA Times article has now been internationally syndicated). Edit warring on Wikipedia does nothing than aggravate good faith editors. Jeffpw (talk) 18:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
...since it appears you warned the IP-user for the same edit summary that I did. If this is incorrect, please let me know (here is fine). Thanks, --ClubjuggleT/C 23:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. I just quickly looked at your edit and thought it was a standard welcome statement; overlooked you last comment. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 23:24, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I got a text message from a friend that read "rip ask ashley (amanda bynes 1986-2008) please spread the word to every1 u know" so I belived the text message and edited the page thinking her death was real. I'm sorry about editing her page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pylfan8301 (talk • contribs) 17:39, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Holding hands means nothing. If you can give us a link to the People article that confirms "they have both confessed to dating" and the "22,000 dollar ring", please do so. If you can't, please stop adding tabloid crap to talk pages. Ward3001 (talk) 04:01, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh PLEASE! Will you please, PLEASE read WP:BLP! There is nothing, NOTHING in the sources you put on my talk page that confirms "they have both confessed to dating" or that the "22,000 dollar ring" was given to one by the other. Holding hands? I've held hands with hundreds of people, but that doesn't mean we're dating or romantically involved. I will praise you for one thing, however. You brought it up on the talk page rather than just impulsively putting this garbage in the article. I thank you for that. Ward3001 (talk) 14:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
It's not garbage because it honestly does prove a few things like the ring. It's in both pictures and both times it says it's from Sam to Lindsay because she really cares about her (please makes sure to read the captions by the pictures especially of the ring, it really could help you out)! The article in the second picture also states "Why they decided to go public with their RELATIONSHIP" which seems like they could be dating. I mean, wouldn't it be a little strange and redundant to go public with friendship? And the first link does actually explain a lot of things about them and their relationship, but oh well. At least magazines like those I brought up really try for the truth. I guess we will have to wait for someone else to prove this. Also, I couldn't find the magazine where they have both clearly confessed, so... I don't know. And you're welcome I guess? I am better than that though; I wanted to actually run it by people to see if it was good enough. Apparently not.--Bottle-Of-Musical-Joy (talk) 17:16, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Seems to you maybe, but not to a lot of people. I'm in a relationship with hundreds of people, but they are friendships. I am not dating them.": I know they are many different kinds of relationships, but many magazines usually only use that term when two celebrities are together romantically. And not just to me, many other people think this including a fair number of magazines because a whole lot of them have this same story of Ronson and Lohan in it.
"I'll agree that you don't know. In fact, no one knows except Lohan and Ronson about their personal lives. You read it in a tabloid or another source that refers to a tabloid.": True, but the evidence in the magazines articles are pretty damning and they make sure to contact Lohan's and Ronson's personal friends to get the whole story and truth themselves.
"Look, People magazine is not exactly the hallmark of objective journalism. It is a fluff magazine, just a small step away from a tabloid. And even the pictures that you link to don't identify People as the magazine.": Just a small step, but it's not exactly a real tabloid is it? Like I said, they at least try for the truth rather than just write things about them without proper resources.
"They haven't gone public with anything. They have never said anything to the press about this matter. It's everyone else who is making a big deal out of it.": The article I have posted in the talk page says it and again, they do try for the truth. Maybe they are not 100 percent correct, but they are very close.
"I'm not questioning what kind of person you are. I'm question the legitimacy of the sources in reporting that anything has been confirmed by Lohan or Ronson.": I know you aren't. All I am saying is that is just simply not what I do even if the evidence is clearly there.
"Please read the Lohan talk page, especially the RfC, in its entirety. I think you are not aware of the heated debate that has been raging. Ward3001 (talk) 18:20, 25 July 2008 (UTC)": I am very aware of the debate going on there and I am amazed at it. This kind of thing would never have happened if Lohan was suspected of dating some guy. I think if she was suspected of dating a guy it would be out in her article stating just that. Why is this any different? There is very strong evidence pointing to a romantic relationship. And yes, maybe magazines always report on two celebrities possibly dating (one male and one female), but how often do you even see magazines post that they think two men/women dating and then it turns out to be a rumor? They don't really do that if it deals with a homosexual relationship. I think when a magazine reports about two men/women dating, they really and strongly believe so.--Bottle-Of-Musical-Joy (talk) 19:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Ward3001. Thanks a lot for your messages. Sorry, I didn't mean to change any of the sections, anything of the format of the page about LiLo! I only wanted to do some minor changes. Thanks a lot. Best regards from Mexico City!! Gustavo Sandoval Kingwergs, a Mexican psychologist and translator. --correogsk (talk) 22:21, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to do changes again, trying not to change anything in the format. I hope it'll work. And I'll thank you any other comments about this. Regards. Gustavo. --correogsk (talk) 22:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Ward,
Every time I put in a new section for discussion, sometimes the box is blue! How can I make my section of the discussions look like everyone else's (i.e. without the blue box and a -preceeding unsigned sigature, even though my signature is Marshall T. Williams. Please message me the answer. Thanks! And also, how do insert the date the right way?
P.S.: Thanks for telling me that discussion pages are pages for related things to the topic.
--~~~~Marshall T. Williams
Hi Ward – Thank you for your comments. Please reconsider adding ethnicity in the lead paragraph for Einstein and Freud. Both of them were forced out of their native countries due to their ethnicity. To be more blunt, they would both have died in the gas chambers had they not fled (Actually, Freud died in 1939, but the principle remains). To describe either of them in solely national terms is to misrepresent the historical truth. Rather like calling Josephus "a Roman historian" because he wrote in Rome. In addition, Germany and Austria get the exclusive credit for their achievements - which is hardly fair in the circumstances. The WP:MOSBIO describes itself as including "recommended" guidelines. I suggest the foregoing constitutes grounds to deviate from them. By the way, I fully agree with your "nonfeasance" quote. Administrators here must need a lot of patience. Note: I posted a similar message for Sunray. Yabti (talk) 16:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a common way of doing it, but it makes sense to me. Top and bottom left to right works too, but it's a bit long. It's entirely up to you...... Dendodge .. TalkContribs 20:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Jonathantalk - contribs - review me! 00:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Almost all of those articles under the People with tinnitus category had sources of them having tinnitus. I corrected the grammar error, but there was no need to remove 75% of those on that list. I made no edits to any of those articles except my adding them to this category. If I need to better explain my actions adding each individual to the category, an explanation with that regard would've been more helpful. Please explain to me why you removed these 28 articles and left the 14, and also take into account I am mostly a newcomer with only minor edits to my name. I would also like to show you the Wikipedia:Please_do_not_bite_the_newcomers article.
I would also like to ask how do you cite an article when you add them to a category. You obviously will delete any I try to add without citing them, which I will happily do. I am unfamiliar with creating categories and only want to help those suffering from tinnitus to show those who are suffering from it.
Your response helped me figure out what I did wrong, and I will try to fix it when I get the time. I thank you for it and I am glad the mess has been figured out and we can both move on. Radman_99_1999(talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 23:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A watcher of the Woodstock article thanks you[edit]
Thanks for taking the time to tag all the unsourced, urban legend-ish, "I-heard-it-someplace" stuff that clogs the Woodstock article. Perhaps some of it can be verified or debunked by a persistent editor. Wish I had the time to make it great... but I don't. This article has much good information, but it is still a mess and a vandal magnet. Nonetheless, your effort helps, and is appreciated. Seduisant (talk) 19:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Ward3001. I know you keep a close eye on the Eric Clapton page. Just wanted you to know I have prompted "ace"-copyeditor-in-the-making, User:Washburnmav to take a look at the Clapton page and see if he can make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. The article has lots of content. But really needs a make-over and I trust Washburnmav(he is being tutored by admin Xeno) to try and work the page up a notch or two. I will try and support his efforts. Seeing as how you watch the article closely I just wanted to extend you the courtesy of knowing the "behind-the-scenes" chat that came out of an earlier WikiProject Guitarists discussions. Cheers and take care! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 23:05, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
PS: It was rude of me to speak about the guitarist project and not ask if you are a guitar player yourself... and if you may be interested in the WikiProject Guitarists. We could always use another good editor interested in improving guitar/guitarist (+ bass, banjo, mandolin etc) related articles. Feel free to drop by the Project pages for more information. Cheers! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 01:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will apologize, again. I didn't intend to imply that you had to be a guitarist to join the guitarist project. (although my wording made it sound that way). If you are a regular editor of music related articles, you're bound to come across guitarist pages.(we're everywhere) You are still invited to join in the project whether you play guitar (or any other instrument). Even if the only guitar related page you edit is Clapton.... its good to have an editor who can help to maintain a page that, for our project, should be an "of utmost importance" page. Cheers! Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 01:59, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing that you warned a vandal at User_talk:206.53.144.187 and identified him as the same editor as 206.53.144.24, I thought I should point out that he seems to be the same editor as 206.53.144.175 as well. See the history of Springfield (yes, the disambiguation page) for a two-step vandalism.
I'm sure there's a more appropriate forum for identifying same-ip vandals, but I couldn't find it.
Tofof (talk) 06:23, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The article on navel piercing actually lists some of the notable people with the piercing. Also, looking at images of the celebrities can quickly tell you if they have the piercing. Karatorgai (talk) 22:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I noticed that you removed a statement and associated reference at Nomophobia without any explanation other than "it doesn't make sense". I undid your reversion, assuming it was accidental, and then realized that you may have been confused about the meaning of columns. Sorry for any confusion. CelarnorTalk to me 02:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
He apparently lives on Marthas Vineyard according to the Vineyard page. I'm just tagging it so thats all I know. The same thing was asked about Judy Garland so your not the only one. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 19:45, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please try and understand that it was a point about the correct spelling of his name and not a "general discussion", as you termed it. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 03:06, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
Can you support your claim that 'He has the name that his parents gave him: Sean.' Those who spell Seán as Sean usually do so out of ignorance. This does not mean they are correct. I think, therefore, that if you are claiming he was called Sean rather than Seán (as the name is correctly spelt), then you should perhaps substantiate your assertion. 86.42.119.12 (talk) 18:36, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I should have initially replied or let you know I understand what you meant. My blanking the pages both with my ip when I don't feel like logging and with my account is an attempt to rid myself of the orange box about "new messages . last change" because it's an eye sore and distracts me from reading a page or browsing. I don't use the Realm of Shadows (talk) 22:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC) to annoy people. I'm a fairly compulsive person so when I initially started signgin I used that and after using it so long I can't get myself to stop. So please do not take my blanking as ignoring your message, I more often than not listen to advice of members who have been here longer and are more familiar with rules newer members are not familiar with.[reply]
05-Sep-2008: I noticed that you had an intense reaction to my comment that "several people" had removed the "News" sections from disambiguation pages. Your intense reaction seemed so extreme that I am concerned for your mental outlook. If you feel that it is a temporary anger, then it should pass; however, if you feel that Wikipedia is just too unbearable, then consider taking a wikibreak, of perhaps 3 months, to regain balance in your life. I use the alternate term "Wickedpedia" because I feel that the project encourages evil, wicked, and hateful reactions among people, perhaps by some who, we don't even realize, are secretly pestering us, perhaps in the guise of several different usernames who aggravate in subtle ways. If you feel psychologically strained, then step back for a while. It could be a time to seek psychiatric help; however, I would recommend a combination therapy of both talking and meds used together: doctors often want to just medicate problems away, but studies have shown that also talking about stressful issues can work to reduce problems faster, or more fully, than just taking meds alone. Also, consider alternatives to Haldol, because some people react better to a different variety of medications that have been approved beyond Haldol. Good luck, and please do take care of your health. Take as much time as you need, and return only when relaxed. Enjoy your break time. -Wikid77 (talk) 04:25, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
tHERE IS AMPLE RECORDED AND PHOTO IMAGE OF HOWLIN WOLF INFLUENCE ON JIMI ONE OF HIS MOST FREQUENT COVERS THROUGHOUT HIS CAREER (66-70)IS 'KILLIN FLOOR' HE NEVER TALKED IN INTERVIEW OR RECORDED ANY SONGS BY GUY ALTHOUGH HE IS ONCE FILMED NODDING HIS HEAD DURING A JAM WITH HIM, WHERE HE LATER JAMMED (NOT WITH BUDDY GUY)SO GET REAL AND GET IT OFF THIS WELL RESEARCHED SITE.Jameselmo (talk) 22:56, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
I can see no verifiablr source on this page for guyJameselmo (talk) 23:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
who are you to threaten me, are you the "the king of Wiki" where is the vandal? you are the vandal, you have no knowledge of the subject and are adding cites from totally bogus sources, when I have time I will provide ample well sourced evidence to refute your disruptive nonsense as I have continued to do for - well check it out yourself.[reply]
You know 86.42.119.12 removed you comment, don't you? [8]. I replaced it, as I want this kind of thing to be seen. I am too busy to chase him up myself right now, but you'll have my support if you want to start something. He reverted my Warning headings, but kept my text. --Matt Lewis (talk) 01:51, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why did you revert my linking to YouTube songs which had been uploaded to YT by their copyright owners?[edit]
Hi, Ward. I don't get it. My understanding is that we don't link to YouTube if the item there is illegal. All the links I made to were to songs that had been uploaded there by their copyright holders. What gives? Please help me understand... (The way it appears to me: your reverts are simply vandalism of my efforts here to improve Wikipedia.)RichLindvall (talk) 02:56, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding that if the uploader (usually a recording company) uploads the song and puts their copyright on the right side of the entry when it plays, that it means they put it on. AND IT'S LEGAL. Is that not true? Let me illustrate with two song links:
(Since you like Eric Clapton)
legal link: Cocaine (Uploaded by WarnerBros)
illegal link: Cocaine (uploaded by "Richard 833")
Maybe I'm way wrong on this. Please straighten me out. Quite frankly I like music too and I am simply trying to make Wikipedia more useful for people to get some of their favorites without having to search all over for it.RichLindvall (talk) 03:50, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for explaining it to me. I appreciate you leaving the links to artist channels. I'm pretty discouraged at the moment with all the hours I spent for nothing. I probably won't be back very soon.RichLindvall (talk) 04:12, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your final comment. I appreciate it. Good luck to you too!RichLindvall (talk) 16:24, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A friend updated the wikipedia entry for erdos-bacon with my name,
and I see that you have reverted to a previous version.
Here's the supporting evidence:
My Erdős number is 3:
Thomas Porter, István Simon: Random Insertion into a Priority Queue Structure. IEEE Trans. Software Eng. 1(3): 292-298 (1975)
Béla Bollobás, István Simon: Repeated Random Insertion into a Priority Queue. J. Algorithms 6(4): 466-477 (1985)
Béla Bollobás, Paul Erdös: On a Ramsey-Turán type problem. J. Comb. Theory, Ser. B 21(2): 166-168 (1976)
(see www.informatik.uni-trier.de/~ley/db/indices/a-tree/s/Simon:Istv=aacute=n.html )
My Bacon number is 2:
Tom Hanks and I are in "The Pixar Story"
Tom Hanks and Kevin Bacon are in "Apollo 13"
(see www.thepixarstory.com under "credits"; I am listed as "Tom", not "Thomas")
I've been on wikipedia about two years longer than you have (I had a username once; it didn't take) and I'm familar with the policies. Like I said in the recent edit summary, it'll most likely all be undeniable even to you soon enough, I just thought wikipedia should get the jump on it for a change. And as as been pointed out numerous times on your page by others this kind of insanely strenuous effort and adherance to the rules in the face of the obvious (remember WP:IAR?) would no way be going on if it were not a same-sex relationship being discussed. --86.135.222.11 (talk) 16:45, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, when I said "it didn't take", I meant that I stopped using it voluntarily, not that I was blocked! ;) I prefer the illusion of anonymity and lack of continuity that not using a single account gives me; although I'm sure if you or someone else really wanted to you could trace back my edits through conversations on talk pages quite a way to see my many, many constructive edits. I realise Wikipedia is not meant to be a newspaper; however I also believe that the wiki technology allows us a brilliant method to allow information to become available to the public as soon as possible and that this should be utilised more often rather than getting caught up in endless debating. This is what I was refering to. We all know this issue would not be half as contentious if it were not for the same-sex relationship implications. We also know that although Lohan and Ronson have mostly ignored and in a few cases denied the many, many rumours, neither have even hinted at taking legal action (as far as I am aware). It is pure Argumentum ad baculum to invoke the threat of lawsuits. --86.158.29.179 (talk) 18:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are mistaken, my pointing out that there has been no mention of legal action was not to offer support for the notion that their relationship is real, merely to say that the argument that wikipedia could get sued is silly. If anyone was going to get sued over reporting this the tabloids would have been months ago. Tbh I'm not really interested in hearing your some-of-my-best-friends-esque protests against homophobia, as I said already, this will most likely all be in reliable sources before too long (already in one, as I tried to point out, the broadsheet Telegraph, and also a brief mention in the Times yesterday as pointed out on the Lohan talk page by another editor) and it will be undeniable even by you. --86.158.29.179 (talk) 22:20, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you are mistaken. I said "esque", as in "similar to" meaning in this case "about as relevent as". As far as I can tell your edits specifically concerning relationships on both those articles post-date your interest in the Lohan/Ronson articles. I also see above you've even made a sub-page detailing imagined personal attacks against you by another editor over this very issue. Doth protest too much, etc. In all seriousness, I realise you probably aren't homophobic. But it really doesn't look very good with your one-man crusade/guardianship over those articles on this one issue.
Now, you can probably tell from my disinterest in maintaining an account here that I don't really like going on about one issue over and over or having my long term interests known (yeh, I guess I'm kinda paranoid), so if you are so set on this I can see it's best I drop it until there's more ammunition available. It'll all come out (so to speak...) one way or another, confirmed or denied, somewhere along the line; until then you won't have to worry about me interfering with your pet articles. (also I have no idea why my IP address keeps changing, it's never usually this frequent. If you feel the need to reply just put it on the previous talk page if you want, I'll check there). --86.137.158.129 (talk) 23:18, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"8. Images with iconic status or historical importance: As subjects of commentary." IndianCaverns (talk) 02:59, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't "remove" the image. I simply repositioned the image to the place in the text where the image was discussed. My image should be returned to the article. It is a better image to ilustrate the subject. IndianCaverns (talk) 03:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I wanted you to know that I've been adding about two sentences per day to the occupational health psychology entry. I can't work faster than that because I have a day job. My goal is to get the entry listed on the sidebar without any problems.Iss246 (talk) 02:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your comments. I am concerned that nobody will read the entry on OHP without the discipline making it to the sidebar. It is a division within psychology. You could consult with the people in the public interest directorate at the American Psychological Association. I add that I would like other Wikipedians to pitch in, and help with the construction of the site. That is the Wikipedia way. I don't want to do all the laboring on my own. I would like others to join me. For example, I don't want to be the one to write the section on accidents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iss246 (talk • contribs) 03:34, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The side bar is unbalanced. It includes sports psychology, which after a couple of years remains a weak entry. But the sidebar excludes the more solid occupational health psychology.Iss246 (talk) 02:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have three responses to you.
1. I am not arguing that if by some odd accident, say, the social psychology entry consisted of one paragraph it should be excluded from the sidebar. Social psychology has enough substance that if it had only one paragraph today it would fill up with content in the following months. The content will speak. With regard to sports psychology, I'm agnostic about its remaining on the sidebar. Since I'm advancing the view that OHP should be on the sidebar, I don't want to start a movement to push sports psychology or another division off the sidebar. However, I underline that sports psychology content is weak, and remains weak after two years. The content of sports psychology contrasts with the strong content of OHP. OHP has deep historical roots in psychology, and strong research and practice content that is relevant to the well-being of people who work.
2. I remind you that literature searches in PsycInfo under "occupational health psychology" go so far because much of the literature is under keywords such as "work" and "stress". I also remind that work and financial stressors are terribly important. OHP is a branch of psychology that is deeply concerned with those matters.
3. I also want to emphasize the relevance of OHP in another way you may not have considered but which is very important today. OHP has relevance to the military (e.g., Lang, J., Thomas, J. L., Bliese, P. D., & Adler, A. B. (2007). Job demands and job performance: The mediating effect of psychological and physical strain and the moderating effect of role clarity. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12, 116-124.). There are more examples of this, and I can find a nice essay about its relevance but it will take me a couple of weeks.
In summary, I think OHP, on its merits deserves to be on the sidebar. I've been a good citizen (I anticipate what you are going to say, "Being a good citizen by contributing to an entry is not relevant to being on the sidebar."). I've been working perhaps a sentence or two every day on the occupational health psychology entry in my spare time--heaven knows I don't have that much of it. As I add that sentence or two, I revise earlier material to ensure that article coheres. In the end, I think measure for measure, you are just opposing me for the sake of opposing me, using the fig leaf of talk about "the world outside." OHP is the world outside. More than sports psychology to say the least. Iss246 (talk) 13:52, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not revert my genre edit on the Madonna (entertainer) article. "Pop" doesn't necessarily sum up the different styles of music she's done throughout her career. Take a look at other artist's articles for yourself and you'll see what I mean. Thank you. ElCangri386 14:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dude, I don't wanna be in an edit war, and don't plan on having problems with anything. But I've done the same thing on other artist's pages of different music types and typed down their different music styles and I even noted them from reliable sources. Yes, pop is pretty much what you call Madonna's music, but rock doesn't necessarily sum up all the different styles of music she's done. Yes she has had some rock influences in some of her music, and I even included that on the article, but for some reason you have a problem with that. I'm not gonna continue with this rediculous edit war, and obviously I can't even talk about it on the talk page because you'll probably do it again. So I will leave the article as is. If you actually listen to her music, you would know that "rock" doesn't describe all of her music. Listen to Bedtime Stories or Erotica or the I'm Breathless soundtrack and you'll see what I mean. ElCangri386 17:13, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well I've posted my say on the talk page, and you've yet to respond or show any sign or agreement or disagreement. Dude it's common sense to know (if you know a lot of her music) that her music is NOT defined by just pop and rock. Just look at the genre list on her album's articles. ElCangri386 21:40, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wait a minute, why are MY edits considered bad or informal? Who says it has to go YOUR way? If I feel that I can also add a little bit of useful information on her music styles, why can't you let me do what I think could be a little useful for others? We're all here to edit and make articles better. I really hate having edit wars with people. ElCangri386 16:45, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So. What was so "horrible", or indeed "POV", about this edit that you've just reverted? It was factual, and there was no way they could have arranged the publication date in advance to coincide with John XXIII's death. The coincidence in fact focussed people's attention on the papacy, and boosted sales of the book. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:05, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow! Double wow!! That in itself is quite a coup. Naturally, I don't share your view. But on this occasion I'm not going to fight. Instead, I'm going to frame your message and show it to all my friends and wear it as a badge of honour. I might also put it on my CV. It will certainly be placed prominently on my user page. See, there's always a silver lining. You have a nice day now. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:55, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get the rationale for axing Alford and Fendley from Erdos-Bacon number. The discussion page makes it clear that extras count as appearances with Bacon, and it is a simple fact that extras are never credited. By that standard you should cut Kleitman too. The article explicitly says that his role was uncredited:
"Daniel Kleitman, a mathematician at MIT, was an advisor for the movie Good Will Hunting and appeared briefly as an uncredited extra."
And is Bayer's appearance as an extra included in the credits? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.19.205.62 (talk) 21:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion here.Kww (talk) 20:06, 27 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No answer. Do you want to take it to ANI, or should I?Kww (talk) 18:26, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nope, I've learned my lesson there. A fresher warning will mean that he didn't vandalize after his final warning. Your final warning is good enough ... warnings don't go stale for named accounts. They only go stale for IPs.Kww (talk) 18:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When reverting one of my edits, you stated that "YOU discuss on talk instead edit war. Cite specific passages from WP:EL and how these ELs violate." Please remember that "the burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." I don't appreciate you labeling my actions as "edit war[ring]" when they are clearly in line with our policies and being discussed in the article's Talk page civilly and productively. I would appreciate you assuming good faith and learning our core policies a bit better. --ElKevbo (talk) 03:00, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Where have I continued to make incorrect links? If I have I'm sorry, but as far as I know I've made sure to avoid linking to a disambiguation page since receiving your note.
I apologize for my error of ways, but I must point out that my change is correct. Mr. Jim Cummings never voiced Kanga in any of the Winnie the Poohs, but he did he voiced the character of Kaa in The Jungle Book 2 (hence the change). I think he also voiced the character in one of the spin-off TV shows, but I don't remember.
LM, Maine is good as far as weather goes. Gettin kind 'o chilly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.65.122.52 (talk) 00:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello there. Thank you for the note on my talk page about Robert Jarvik. The edits that I deleted off that article were ones that I originally added. I realized that my edits were not fully accurate and thus removed them. This was not meant to be vandalism. I did not understand how to use the "edit summary" text box but will use it in the future. Sunisthebest (talk) 16:35, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry; I'm not used to wikipedia. I didn't know how to talk. Well why not writing it clearly at the beginning? It would have been far more appropriate. I started to think that you enjoyed removing them and was losing my nerves, I sincerely apologize... Obviously, I've firstly thought about that, but after referencing the manual for the Epreuve de Performance Cognitive, I don't see any reason to make new references here because reliability coefficients and validity studies are all described in the published document. Psychometric properties of the EPC are all described in actual reference #14 i.e. Jouve, X. (2005). Epreuve de Performance Cognitive (EPC-L), Forme Longue. Paris: Les Editions du Centre de Psychologie Appliquée. This includes multidimensional scaling, item response theory, classical test theory (reliability), factor analysis, criterion-related-validity, age-referenced norms, etc... What can I add?
Anyway, why writing 0.7% instead of 0.3% when 100-99.7=0.3 Xavierjouve (Xavierjouve (talk) 22:39, 9 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]
I'm not doing claims with lack of scientific references. The test publisher is obviously not me alone in my small house in France, but the French branch (ECPA) of the leading test-publisher called Harcourt Assessment, Inc. (http://pearsonassess.com/haiweb/Cultures/en-US/Site/AboutUs/CompanyInformation/History/History.htm ; see date 2002). Hopefully Harcourt Assessment respects APA standards... If as you claim, and I don't have any reason to doubt, you have already published scientific papers; then you may know that publishing works is definitely not automatic and only happening after peer reviews. The truth is that for publishing a psychometric test, the basis is reliability and criterion-related-validity (that's the chief purpose of the test manual) see Murphy, K.R., & Davidshofer, C.O. (2005). Psychological testing: Principles and applications (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. see Nunnaly, J. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill; etc. No offense, but maybe you should ask a publisher if you don't know. It doesn't exist somewhere a single test that is published, available for graduated psychologists only, but without any data on reliability and validity (which are fundamental in order to draw conclusions with test scores). Published test = reliability + validity. The EPC isn't published as an entertainment book. Assuming that you're really living the US, as far as I know, the EPC is distributed in North America http://harcourtassessment.ca/hai/images/Canadian_Catalogue/2007FrenchCatalogue.pdf ; see page 16. If you manage to translate it, you'll see that among other info and as any other cognitive diagnosis instuments: (1) availablily and use are for psychologists only (C-level: Ph.D. required; http://pearsonassess.ca/haiweb/Cultures/en-CA/How+To+Order/info/Qualification+Levels.htm), (2) reliability is strong and (3) correlations with other measures of g are high. These words are not mine; responsible for this catalogue are Marie-Josée Gendron, Ph.D. and Jacinthe Bourassa, M.A. It won't have a piece of sense for a psychologist, but well if you really don't want to use the unique appropriate reference, then we can use this catalogue for reliability, and then another one from another publisher in Switzerland for validity. Well, are you trying to do after the job of the psychologists whom have reviewed the EPC? Are you questioning and challenging the reviewers? Requesting for external references is a non sense per se because the reference is the test manual itself. Then the use of the test is mainly for practitioners whom aren't performing researches but are using it with their patients (because the test has been published thanks to its reliability and valididy). It would have been great if I had external studies to quote, but that's mainly a matter of commercial distribution of the test and nothing about psychometric properties (which I repeat, are the main body of the test manual). No offense, but your example of you, self-publishing a test, and claiming in the wind for psychometric properties is not possible (not a matter with you actually but with publishing standards). It appears that you don't know what a published psychometric test is. There's no possible publication without acceptable psychometric properties. I've got the feeling that you don't believe me... thinking maybe, that Cerebrals is a kind of joke (anyway, the EPC isn't something related to Cerebrals directly but to my work in cognitive psychometrics; Cerebrals gave me the unique opportunity to assess cognitive performance of very uncommonly efficient people during the international contest. This helped to analyze uncommonly difficult items). In order to find a consensus, maybe the part of the sentence can be rewrited like "its manual shows [acceptable] - instead of - [excellent] reliability coefficients[citation needed], and very high correlations with general intelligence measures[citation needed] -> Aparts from removing "very", I don't see what to change here because it's fundamentally obvious to say that a published test actually has "high correlations" with other measures of the same type -It would have never ever been published without this requirement, but anyway, I would have never submitted it for publication.". I can't scan actual manual to show you because it'll be copyright infringement, but I can provide you privately with excel data tables if needed (which would be your own need not the one of a psychologist because the EPC has already been reviewed, adapted, and published). Or I can include actual value of coefficients shown into the manual along with references about how high they should be to meet psychometric standards in order to give readers comparison points.
About the index score of 141 (using a mean of 100; and 15 pts per SD), it corresponds to a percentile rank of 99.7 (99.687) not 99.3 as you claimed (99.3 would have been the result of the use of 16.7 pts per SD)... that's fundamental science, it's true (please calm down here because you're insulting me). I can give you other examples: 120 falls into the percentile rank of 91 (90.879) which corresponds to the top 9%; 137 - 99.3 (99.318) - 0.7%; 139 - 99.5 (99.534) - 0.5%; 145 - 99.9 (99.865)- top 0.1%; etc. These are quickly computed numbers thanks to Microsoft Excel NORMDIST*100 formula (I guess, cause the french name is LOI.NORMALE which means Normal Dist). Well no need to drown into a useless debate, here is a reference http://harcourtassessment.com/hai/Images/pdf/wisciv/WISCIVTechReport4.pdf ; page 5 (140 = 99.6 ; 142 = 99.7... Without too much computations, I assume that you can deduce what 141 is corresponding to). Please excuse me if I'm wrong, but have you got something against me personally? I mean you accused me of doing personal attacks, which at that time was true because of misunderstanding (which was partly your fault), but please don't take your turn to do it as well because you are clearly insulting now. Is there a problem with Cerebrals? Giftedness? Something else? Or maybe there's a misunderstanding again, if yes, we can talk about it privately, my email isn't a secret. I'm not quarrelsome. I've already apologized and I was sincere. Also, you accused me of doing advertising, which looks a bit bizarre actually because Cerebrals is a non-profit organization with free of charge access. Was it because of the links to the Test & Questionnaires section of our website? Again sorry, but these tests are free. I was only trying to gather data in order to perform psychometric analyses. I'm not looking for money. Xavierjouve (Xavierjouve (talk) 11:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC))[reply]
You published a test (that part I do not doubt), and the research for the test's reliability, validity, and other psychometric properties was conducted by you (perhaps with the assistance of the publisher), and there are no additional publications in peer-reviewed journals (by anyone else) about the test? Please answer that question specifically.
Unfortunately, not to my knowledge. Psychometrics in France isn't as common as it's in US. Making a test existing among the Wechsler's for the clinical psychologists and is not easy even if the two instruments are very different.
There are many tests that have been "published" but not well accepted by the scientific or practitioner community because of poor psychometrics. That has even happened to widely used tests that previously had sterling reputations. An earlier edition of the Stanford-Binet in the U.S. was soundly rejected by most scientists/practitioners after it was published because the publisher failed to provide sufficient evidence of the tests psychometric soundness. The publisher was frantically scrambling to get additional research conducted after publication because typical users were not purchasing the test. Test publishers are confronted with (sometimes) mixed motives of producing a test with an adequate amount of research support and getting the test on the market (perhaps prematurely) so they can make money. I'm not saying that is the case with the EPC, but my point is that without external support for your test, those of us whose job it is to decide if it's a good test are left with very limited information. The concepts of independent research that is replicated are at the core of science, especially psychology because of the potential for researcher bias.
I didn't know this particular history about a SB form (which one was it by the way?) and now I understand more what you said. Well, maybe it's a bit different here in France because there is only one publisher; it doesn't exist a competition between publishers to get over another. The competition if it exits, is between researchers only. This gives a pretty good level for psychometric instruments.
Anyway, the potential for researcher bias is clearly reduced in psychometrics which is mostly about numbers. It's more about which method is used instead of another (in case of the EPC, I've used many methods, and some that are rarely used together (IRT and MDS), in order to give the user a wide-range of results)
My suggestion for Cerebrals Society is to omit "excellent reliability, and very high correlations with measures of cognitive abilities". The meaning of the paragraph is still clear without such a statement.
Well if it can close the debate. I agree.
"have you got something against me personally?": I don't know you personally, so I have no opinion of you personally. Please don't personalize a debate about content of an article. That's where you stepped over the line earlier. I was simply asking for conformation to Wikipedia's policies of verifiability with reliable sources. That is done thousands of time every day on Wikipedia without any personal attacks. I made no personal statements about you or Cerebrals Society, just about the content of the article. You, on the other hand, made statements such as "This stupid user who doesn't only have basic arithmetics deficit". That's the kind of statement that can get you blocked from editing.
I already apologized for that. I'm sorry. Anyway, removing each time (4 times in a row, or something?) my correction about percentage without explaining why, wasn't very appropriate to start a cool debate. I started to think that you was enjoying doing this, making me losing my nerves. Also, when you wrote "the percentile rank for a standard score of 141 is 99.3. So scores at or above 141 are in the top 0.7% of the population because 100% - 99.3% = 0.7%. Again, fundamental science." You made (twice in the entire reply) the supposition that I haven't got a clue about what science is; this is very insulting even if you didn't use a particular insult (word). The whole tone is haughty. I may have misinterprete it... Nevermind.
"you accused me of doing advertising": I have no idea what you mean. Please explain. Thanks.
It wasn't you? This happened prior to my registration. I've noticed that the link to the Cerebrals' Tests & Questionnaires website section was missing, so I added it again and someone instantly removed it. To my memory, this person sent me a message to say that promotional and advertising links weren't tolerated. I'm pretty sure it was from your IP address. This is not important at all.
Well I think we can close the debate. I'll add something else to Cerebrals Society but later. Regards,
Maybe I should have simply said that Elliott's name begins with E and ends with T. That's verifiable. :) Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc? 19:10, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And it might be trivial even if I can find which critic commented on it. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc? 20:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to even find the right wording is a challenge. This is the first thing I found, which is only a blog and not admissable in wikipedia court, but it makes the point that this is not "original research", or at least not original to me. This offhand comment was made by someone 6 years ago when the film was re-issued on its 20th anniversary. So at least this gives a hint of what to look for. [9]Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc? 20:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's another blog, from sometime last spring, where this is referenced a little more than halfway down. [10] So it's not "original research" and it's not particularly POV-pushing. You could still argue for "trivial", though. :) Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc? 20:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your edit summary said it was POV. It is not POV to state that E and T are Elliott's first and last initials. Nor is it original research, obviously. Your best argument is that it's trivial. Even if Roger Ebert had said it, it could still be argued to be trivial. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc? 20:45, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If Roger Ebert pointed it out, how would that be any more noteworthy than someone in a blog? Either way, it's a personal opinion, not something stated by the film's creators. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc? 21:19, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your original complaint was "unsourced POV". So if I cited Ebert or whoever, that would be "sourced POV". Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc? 22:53, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is an E.T. in one of the Star Wars prequels. That IP address said it was Star Wars I, but I'm not totally sure that's correct. I'm thinking it was II. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc? 00:28, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, it was I. [11] It wasn't E.T. himself, as such, it was a group of E.T.-like creatures. A typical inside-reference for Lucas, such as putting R2-D2 and C-3PO on the wall of the Well of Souls in Raiders of the Lost Ark, or putting variations on TXH 1138 in practically every film with his stamp on it. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc? 00:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The film itself is the source. If an on-screen fact is unambiguous, no other source is required. So, the only question is, is it clear that there are E.T.-like creatures in the Imperial Senate chamber? Or is there some ambiguity about it? Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc? 02:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's in contrast to the Star Wars characters on the walls in Raiders, for example. It's not visible on-screen, it's only known because it was discussed in the "making of" book. So the film can't be a source for that. But if the E.T.-clones are clear and unambiguous in Star Wars I, then no external citation is required. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc? 02:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moving the discussion to the E.T. page is fine, provided you actually address the question instead of moving it there just so you can ignore it. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc? 03:13, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You do not own your talk page, the community does; and I have the right to raise fair questions on your talk page or any other place I feel like doing so. Your attitude is going to get you in trouble at some point. Accusing me of wikistalking is silly on its face. Keep in mind it is you that took the chippy tone about both of these articles. So cease your empty threats. Baseball BugsWhat's up, Doc? 03:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to Abraham Lincoln assassination, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 21:08, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the reference I added. The reference was related to text I added. The added text was removed by you for some "unexplained reason" but you left the added reference. I am just being thorough. Mkpumphrey (talk) 11:10, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The operative words in my message above are "without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary." If you had done that (as you should always add an edit summary), there would have been no confusion, I wouldn't have posted the above message, and it would have save both of us some time. Ward3001 (talk) 12:25, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure I understand why you are citing my removing text "without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary" after you yourself removed text "without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary." Mkpumphrey (talk) 17:16, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you'll take another look, I gave a reason in my edit summary. The information I removed was non-notable. The name of the stable owner is irrelevant. Perhaps you thought it notable because you share the same name, but Wikipedia requires more than that for notability. If you wish to re-add the name it is important that you have a good reason. As the edit was, there was no reason.Ward3001 (talk) 23:37, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would be very interested to know why the person who was to hold the horse but did not hold the horse is important enough to include in the article. I must assume all would have been different had he held the horse. And I must admit I also wonder why it is important to include the history of the nickname "Peanut" (the important peanut salesman).
James Pumphrey (as is documented in books and a Washington Star newspaper of the day) was a suspected southern sympathizer and was questioned by local authorities concerning his involvement. He held a vigil for Mary Surratte. He is actually no direct relative of mine and unfortunately he did not have a nickname like "Peanut" that would make him noteworthy.Mkpumphrey (talk) 11:43, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I agree with you that including Peanuts' name is unimportant, as is Pumphrey's name. Feel free to remove the reference to Peanuts' name without interference by me. This is an encyclopedia article, not a book on the Lincoln assassination, and some of the more trivial details of the events must be omitted. I deal with edits as I see them. I wasn't revising the entire article, just that one edit. Also, Pumphrey's southern sympathies are not especially noteworthy; there were lots of Southern sympathizers at the time, but if we added them all simply because they had some remote relationship to the events surrounding the assassination the article would possibly increase in size tenfold (e.g., I would not see the need to include the name of the person who sold Booth his shoes if he were a Southern sympathizer, even though quite indirectly it relates to the assassination because Booth's shoes had a role in his injuries as he jumped from the balcony.). We have to draw the line somewhere in an encyclopedia article. Neither Pumphrey nor Peanuts is notable.Ward3001 (talk) 12:36, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No thanks. I will leave the removal of material to you. You apparently think you know what is important and what is not important in this world. I never intend to edit the "important" items you edit like: the E.T. article, the Lindsey Lohan article, or anything written about Natalie Portman. But are there subjects you routinely "protect" about which you could warn me? I will make every effort to avoid them. Mkpumphrey (talk) 15:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's your choice. I have no idea what you mean by "routinely 'protect'", but the only thing I try to protect are Wikipedia's policies and the quality of its articles. And you might want to review WP:NPA. I don't believe you crossed the line, but you got close. But if this is the end of our message exchanges, no harm done. Thanks. Ward3001 (talk) 17:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what sort of nanny would seriously write: "I don't believe you crossed the line, but you got close." If you are serious, you may want to lighten up.
Clearly the material you recently removed needed removal (some juvenile vandalism about Lincoln and Nixon?). And I commend you for your part in removing it. However, I still find your process for deciding what is important and what is not important to be arbitrary at best ... apparently annoying to many.
Some things might be added to Wikipedia just because they are interesting ... not necessarily to you ... but to others who do not share your interest in Science Fiction (?). I am guessing at Science Fiction as an interest because of the E.T. and Natalie Portman articles you have edited.
Anyway, I recently read a book about the 1900 Boxer Rebellion (The Boxer Rebellion: The Dramatic Story of China's War on Foreigners that Shook the World in the Summer of 1900, by Diana Preston). I had noticed that the current article in Wikipedia on this subject could use some help (both with organization and content). In the book written by Ms. Breston, there was a mention of the winds that blew off the desert every year loaded with black particles. These winds fouled everything in Peking. I found this interesting and I was thinking of looking it up again and adding it. But I will not. I have to ask myself: Is this absolutely "critical" to the Boxer Rebellion article? Clearly it is not. But, based on the guidelines you suggest, many Wikipedia articles could shed a good portion of their current content.
Goodbye. I participate in Wikipedia because I enjoy doing it. As I have indicated, I think you provide a great service by offering to remove vandalism. But having someone like you watch over my shoulder makes adding new material of very little interest.Mkpumphrey (talk) 01:39, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To Andycjp and others who might be interested. This notice is being sent to inform you that Andycjp’s disruptive editing has been reported at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (AN/I): [12].
Please do not add unsourced or original content, as you did to Sigmund Freud. Doing so violates Wikipedia's verifiability policy. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. Ward3001 (talk) 16:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we would like to remind you not to attack other editors. Please comment on the contributions and not the contributors. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Jonathan talk - contribs - review me! 00:40, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
04:02, 5 October 2008 (UTC)