User talk:Abyssinia H/Archive 3

Speedy deletion declined: Grasshopper 3d
Hello Zachlipton. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Grasshopper 3d, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: A7 does not apply to software. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:49, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * FYI: I PRODded it instead. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 04:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fine thanks. I wasn't entirely certain whether it was a software product or a company (which A7 would apply to), but a PROD works too. Zachlipton (talk) 04:59, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Larin Alexsandr
This I! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Алехандро97 (talk • contribs) 08:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no idea what you're trying to tell me. Are you trying to tell me your name? If there's actually something you want to say or discuss with me, please leave an actual message? Thanks. Zachlipton (talk) 09:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Marking as Patrolled
Hi, It seems that you have been spending some time patrolling the New Page section. I and the other members of WP:RCP really appreciate your efforts, but as you review articles, make sure you are marking them as patrolled. If you need info on how to do this, leave me a note on my talk page. Thanks! Bped1985 (talk) 06:53, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi there. I virtually always do mark the articles I review as patrolled unless there's a reason why I want someone else to look at them. See my entries in the patrol log. I'll be sure to double check that I'm not missing any as I go though. Thanks. Zachlipton (talk) 07:52, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Spanos Industries
Hello, I have just reviewed the article regarding Spanos Industries and added sources as you have mention as a flow. Please is it now OK for publishing? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Spanos_Industries

Many thanks in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kala kala (talk • contribs) 10:09, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Replied on article page: Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Spanos Industries. Zachlipton (talk) 10:15, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

Rose Hill School, Alderley
Hi,

I have updated my submission for "Rose Hill School, Alderley", providing as many citations as I have been able to find. I have removed all other material for which I could find no source. I hope that it can now be accepted? Thanks.

Alexandrews (talk) 18:13, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Alexandrews. I've gone ahead and approved your article. You can find it at Rose Hill School (Alderley). I also added a hatnote to Rose Hill School and visa-versa, so people can find what the article they are looking for. Sorry if it feels like we've been putting you through the wringer with this, but I really appreciate your efforts to create such a high quality and well sourced new article. Again, welcome to Wikipedia, and feel free to let me know anytime if you have any questions. Happy editing! Zachlipton (talk) 18:35, 8 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, very much appreciated. Alexandrews (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

 Chzz  ► 10:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

3D Television link
Hi Zach

I added 3dtvguide .org link this morning. Never added a link in Wikipedia before so I thought I did it correctly. I see you removed it...my site does contain a lot of good info (I think) and I'm putting a lot of effort into adding more.

If it doesn't meet your content guidelines in some way I wonder if you could help me understand what I need to do. Apart from Wikipedia entry, I think that would be useful feedback for me in general to help with improvement on the site. 86.130.61.122 (talk) 23:43, 8 February 2011 (UTC)08.02.11

Thanks and Regards  Steve
 * Hi Steve and welcome to Wikipedia. It's nothing personal about your site certainly. Please see WP:EL for more information on our policies for external links. In particular, the section WP:EL is of note. Per the conflict of interest guidelines, adding external links to your own site is very much frowned upon. Note that Wikipedia adds the "nofollow" attribute to external links automatically, so being listed in a Wikipedia article has no effect on PageRank.
 * Furthermore, the linking guidelines say not to link "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article." In other words, sites that are along the same lines as what the Wikipedia article would be if it was edited to become one of our best articles. From a quick browse of your site, it appears to largely be along the same lines of the article: an overview of useful information related to 3D TV technology, history, content, etc... You are, of course, welcome to edit and improve any Wikipedia articles if you have useful encyclopedic content that you feel should be added.
 * In short, Wikipedia is not a directory. We only include external links under fairly stringent criteria and tend to avoid linking to sites which would not be of substantial use to an interested reader who has already read the article and the major related articles that it links to. I hope this information helps. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions. Zachlipton (talk) 00:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the detailed explanation, Zach. I fully understand. I'm sure there are specific pages on 3dtvguide which would offer unique info over and above the Wikipedia pages on the subject...so I'll research that. Having a link to my site on Wikipedia isn't so much about page rank or traffic...it's about honour :-) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.153.141.227 (talk) 10:21, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Zliten mosaic
Hello! Your submission of Zliten mosaic at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! —David Eppstein (talk) 06:10, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Handled in the DYK nomination and with major article resourcing. Thanks. Zachlipton (talk) 10:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Rose Hill School (Alderley) (again)
 Chzz  ► 10:23, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Please see Talk:Rose Hill School (Alderley) and Talk:Rose Hill School (Alderley). Thanks,  Chzz  ► 16:36, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

martial art show
Hi Zachilton, the martial arts show is a show case for all martial artist. It is not promoting one martial art. It has a showcase of all martials arts. This is a place people can go to find out more about martial arts.

its something for the general public and not for commercial gain. The link should be allowed to stay up.

Kind Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ideasguide (talk • contribs) 17:44, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi there. I understand that and I didn't say you were seeking commercial gain. My point was simply that this link addition is not within the bounds of the kinds of external links we add to articles per the external link standard. The sole purpose of the website the link points to is to promote a two day event in Birmingham, UK. While I'm sure it's a fine and educational show, that link is not useful to the vast majority of readers who live nowhere near Birmingham or are unavailable to attend an event. The purpose of the link is to promote the event, not an individual martial art, and Wikipedia is not a place for advertising and promotion, whether of commercial or non-commercial events. I'm sure you can understand what Wikipedia would look like if every article listed every related event being held worldwide. We're an encyclopedia, not a events calendar. I hope this explains my thinking here. Thanks. Zachlipton (talk) 18:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

You proposed my article for deletion
I have come to be aware that you have propsed my article The Dictator (2012 film). I am unaware why this is so. You have classed the deletion request as that the film is over a year away from the release date. I dont think this is a very good reason to delete a perfectly well formulated article that several people have put a lot of time and effort into creating. As of yet the article is a very small stub - it only contains a small amount of certain details about the film. Because this film has been the topic of much discussion on online forums and is part of a series of extremely famous and contraversial films it is a appropriate that a wikipedia page about the film exist, seeing as most people use wikipedia as their point of first query when they want to look something up. Because of these reasons, i will ask you to please grant this article exception to the rule like so many others have been in the past. Please remove your proposal for article deletion on this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pingu.dbl96 (talk • contribs) 02:20, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Zliten mosaic
Orlady (talk) 18:02, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion converted to PROD: Work in process reduction through lean
Hello Zachlipton. I am just letting you know that I have converted the speedy deletion tag that you placed on Work in process reduction through lean to a proposed deletion tag, because I do not believe CSD applies to the page in question - it was an WP:OR essay, but there was no actual evidence that it was a copyvio. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 12:41, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The page was clearly a copy/paste of the abstract of a paper. It appears that the abstract isn't online (could be a translation from another language or it could be the paper hasn't been published anywhere), but the references to "this paper" in the text make it clear that its a work written for another medium with no evidence of permission to license it for Wikipedia. It was also of no encyclopedic merit, making it a waste of time to try to preserve it. In any case, a PROD is fine and I'll follow-up in the event that it is contested. Thanks. Zachlipton (talk) 00:45, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The Jason Dowd article
The thing that got me off is the categories that he is part of. 1902 births, 1984 deaths, something about the 1906 San Fransisco earthquake

Yeah that sounds off.

Kamkek (talk) 04:55, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah those categories were copied and pasted from Ansel Adams, along with his sort key. I left a note on the author's talk page, as a google search revealed it was obvious she was editing on behalf of a Florida PR firm. Sigh... Zachlipton (talk) 04:57, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Awkward
Well that's never happened to me before. I uploaded File:Westfield High School NJ Logo.png and inserted it into the article, only to find that you had also uploaded the logo as File:WestfieldHS-NJ-Logo.gif and closed the FFU submission. If you want to delete yours, that's fine. If you want to delete mine, that's also fine. I don't mind one way or the other. I'm actually off to bed right after this. If you do delete mine though, please remove the deletion warning template from my talk when you're done. Thanks,  S ven M anguard   Wha?  07:35, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Bahahaha. I do sometimes tag files that I'm uploading with an "in progress" note, but didn't do it in this case, especially as I thought I'd be quick. Too funny. Since yours is the one that's currently in my article, I'll just delete mine. Thanks and have a good night. Zachlipton (talk) 07:37, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Women Preachers
Hello Zachlipton,

I do apologize for my delay in responding, but I wanted to thank you for the time you took to explain and give solutions to the problem that was presented in the removal of my submission. It has been greatly appreciated!

I was wondering if I could ask for a bit of a favor. I have edited down my submission to a few key points and would like to slip it into the "Ordination of Women" article, under Christianity in General. However, I have not been able to understand the coding nor the formatting at all, as computers and internet coding are not particularly my field of interest... or enjoyment, for that matter. I do have enough sources to back up what is written, but as I said, I do not know how to code them into the page properly.

I was wondering if you would be willing to look over the new version of what I would like to submit (it's rather short) and help me post it properly with the sources and redirects. It would be such a great deal of help, and I would be so grateful.

Please let me know how you would feel about this and have a wonderful weekend.

PhDofTHEOLOGY (talk) 23:53, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hello. You are most welcome. You'll find that most Wikipedians are really quite helpful if you ask. The site and the community certainly are large and complex, and I know it can be daunting for new users. I'd be happy to look over your proposed changes and also to help with formatting (citation formatting is unfortunately somewhat tricky). Where can I find them? If you need a working space on the wiki, you can just go to User:PhDofTHEOLOGY/Workspace, click the link to start the new page, and enter your text there. That's called a "userspace draft" and it's a handy place where we can look at your text before it's moved into the main article space. Just denote the links however you can and we'll deal with doing it "properly" later. Just let me know and we can go from there. Cheers. Zachlipton (talk) 01:51, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Zachlipton, Thank you so much, I really appreciate it! Often in can be hard to navigate though new websites, so I'm glad to know the people of Wikipedia are so kind and willing to help. I have posted the material on my workspace, here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:PhDofTHEOLOGY/Workspace

Please let me know if any further changes need to be made. Actually, I do have the original text/references saved on my computer, so feel free to work on the one I posted, if you wish. Have a wonderful week and many thanks, again. PhDofTHEOLOGY (talk) 00:22, 15 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi there. I'm happy to help. Your text is really quite well referenced and would be great in many venues, but I'm afraid it's not currently really encyclopedic within the bounds of what Wikipedia is for. Essentially all your references are to Biblical citations. The Bible, while certainly a fine text, is inherently a primary source. Here at Wikipedia, one of our core guidelines is to avoid original research. As part of that policy, we specifically avoid making our own interpretations of primary source texts and rely on published reliable secondary sources instead: "Articles may make analytic or evaluative claims only if these have been published by a reliable secondary source." Furthermore, another part of that policy is to avoid synthesis of material to advance a position. The information at WP:SYNTHESIS goes into more detail on what this means, but the basic point is the same: Wikipedia editors can't insert their own analysis of material into articles, but must report those published by reliable secondary sources. I'm sure you can understand why this is necessary, as the basic premise of Wikipedia is one of neutral point of view and our aim is to document the world by creating an encyclopedia, not change it by advancing positions and research.


 * So as it stands, your passage looks to be very much original research and wouldn't belong on Wikipedia. If you wanted to rewrite it to refer exclusively to published theological interpretations by reliable sources and avoided WP:SYNTHESIS, then I can see it fitting into the existing article. As a general rule, we try to avoid phrases like "a common interpretation is that" and "Another controversial verse has been," because they don't refer specifically to a source or other verifiable information. We would generally need to refer specifically to a reliable source that confirms that the interpretation is common and one that confirms that the verse is a controversial issue.


 * I hope this helps. Just let me know if you have any questions. Thanks. Zachlipton (talk) 03:33, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Rose Hill, refs
Hi.

Not sure if a reply I wrote got missed, in the midst of all that discussion; I wrote a bit about refs, to you. I've now archived it, into User talk:Chzz/Archive 28. Cheers,  Chzz  ► 13:22, 13 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Sorry I missed this. Been a touch busy and not doing a great job keeping up with my talk page. Thanks! Zachlipton (talk) 08:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Lanny Quarles
Hello Zachlipton. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Lanny Quarles, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: 'The links to van Sant and Amerika are probably just'' enough for A7. Desparately needs some RS though. I'll keep an eye on it.''' Thank you. Ged UK  21:52, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. The article was improved a bit after I tagged it. I'm skeptical given that it was created by an SPA who's contribution history consists of promotions for Quarles, but it's certainly not the less notable biography I've seen today... Thanks. Zachlipton (talk) 21:56, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm new, but what is the problem with a link I've added?
I have already read the conventions and I don't really understand what was the problem of my link in Cameron's article? I want to make a good use of wikipedia so I would like to know what problem have you detected with the link.

Thank's in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diego.cobelo (talk • contribs) 10:10, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Sardar_Shaukat_Ali_Kashmiri
I have updated this article with all the possible sources I have. I have used mostly a source from the Party's official website, which shows the official biography of Mr. Kashmiri.

I hope now this will be enough for publishing this article.

regards --Zahid Mehmood 14:02, 16 February 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zahidukpnp (talk • contribs)
 * Addressed in the article and requested admin assistance. Thanks. Zachlipton (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Chapman's Problem for deletion
The article Chapman's Problem is being discussed concerning whether it is suitable for inclusion as an article according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Chapman's Problem until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:04, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thx for the notification. Zachlipton (talk) 18:40, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Deathwatch
Incredible speed! A truly dedicated Wikipedian, please wikify my tiny contribution as it should be! Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JDnCoke (talk • contribs) 23:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh. I happened to see it on newpages. Actually already left a note on your talk page while you were typing this one, so I guess I'm a speed demon today, at least from your perspective. Thanks. Zachlipton (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

vespa producer
hi there vespa aka adam crawford is a genuine music producer who is recognised highly in the uk and soon to be affiliated with universal music group

i ask you to keep this page active please cites will be added accordingly

thank you

Calvin Harris
 * I'm sorry, but I see no reason in the article or from my own searching to believe he currently meets the WP:MUSIC guidelines. I wish him the best of luck, but he simply is not ready for an article at this point. Zachlipton (talk) 04:14, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * this is totally outrageous
 * like i said cites will be entered accordingly
 * surely you can give a month or so to build up the cites needed
 * Calvin Harris
 * A month? I'm afraid not. What I can suggest is that you create a Help:Userspace draft of the article and submit it only when its fully ready and you are sure it demonstrates that he meets the WP:MUSIC criteria. I hope this helps. Zachlipton (talk) 04:19, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * im unsure as to what you mean by the last message
 * Sorry about that. What I mean is that you should go to Help:Userspace draft and follow the instructions to make a draft version of the article in your own "userspace" (a special area of Wikipedia for users to work in). You'll have plenty of time there to find citations and build up the article. When you're done and you are sure the article shows why this individual meets the WP:MUSIC guidelines, you can easily turn that draft into the actual article. In other words, you can work on the article there and not have to worry about having it deleted right away. Does that make more sense? Zachlipton (talk) 04:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
 * so basically i change the name from vespa producer to user:vespa producer???
 * Not quite. Go to Help:Userspace draft. Look for the form in the middle of the page, right underneath "Create a userspace draft - if you're logged in." Where it says "new article name here," delete just that text and type in the article name. So the entire form field should say "Special:Mypage/Vespa (producer)" -- then just click the big button. Zachlipton (talk) 04:35, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

why did you tag my page
Howard Samuels is a real person, and a very important person in the alcohol and drug recovery field. and his father was a very famous New york politician.
 * I don't doubt any of that, but please see WP:42, WP:N], and [[WP:NOTINHERITED. He simply does not appear to meet these guidelines. I highly recommend you review Your first article before creating any more articles, as it contains a lot of information about how Wikipedia operates and what is needed to start an article. Thanks. Zachlipton (talk) 07:15, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

what about if I add this?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-howard-samuels
 * Sorry, but that doesn't help. The reliable sources I mentioned above need to be third party sources--ones independent from the subject of the article. That page is a blog authored by Samuels, and so it doesn't count to establish notability. Thanks. Zachlipton (talk) 07:33, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Federation of Analytical Chemistry and Spectroscopy Societies
As reviewing administrator, I I declined the deletion. Major international scientific societies are notable. The criterion for passing speedy is much weaker than the criterion for keeping an article--to pass speedy, any indication of importance or significance is sufficient--there is no need for a third party reference. Please check WP:CSD & if you wish to discuss it further, ask at WT:CSD.  DGG ( talk ) 15:47, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Zachlipton#http:.2F.2Fen.wikipedia.org.2Fwiki.2FWikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation.2FSardar_Shaukat_Ali_Kashmiri
Thanks for your message and I really appreciate it.

regards

--Zahid Mehmood 16:16, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The Girl With No Number
Hi Zachlipton, I am the writer of the article (The Girl With No Number) and I am new to wikipedia. Please help me to access and save my article for deletion. That is my original content, and if you have something to suggest or advice in my article please let me know. Thanks in advance! *cheers*
 * It's over at Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/The Girl With No Number. You'll find suggestions there on how to improve your article. Thanks and welcome to Wikipedia. Zachlipton (talk) 15:48, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Kent Hovind
The User WLU has posted this on the Kent Hovind article page (it is nothing but a negative rant against the bible what does any of this have to do with kent hovind?):

"Also, I am quite prejudiced against Mr. Hovind. In addition to being a convicted felon, he actively lies to people..." [zl: quote trimmed for brevity]

Why is this still up? Hes discussing the bible and calling Kent Hovind weak and its over 50 lines, what have personal opinions and rants got to do with the wikipedia article? Why has no moderator deleted WLU's insane rants? Bias much? Why are his rants left up which have NOTHING to do with the article? 86.10.119.131 (talk) 21:51, 18 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi there. Well, to start, it's posted on the article's talk page, not on the article page itself. There is a substantial difference: Wikipedia articles strive to be neutral and well referenced, while talk pages are for editors to discuss the article and collaborate on editing. Talk pages are not indexed by Google and other search engines, while articles often rank prominently in search results. Certainly, there are talk page guidelines that editors are expected to follow, but generally, there's a lot more leeway on talk pages because a degree of open dialog is important to have frank discussions about the issues that come up during editing disputes. Talk page comments can be biased, because the very point of the discussion is to discuss any potential bias in the article. Editors tend to avoid deleting user's talk page comments when they are actively participating in a discussion, the main exception being posts that rise to the level of blatant personal attacks and/or vandalism. This is especially true when the comments are intended to be relevant to the subject under discussion, even if they are rant-like. All that being said, certainly the comment you are referring to is over the top. They don't have "nothing" to do with the article, but they certainly don't help to advance the discussion or to explain his position in a reasonable way. I'm not involved in that debate and I certainly don't want to become involved, but my guess is that the other editors there figured it was easier and more productive to focus on discussing substance and to leave the comment alone than to fight with WLU on the issue. Deleting someone's views from a discussion tends to create a lot of drama around accusations of censorship and bias, and that drama can often be worse then the original post.


 * Or, for the short answer: sometimes people get really worked up in a debate and they rant. Sometimes those rants are reverted, sometimes they are left alone, depending on the best judgement of the editors involved and the needs of the situation. Zachlipton (talk) 23:22, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

CSD#G12
Your recent comment to Talk:Alternative medicine feels like an assumption of bad faith. I am wondering if I might convince you to redact and rephrase your comment to convey your point in a way that maintains a harmonious editing atmosphere. We are all trying to build an encyclopedia together. In fact, I only found that source because I was trying to improve the article despite having proposed that it be merged. I regularly patrol WP:CSD, and am hopefully familiar with the conditions that must be fulfilled. The linked site makes a credible assertion of copyright. Looking forward to discussing potential improvements to articles with you, - 2/0 (cont.) 06:34, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I rephrased my comment fairly significantly in the interest of harmony and I thank you for your efforts in researching the subject, something I have been doing as well lately. I'm sorry that I came on somewhat strong there. I certainly don't deny that you saw some material copied from a site that makes a credible assertion of copyright. My point really is that tagging the entire page for speedy deletion seemed extreme in proportion to the amount of text copied, which didn't sit well with me when I saw it given the amount of "non-infringing content on the page worth saving" mentioned in the G12 criteria. I was going to drop you a note about it on your own talk page, but moved the message I was writing to Talk:Alternative medicine when I saw you discussed the copyvio issues there too. In any case, I look forward to continuing our discussion too. Thanks. Zachlipton (talk) 06:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you, I appreciate it. I still think that it is important to note that extra caution is merited should the merge proposal go through, but we have common ground here. I appreciate the work you did at AfC getting that article into mainspace, and you bring up a good point about the Integrative Medicine movement moving away from Weil et al. in recent years. That is part of why I started the merge discussion instead of just pointing to the recent but weak consensus that this is just one topic with two names. See you around, - 2/0 (cont.) 12:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

"Evidence-based alternative medicine" an oxymoron?
Hey Zach and 2/0. Zach, reading what you've written, I just thought I'd share some thoughts with you on your talk page. I noticed that you wrote the following at the merge discussion:


 * "Going back to the definitions, integrative medicine is a style of medicine and area of clinical research that includes, among other things, evidence-based alternative medicine. Alternative medicine is simply all healing practices outside of conventional medicine. The former is a philosophy of medicine and area of academic research, while the latter is a catch-all collection of stuff."

The phrase "evidence-based alternative medicine" is an oxymoron which has been discussed and criticised:


 * "Evidence-based alternative medicine" an oxymoron?

While not all alternative medicine is outright quackery, and many of the more touchy feely, comfort care, palliation, etc. being used in integrative medicine is done in what I would consider legitimate ways (IOW without making false claims for them), the umbrella of "integrative medicine" is still being used as a cover by many to legitimize false claims made for unproven and disproven methods, IOW to baptize quackery by sneaking it in the back door so the ones involved can get funding. It's a bit of a shady venture when they do it that way. The University of Arizona is the center for such endeavors.

Because the founders of integrative medicine were potheads who were trying to sell the integration of quackery into mainstream medicine as the only way to make it whole person oriented, we've ended up with a blind acceptance of their paradigm, but it's not necessary to do that to make modern medicine more humane.

Much of what you describe can be and is being done in some hospitals and health centers without the use of any alternative medicine techniques. Strictly speaking it would likely be improper to then call them "integrative medicine" centers, and I can't think of any that do so, but I suspect it may happen. Making modern medicine more humane, dealing with the whole person, etc. doesn't have to involve alternative medicine techniques.

I fear that we're going to see a blurring of the definitions, and we need to beware that we don't do it here. -- Brangifer (talk) 17:31, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Advice policy thoughts
It just occurred to me that you gave User:Darian2009 good advice, but you gave it at the article, with a Talkback on his talk page. Because your advice related to Hanoch Kalai, it seems proper to add the advice there. However, now that I deleted the article (and talk page), unless Darian saw the advice before I deleted it, the advice will be lost. Perhaps I should have copied the advice over, but I'm thinking that we should modestly change our policy - to wit "if you are giving advice regarding an article, normally it makes sense to add the advice to the article talk page. However, if the advice pertains to an article potentially about to be deleted, whether, CSD, prod or AfD, it may make sense to add the advice to the editors talk page, and the talkback, if appropriate, to the article talk page. That way the advice will not be lost of the article is deleted before the editor sees the advice."

What do you think?-- SPhilbrick  T  13:50, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that's a good point that I should have thought through a little more. I was going with "respond to the user in the place where they started the discussion," but obviously that's a moot point if that place is bound for deletion. I think giving the advice on the article's talk page is more appropriate in prod or AfD cases, which are longer processes and there's a higher likelihood another editor will try to save the article, but in CSD, filling the article talk page with messages we intend the author to read is problematic. In any case, thanks for copying my note over, and I do hope we get a translation from hewiki. Zachlipton (talk) 15:41, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

About Konstantinos Miaris
Dear Mr/Mrs Zachlipton, i finished my article about Konstantinos Miaris but can you explain why the 2 warnings on top of my page are still there?

I mean the note about notability guideline for biographies and the note about references that appear in reliable third-party publications.

thanks for your attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samanel (talk • contribs) 14:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for tip
on Importer of record. I added it to Wiktionary. Deletion in WP works for me. Oldtaxguy (talk) 04:32, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Sure thing and thanks for your understanding. It looks like it would be helpful over at Wiktionary. The easiest thing to do would probably be if you blanked the page and tagged it, which will alert an admin that you, the author, wish to delete the page. Thanks and happy editing! Zachlipton (talk) 04:44, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Spanos Industries 2
Hello again, I added the reliable sources as you adviced me to do. Please can you check now if it is OK and if the article can be published. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Spanos_Industries Many thanks in advance. Best regards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kala kala (talk • contribs) 07:25, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I just added the appropriate template to add the article back into the Articles for Creation review queue, where someone (possibly me) will review it shortly. Thanks for your contributions. Zachlipton (talk) 08:21, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Good morning. I can see that the article didn’t meet the criteria even I added the sources as I was suggested to. I added press release from Thessaloniki Chamber of Commerce and Industry, press release from Skopje Construction Magazine, verifying document that SPANOS Industries was involved in the project with another Construction company, reference from Italian Construction Company. Please can you direct me more, what I need to do in order to publish the article?

Many thanks once more and sorry for disturbing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kala kala (talk • contribs) 10:20, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi there. You're not disturbing at all. I'm not the one who reviewed it this time, but the issue is that press releases and similar promotional material don't count as reliable sources to establish notability. Please review the guidelines at WP:CORP. If the company meets these guidelines, then I suggest adding citations to reliable sources to demonstrate this and resubmitting the article. Otherwise, then I'm afraid the company isn't ready for a Wikipedia article at this time. WP:FAQ/Organizations may be of use to you as well. I hope this helps. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions. Zachlipton (talk) 08:27, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Basically, press releases are not reliable sources per the notability guidelines and the verifiability policy.  CharlieEchoTango ]] 09:28, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Good morning. I try to modify again the article and I hope that now it is OK. Regarding the press releases, in the case for company - they are reliable indicator how the company is operating. I read the guidelines and maybe i understood wrong. Please can you review my article? Many thanks again in advance. Kala kala (talk 13:11, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Isabelle de Borchgrave
Dear Zachlipton,

Thank you for your kind words of welcome. I am so pleased you liked my new article. The exhibition at the Legion is breathtaking. Here is how visual arts critic Sura Wood described it the other day in a Bay Area paper: "...the sheer inventiveness and originality of her work and the seamless illusion of fabric she weaves are nothing short of jaw-dropping. She must have a magic wand stashed somewhere." Enjoy! --Patriciathornton (talk) 16:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)Patriciathornton

Hello! Your submission of Isabelle de Borchgrave at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Johnbod (talk) 16:16, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

freedom of speech is important and wikipedia has disappointed me
MQM is not third biggest party of pakistan as they do not have third standing in upper or lower house. They were made by a dictator general zia ul haq and their gang leader lives here in uk as assylum seeker and run his terrorist organisation from here. i only quoted truth with evidence as i do not hate mqm i just hate their terrorism and actions against humanity. I think we should be allowed to state facts with evidence and i did used word alleged so it was not direct attack. It is not all that what it says on wikipedia. Lies and lies i hope you will allow people to provide evidence to sort of this terrorist organisation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.244.101 (talk) 20:24, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

i am appalled to see how you do now let me edit the truth? who runs you CIA? wikipedia is not reliable as freedom is speech is dictated by these dictators —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.197.244.101 (talk) 20:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello. I'm afraid I don't really understand why you are contacting me, as I have never edited Muttahida Qaumi Movement nor do I have any knowledge of the topic. However, what I can tell you is that Wikipedia presents information from a neutral point of view according to our verifiability policy. These are core policies of Wikipedia and any edits that do not conform to them are likely to be reverted. In addition, you were clearly engaging in an edit war, which is grounds for an immediate block regardless of who is "right." Before you attempt to edit Wikipedia again, I most strongly advise you to read these policies and the pages they link to in order to better understand how Wikipedia works and what kind of content we accept.


 * Whenever you're looking to make a change to an article that seems controversial, you should discuss the issue on the article's talk page first and not make any changes to the article until a consensus has been reached with other editors. Certainly if someone reverts your changes, you should not try to make them again (that's edit warring), but should go to the article's talk page and start a discussion. You can explain your reliable sources for the edit you want to make and work with others to determine the best way to handle the issue. That's how Wikipedia works. We're not the CIA, just a big group of volunteers who work together and discuss these sorts of issues instead of fighting over them. I hope this helps explain things to you and that you can gain a better understanding of Wikipedia's policies during this time you are blocked. Thanks.


 * One last thing. I highly encourage you to register for an account here. It will make it much easier for you to participate in discussions with other editors and to receive messages. Zachlipton (talk) 03:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Redirecting Isomethadone
Hi, you've redirected Isomethadone directly, the trouble is that it _is_ an isomer, so the physical stucture show on the methadone page is not correct, though of course chemically it's the same. 2829  VC 10:09, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Colonel Amiruddin
Hello Zachlipton. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Colonel Amiruddin, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  13:19, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Tree Shaping
Hi, your right of course. I apologizes. The talk archives are quite long so I understand no one wants to read through them, but if anyone did then they would understand my position. Basically Blackash has burnt out some 3 prolific wiki editors and one mediator. I'm just the last one standing to try attempt to protect my own name from a professional rival. Yea it was getting pissy, sorry I'll go back to my day job now. Good luck, hope you will stay around and get yourself up to speed on the talk archives.Slowart (talk) 20:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC) Real world clue http://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en&tab=nw#hl=en&sugexp=elsfph&xhr=t&q=Hi+this+is+Becky+arborsculpture&cp=31&pf=p&sclient=psy&site=webhp&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=Hi+this+is+Becky+arborsculpture&pbx=1&bav=on.1,or.&fp=cd4aedb2d07b3b5f Slowart (talk) 20:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I certainly understand and thank you for your openness about this. It's easy to get burnt out in these kinds of debates, especially when you consider that we're all here "for fun." I guess my question at this point is what your intentions are now regarding this issue. Certainly it's perfectly fine to disengage and leave the issue alone, though I very much don't want you to get the idea that any of us are trying to force you out of Wikipedia over this. On the other hand, I'm don't really see it being feasible for you to continue to edit articles in this topic if you are unwilling to give mediation a good faith try here (assuming Blackash and any others are also willing to do so), as the editing process inherently requires discussion and collaboration. So I don't want to see you go (nor I think "argument by exhaustion" is a good dispute resolution strategy here), but I also don't want to see this continue without all parties attempting to resolve the situation. Thanks. Zachlipton (talk) 03:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * This arguement between Blackash and Slowart started when Richard Reams(Slowart) tried to group other artists under Arborsculpture which is his marketing label.If you read the archives at any point this should be made clear.
 * Blackash has been continually attacked - see Grisium's talk page. There is proof that Richard Reams is Grisium - see my talk page.There are links to this.Sydney Bluegum (talk) 11:11, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Case in point.Slowart (talk) 15:09, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * If it were only "argument by exhaustion" that would be one thing, but as you can see, it's well beyond that. So my best bet here is to simply disengage, if others are willing to step in and save the article and related articles from being degraded.Slowart (talk) 19:28, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The accusation by Sydney Bluegum a single purpose account, was investigated and rejected. Repeated sock puppet accusation on my real world name, are simply bad form and one more good reason to quit.Slowart (talk) 15:59, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

Isabelle de Borchgrave
Hi Zach,

I wonder if you can help me with dealing with an "Orphan" heading that someone placed on my article on Isabelle de Borchgrave. I am not sure what this means and if I should simply remove it or do something to the article. I would greatly appreciate your participation, if you have time. Thanks.--Patriciathornton (talk) 18:53, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Patriciathornton
 * No worries. --Patriciathornton (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2011 (UTC)Patricaithornton

Hi
Could you review in my editor review? Thanks. -Porchcrop (talk 08:51, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Isabelle de Borchgrave
The DYK project (nominate) 06:02, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * This is really great news. Thanks for nominating this article.--Patriciathornton (talk) 20:27, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

request for removing speedy deletion
iam writing this new article ; i understand that I should create contents to the page ; and i have added the contents also if anything i have to correct pl inform me — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mm nmc (talk • contribs) 08:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries. The page had no content for some time, so it was tagged for deletion. I see it has some content now, so I removed the tags. In the future, I recommend making a userspace draft, which will give you a place to take your time writing and to only move your article into place when you're ready. Let me know if I can help with anything and again, welcome to Wikipedia. Zachlipton (talk) 08:27, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

IRC invitation
Because I have noticed you commenting at the current RfC regarding Pending Changes, I wanted to invite you to the IRC channel for pending changes. If you are not customarily logged into the IRC, use this link. This under used resource can allow real time discussion at this particularly timely venture of the trial known as Pending Changes. Even if nothing can come from debating points there, at least this invitation is delivered with the best of intentions and good faith expectations. Kind regards.  My 76 Strat  09:05, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thanks for the DYK nom, I really appreciate it! :) Agreatnotion (talk) 20:46, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

DYK for California Shine the Light law
Orlady (talk) 02:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

NPOV on California Fire Safe Council article
You added an NPOV to the California Fire Safe Council article, which refers to a discussion on the Talk page which must be resolved before the NPOV is removed. However, the Talk page has no discussion, just a reference to WikiProject California. I am the primary author of the California Fire Safe Council article and want to know what I need to change so that the NPOV can be removed.

Thank you. Oneroomschool (talk) 18:10, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Porchcrop
I guess I did get a little angry, but I'm getting on with life. Thanks.--Grahame (talk) 00:12, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Polygenism
There is a problem on the polygenism page a user called 2over0 is deleting information on purpose over and over he is deleting a section about Akhil Bakshi a scientist who claims races evolved on different continents becuase he has a personal bias against this information. He has spent the last 6 days deleting the sectione everyday (when 4 other users myself included) keep putting it back up. First he claimed the source was fine but too long, then he says the source is unreliable, then he says it is too long for wikipedia now he claims it is copyright... what will he claim next? he can not make his mind up, he will do anything to try and get the information censored becuase he doesm't like it, not an honest user he seems to spend his time deleting anything which goes against the out of africa theory. This guy needs a warning. 86.10.119.131 (talk) 16:26, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Responded over at Talk:Polygenism. Thanks. Zachlipton (talk) 21:09, 1 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for taking the time to look into this; your comments at the talkpage and FTN are thoughtful and well-considered.
 * Thank you also for respecting my preference to waive the advice at WP:DTTR. If I may quibble with your approach, however, it is generally considered that if one party notifies another that they are edit warring, they are themselves aware of the provisions. More importantly, please be aware that removal of copyright violations is one of the rare explicit exceptions to WP:3RR. I would also like to inquire where you feel I have been uncivil (per your comments at FTN). This is an honest question, as I care about the continuing decline in editorship, and consider that the rising culture of combative editing contributes directly. Feel free to be as general or as explicit as you like, and my email is open if you would prefer to make your points there. Regards, - 2/0 (cont.) 16:39, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I'm glad you took it the right way, as my intent was to try to move toward some kind of dialog instead of seeing editors revert each other and not to waive policy and warnings around. I was also trying to avoid directly taking sides and 3rr warnings tend to come in pairs. If the same situation came up again, I'd probably do a personal note instead, as I forgot just how strongly written the uw-3rr template is and this is a case where I certainly wasn't intending to allege bad faith. As far as the copyright violation exception, I'm aware of that and I understand where you're coming from, but since the reversions were happening over the course of a week and the amount of copied content was quite small, I wonder if you could have continued to revert to this partial revert, which I think was a nice compromise pending further discussion, or converted the copied portion to a quotation if possible? The real issue here is/was a content dispute, and I think it makes more sense to handle it that way.
 * As far as incivility, my intent wasn't to state that you were uncivil; 86.10.119.131 was the one calling you a troll and "not an honest user." As far as I know, you were civil, and to the extent my FT/N comment gave the impression that I thought otherwise, I apologize. I revised my comment slightly to clarify this. While you were certainly civil, I wonder whether some of the acrimony could have been averted with more explicit and verbose efforts to better communicate the issues with him/her up front. Quite possibly not, but worth a shot. He seems to have gotten the impression that he would be banned if he continued to discuss the issue. I'm not sure where this came from exactly, but it might have been aided with more explanation from you as to what's not ok (copyvio, edit warring, incivility) and what is (good faith discussion and citing WP:RS).
 * In any case, I appreciate your frankness and desire to reduce combative editing. Cheers, Zachlipton (talk) 19:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You make a good point on the value of in-depth discussion; my preferred mode of communication is to focus very narrowly at article talkpages on concrete discussions of improvements, but this could very well have been a situation where I might have tried a little harder. I admit that the accusations sapped my desire to invest the effort. I decided to do a clean revert of the copied material instead of reverting to my compromise proposal precisely because that would be edit warring to my preferred version, which would not have been clearly eligible for the narrow interpretation of the exception to 3RR. I am also unsure where the references to banning came from, though FTN has apparently seen someone from this range before. With the additional eyes I expect this should be resolved. And thank you for your other comments :).
 * Have you ever considered volunteering at Third opinion? I used to be involved a fair bit there, and you seem to have a good approach to it. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:32, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Here is Akhil Bakshi's scientific paper:

"CONTINENTAL DRIFT AND CONCURRENT EVOLUTION OF HUMAN SPECIES" A critique of the African-origin theory by Akhil Bakshi

Link

86.10.119.131 (talk) 15:45, 8 March 2011 (UTC)