User talk:Anachronist/Archives/2008

Armstrong Sperry GA review
I had signed up to do this review not ten minutes before you commented on the talk page. I see that you think the article is "excellent", but I agree entirely. I had written up an extensive review (failing the article), only to have my comments disappear from an edit conflict! :) I have them backed up, and still believe that the article does not fulfill the GA criteria, so what is there to do?  María ( habla  con migo ) 20:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you meant you disagree entirely.
 * Whoops! Yes.
 * I haven't evaluated the article against all the GA criteria, but feel that it meets most of them. As I wrote on the talk page, I read through it once and recorded my initial impression, expecting others like yourself to expand the section. Please post your responses. My comments were not intended to mean "this article passes for GA status". If you see areas of needed improvement, the authors of that article need to know about it.
 * There are quite a few areas that are needed for improvement, unfortunately. How about we put the nomination on hold and see where it goes from there?  I'll add all of my comments to the talk page and also remove my "reviewing" note on the GAC page.  María ( habla  con migo ) 21:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Edit conflicts happen to me all the time. If I find I spend a lot of time writing text in an edit window, I can be assured that someone else already revised the page before I get around to submitting my edits. So what I do is first highlight all the text I wrote and copy it to my clipboard. Then when I submit my edits, and an edit conflict occurs, I can still paste all my text and save it again. -Amatulic (talk) 20:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

new
Amatulic, read the explanation I just wrote on the Nur Ali Elahi talk page.--Octavian history (talk) 09:38, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Nur Ali Elahi
I am not really sure what to advise. I think we got more than we bargained for with the RfC. I think the COI issue applies to both parties in the dispute (or "applied", where one participant is concerned). From my point of view the subject is relatively obscure, and those with some kind of involvement with, or attachment to, the subject are the ones who are going to put forth any substantial effort toward the article (perhaps that could be said of any Wikipedia article; you aren't likely to find me putting a lot of work into the beets article). I had added the article to the Kurdish and Iranian WikiProjects, hoping that some editors involved with those efforts might be able to lend some assistance. Only one person (that I know of) responded as a result. I do think your recent talk page comments were on point. Not sure any of this helps but there you have it... -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:52, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Ankh, Hexagram, Chakra,
I am sorry, but addition of a material, which could be interesting and connected with article, was my desire only. If do not object, it is possible to leave only a photo. * Ankh model charkas system Shatilov Konstantin (talk) 11:53, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If you own the photos, then by all means upload them and incorporate them in the article. However, I recommend you cease adding links to your own web site to articles. That is a clear violation of Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines. -Amatulić (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Checkuser
Amatulic, I cannot help but comment on this malformed request. It is not a category F as Dr.Fix has never been blocked so there is no block evasion. You even note that the IP edits are so infrequent that even if all the users were one person, 3RR would not be violated. Furthermore, you note that there could be a failure to log in, which is ok. Why not just write to Dr.Fix and give suggestions about editing in WP, 3RR, etc. If this checkuser is run, then it could be used by others (not necessarily you, Amatulic, as fishing for his IP and location). Would you consider dropping your RFCU? That would be doing the kind and correct action. Archtransit (talk) 23:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Sure, no problem. I never used the checkuser function before. I originally had the category set to E, but changed it to F because no 3RR violation had yet occurred, but seemed iminent. I didn't realize that F was reserved for editors already blocked.
 * I placed the RFCU in anticipation of seeing the revert war continue, and didn't want to get embroiled in the argument already going on at the user's talk page (which already contains the advice you suggest, which seems to be ignored). I felt that a checkuser was necessary to have sufficient backup information when a violation actually occurred.
 * So, how do I "drop" the RFCU? -Amatulić (talk) 23:53, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * If I may, let the case run its course. I have changed the code letter back to E and let a CU decide whether or not a check is warranted. After a quick look at the page history, I am concerned too by the edits to this page. -- lucasbfr  talk 09:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * It seems my suspicions were confirmed; there is sockpuppetry going on. Thanks for allowing the case to run its course. -Amatulić (talk) 01:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Question
Hello Amatulic, I noticed you do quite a bit of vandalism-reversion. I was wondering, would you like me to grant rollback rights to your account? It will make vandalism-reversion much easier. Acalamari 22:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, although I am uncertain how "rollback rights" work?
 * I'd rather not be spending so much time reverting vandals. There are contributions I have in mind for articles, but whenever I get on Wikipedia, I find so many vandal edits in my watchlist, so I end up spending my available time reverting them. -Amatulić (talk) 22:25, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's just a simple reversion tool: it doesn't mean that you have to spend more time on Wikipedia if you are granted it. See New admin school/Rollback and Rollback feature. Acalamari 22:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, and it's faster that all other revert features, both Twinkle and popups. Acalamari 22:32, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, if you would grant it, please go ahead. I'd like to see how it works. Thanks! -Amatulić (talk) 22:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Granted. :) It is removable if you decided you don't want it. Good luck. Acalamari 22:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll keep it. After a few tests, it seems quite efficient. Thanks. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome! Acalamari 02:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion
Thank you for your third opinion. I realize that it was early to ask for a third opinion, and the article might fail an AfD, but it seemed like the conversation might fall to name calling so I asked for outside input. Thanks again for the uninvolved opinion. Runnynose47 (talk) 21:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * You're welcome, and I hope you can move past the dispute now. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:30, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your effort for the third opinion on the Mpemba effect. With other similar aggravations it has led me to leave Wiki-editing but you deserve an explanation for your trouble (I am Martin Chaplin). The other editor insisted that a quote was correct but it was neither correct nor correctly cited. He corrected these subsequent to my request for a third opinion. Also the text (whole section) citing the quote is clearly OR as it is disagreeing with the source and has no further source. After my changes had been reverted twice I requested your help. I am not editing any more but it is clear to me that the article is promoting someones POV and has no V & RS. 136.148.109.151 (talk) 11:24, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Your warning to me
I have responded on my talk page. The gist of my response is a request that you look at Dean A. Hrbacek and Talk:Dean A. Hrbacek and address the specific issues that I've raised. JamesMLane t c 23:11, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Sin and "weasel-like" phraseology
Fair enough!

And thank you for the correction !

Still learning,

— Wi ki sc ie nt  — 02:24, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Warning
Please do not leave messages like that on my talk page. I have many times added sources, people keep removing the sources. I have added alot of sources to back up what I have added to the shadow people page. So please in the future do not leave comments like that on my talk page or I will be forced to report you to the Wiki staff for personal attacks to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.38.213 (talk) 04:54, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No, you haven't supplied any sources that support the claims you add. All you have done is supply general web sites and phrases like "many other places". That's ridiculous.
 * You will continue being warned, and blocked, as necessary. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:06, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

That is a lie and that lie can and will be proven to the wiki staff if you continue anymore attacks (the shadow people page does have a history of edits and it clearly shows you have just lied). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.38.213 (talk) 00:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The "sources" you provided don't support the claims you added to the article. Your edit history speaks for itself - including your history of personal attacks. By all means, take it up with "the Wiki staff".
 * If you want to be constructive instead, and improve the article, then I suggest engaging in civil discussion on Talk:Shadow people. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion
I do hope that you will return to Mpemba effect to give your final thoughts. 17:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

MyPyramid
The external link cited contained educational information for children, one of the intended purposes of the MyPyramid system. It contains factual and referenced information. I've reverted the edit, and wanted to explain here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.137.214 (talk • contribs) 06:49 2008-04-15


 * And I have reverted it again. Please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's external linking guidelines, especially items 4, 6, and 8 under "Links normally to be avoided." Your site requires Flash for much of the content, it seems to require sign-up, and if you are associated with that site, you should be aware of the conflict of interest guidelines as well. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:33, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Napa and Sonoma counties climates
This surprised me (now that the storm has passed, I'm working at localizing Zinfandel for FR):

"Red berry fruits like raspberry predominate in wines from cooler areas such as the Napa Valley,[4] whereas blackberry, anise and pepper notes are more common in wines made in warmer areas such as Sonoma County [...]"

I thought that by all accounts, Sonoma's climate was cooler than Napa's, especially in the summer. --Arnaudh (talk) 20:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I was just going by the cited sources. Having been to both, it's hard for me to say. I speculate that Napa may have more elevation variations which may cause some critics to pronounce it cooler - especially around the Calistoga area. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

MBA
What was your MBA in? 68.148.164.166 (talk) 18:17, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
 * General MBA, but it seemed to concentrate on Finance. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:21, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Weasel Tag
Hello, I noticed you put a weasel tag at the homeschooling article I have been working on. I thought about starting the paragraph with "A sometimes used critical argument..", but that would still make it target for a weasel tag. So I went over to the avoid weasel words project page, but found no real help, and a discussion page full of complaints. I hope you have a suggestion for me on how to resolve the issue, I personally believe the other paragraphs make clear enough what's going on. I will put an extra reference to the source with Marcia Herman-Giddes to resolve the fact template issue. Thanks in advance, Species8473 (talk) 00:16, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I gave a shot at rephrasing to eliminate the weasel words - there were more than in just the sentence I tagged. Hope that helps. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:23, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks a lot, I do believe it looks better this way. Have a good day! Species8473 (talk) 00:33, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Third Opinion at Ted Kennedy
The third opinion you referenced was entered less than halfway through the discussion, despite the fact that it was out-dented. It was not a third opinion at all. Your advice at this point is solicited; would an additional request for a third opinion be appropriate? 02:11, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks; the article has been updated. 02:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Request for Third Opinion
I noticed that you are on the list of users offering "third opinions" in user disputes. I would like you to read User Talk:Bedford and offer your view. The issue is whether it is acceptable to use "The War of Northern Aggression" as a substitute for "American Civil War". Thank you. Broooooooce (talk) 05:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


 * A third opinion's purpose is to cast a tiebreaker in a dispute between two editors, and that isn't what's going on, and that argument seems to have played itself out. I don't regard "War on Northern Aggression" as an acceptable substitute for "American Civil War" - in most contexts. I can see some instances where it may be appropriate.
 * PS - thanks for reverting the vandalism on my talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters
Your resizing of the images in List of Tokyo Mew Mew characters is not being correctly done, nor are the reasons being given. There is no hard/fast requirement that thumbnails never have a set size. Indeed, if there were such limits, the thumb option wouldn't allow a size to be set at all. Many featured articles and lists use images with set sizes. Image use policy does not declare no image sizes should ever be set. MOS:IMAGES even notes that lead images should be at least 300 pixels wide, and all infobox images default to 250px. Please stop resizing the images in this list without discussion or reason. They are both very valid. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 21:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Are you reading the same policy? It's quite explicit: Images should generally not be set to a fixed size (i.e. one that overrides the preferences settings of the individual users, see the Manual of Style).


 * If you want to set a fixed image size, don't call it a "thumb". That's why we have user settings for thumbnail images sizes. The fact that you can designate an image as "thumb" and set a size isn't relevant here; the "thumb" designation is intended for being sized by user preferences. If you don't like the size of the thumbnails, please change your own settings, and follow the image use policy, rather than hard-coding a thumbnail size in the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:39, 3 June 2008 (UTC)


 * "should generally" does not equal never do it, and that whole statement is HIGHLY disputed from previous discussions I have read. The vast majority of readers have no accounts and many editors do not know how to change their preferences. Reducing the image to a tiny, useless block does NOT help anyone at all. Also, note that further down in the display image size, it notes "Where size forcing is appropriate" which it is in both of these cases, same as with infoboxes. The images are not thumbnails, they are tagged thumb to put a caption on them. If there is another way to do that without calling them "thumbs" please explain so. "Frame" can not be used as it won't allow an image to be resized. Also, note that WP:PIC also allows for resizing, including telling you how to do it and noting that you must use thumb to set a specific image size.-- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 21:54, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Suspected sock puppets entry
I see that you beat me to filing an SSP report on the IIPM users by a couple of days :-). Thanks for the correction. I didn't realize that User:Sonu1008 was the first editor. Anyway, I guess we'll need to stave off the socks with measures like SSP or RFCU because perma-protection seems to be a long shot. Cheers, Max - You were saying? 11:33, 11 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I think what happened was I created the entry, then got distracted by something before I finished the whole process, and didn't update the sockpuppet reporting page. Thanks for doing it again correctly. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi Amatulic. I have posted an entry on the IIPM talk page proposing an indefinite full protect. Please weigh in over there. If we get a consensus among all editors, we can then approach admins with a request to do the same. Makrandjoshi (talk) 12:26, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Your deletion of my talk page discussions
Dear Amatulic, I noticed you've deleted some paras that I had posted (rather, copy pasted). I understand the points you've written :-) Best regards, Mrinal Pandey (talk) 07:30, 26 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for understanding. Article talk pages aren't the place to be discussing peripheral content on user talk pages. Article talk pages discussions should focus on improving the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

AIV report
AIV is not the place to report bots. If the reqeust is urgent start a thread at ANI, if not leave a message at the operators talk page or the Bot owners' noticeboard. BJ Talk 01:31, 2 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I didn't know about Bot owners' noticeboard. I noticed the Recent Changes page filled up with a whole bunch of your edits reverting an unapproved bot, so my reaction was to report it somewhere. Didn't know at the time that you were an admin who probably had things under control. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:36, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, there are two different incidents here. The first was (two) malfunctions of [|this approved bot] that happened 5 days ago, was reported to ANI and the bot was subsequently blocked. Then today there was a minor error in this bot that is on trial. I was reverting the latter. BJ Talk 01:46, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Jehovah Witness and The Name of G-D
Hey, you better figure out a way to stop me from deleting JW wiki.... to much bad stuff in it, —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackhat sunday (talk • contribs) 15:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * or or whatever, if you have a specific complaint beyond a vague "too much bad stuff" then use the article's talk page to discuss it. That's what it's for. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:10, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Image:BobHeadshot.jpg DRV
Nice to see somebody using a bit of commensense. Cheers. --AussieLegend (talk) 09:06, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

French wine
I'm more than a little surprised at the edit summary of your edit to French wine where you leverage multiple accusations at me, for basically breaking every rule in the book, by simply restoring the article to a shape it has had for several months. The reason for me reverting the changes by wholesale rather than partially can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wine. Sure, some phrases could be improved, but right now the article is watered down a good way toward being meaningless! Are you seriously claiming that we do not say e.g. that high-end red Bordeaux is tannic, that Champagne is the world's most well-known sparkling wine and that more international grape varieties originate in France than in other countries? Is any of that the least controversial among those who know anything about wine??? Regards, Tomas e (talk) 20:29, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I accused you of nothing, other than restoring text that does break every rule. In particular, one I didn't mention in my edit summary was Avoid peacock terms. I've been meaning to take a crack at the French wine article for quite some time to clean up the peacock terms, unsourced editorializing, etc., but haven't had the time to do so. When I saw on my watchlist that someone else came along and basically did what I wanted to do, I was distressed to see you restore all that fluff.


 * I disagree that the article has been watered down to being meaningless. The relevant facts remain. While it is true that my reversion had the side effect of removing some statements (such as those you mention above) that I would have kept myself, overall I thought the Scaleshiper's version was an improvement. Rather than restoring all the fluff, I recommend putting back individual statements that are neither controversial nor unnecessarily promotional.


 * Even the shorter version I reverted to is still, in my view, poorly sourced and needs much improvement. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, it is C-classed and I think that's accurate, i.e., fairly useful but could be very much improved. I don't agree with much else you write above; but I continue on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Wine. Tomas e (talk) 22:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Feng shui COI
Hello,

Thank you for your comment on my talk page. Wikipedia Confilict of Interest: A Wikipedia conflict of interest (COI) is an incompatibility between the aim of Wikipedia, which is to produce a neutral, reliably sourced encyclopedia, and the aims of an individual editor.

COI editing involves contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups. Where an editor must forgo advancing the aims of Wikipedia in order to advance outside interests, that editor stands in a conflict of interest.

If you read my postings on the Feng Shui page you will find that I am seeking consensus on this page. All information on this subject that meets Wikipedia's requirements should be included. I am promoting a complete source on this subject.--Sedonafengshui (talk) 23:55, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It seemed to me that you have a goal of promoting information on a personal web site, which resulted in my note on your talk page. If I was mistaken in that impression, I apologize. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:26, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

that winery
be careful, if you start asking people on their talk pages to change their positions make sure you make it in a neutral way that only encourages people to take another look or inform them of new information not available at the time of the opinion, or else you can get in a lot of trouble.MY♥IN chile 16:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I asked you to reconsider your position because your argument indicated that you didn't read the AfD rationale. Whether the article is kept or deleted, I want the arguments in the discussion to be valid and meaningful. Your argument listed organizational attributes that have nothing to do with the subject of the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:34, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

French Camp Vineyards AfD
Hi Amatulic, I saw your comment on the French Camp Vineyards AfD page about withdrawing the nomination. I closed the AfD just now, citing your withdrawal and keep opinion as the reason. If you ever want to withdraw an AfD nomination in the future, you can always close the discussion yourself by following these closure instructions, or ask one of the regular AfD admins or non-administrative closing users. Have a nice day, :-)  Jamie ☆ S93  21:09, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Wine and food matching
I agree with you that this is somewhat of a mess, but I think it is salvageable. Bearian (talk) 20:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)


 * So do I. It would fail an AfD (the topic is notable), so there's no choice but to try and salvage it. Right now it looks like instructions on complying with personal opinions on how to match wine with things. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:15, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Noise music
Yes the prior editor Semitransgenic explained to me that I should add page #s - and I will. I was working from my notebooks and I am in Europe on vacation, but as soon as I get back to New York I will get the books out and add in the page #s.

But do you not think that 45 citations is enough?

Valueyou (talk) 07:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've left another note on Valueyou's page regarding his use of citations. My general feeling, having checked a couple of the recently added page numbers, is that the citations are being placed in a manner that will lead a reader to view all of the information presented as having come from the cited sources: but this appears not to be the case, as the user is evidently padding the text entries with POV and other related, but unsourced, information. There are general issues with tone which, from my reading of it, seem to be inappropriate in an encyclopedic context. What is your view on this? Semitransgenic (talk) 17:08, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Would you please look again at the heavy handed editing being done by Semitransgenic on the Noise music page. In my opinion Semitransgenic is overcutting my contributions and charging me with WP:SYN -- even though I am only correctly stating historical facts (and backing them up) and I have no bias POV here to put forth.

Semitransgenic told me he was a format "nazi", which is OK by me, but now Semitransgenic has made content judgements such as claiming "incorrect attribution".

BTW - I agree with you that page #s need to be supplied and they will when I get back to my books next month (I am on vacation and working from my notebooks).

Please look at Semitransgenic in this regard as I do not wish to waste my time and knowledge.

Thanks again. Valueyou (talk) 14:15, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Valueyou: I've checked the texts you cited, as stated earlier, some of the information is there, but the remainder is then added by you and attributed to somebody else. This is intentionally misleading, it is also WP:OR. Irrespective of your personal knowledge base, or academic qualifications, correct attribution is important. I placed my objections on the talk page as requuired. Semitransgenic (talk) 14:51, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Valueyou: please continue on Talk:Noise music. One of the tenets here on Wikipedia is to Assume Good Faith. Semitransgenic seems to recognize that you are attempting to improve this article, and is helping you out by verifying that the claims made in the article correspond to what the cited sources say. Take it as constructive collaboration rather than combative argument. If the content doesn't match the sources, then it's perfectly valid to question the content or the attribution. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:02, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Third opinion at Talk:Taser
Thank you for providing a third opinion at Talk:Taser, it's much appreciated. I added a few clarifications at Talk:Taser that may be helpful. I would appreciate it if you would revisit the dispute. Thanks! Flatscan (talk) 03:12, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi again. Since you haven't written a new comment at the discussion, I'm leaving a one-time reminder. Thanks. Flatscan (talk) 02:14, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Excuse me
How was I being a vandal? (Music of Sri Lanka) article. Please see the discussion I initiated in the talk pages before removing the tag without justification. 123.255.38.129 (talk) 04:46, 27 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I had no problem with your tag. However, you tagged a vandalized version of the article. I simply reverted all the vandalism, and that reversion also deleted your tag.
 * In the future, before you tag something or make any edit to an article, check to make sure that the previous edit wasn't vandalism. The previous editor before you had vandalized the lead sentence, then deleted the entire lead paragraph. 15:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, though the vandalism was not obvious. You should have just replaced the tag after your revert. That would have been the way to go. Regardless good edit (the last one you made). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.255.38.129 (talk) 15:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Spiteful Semitransgenic
Please see current spiteful dispute I am having with Semitransgenic at Tellus Audio Cassette Magazine and at the Noise music page. The issue is this: after a month of work I greatly improved the noise music page - providing wiki with an outstanding noise music page with extensive footnotes, some lacking only page # which I can provide in the near future (as previously explained a # of times), free of WP:OR & WP:SYN that stood for weeks. Semitransgenic then imposed a WP:OR deadline on my providing those page #s and when I challenged that arbitrary deadline Semitransgenic falsely accused me of sock-puppetry with the creator of the Tellus Audio Cassette Magazine - an outstanding wiki page started by Tellus archivist who has entered his resistance to Semitransgenic's dictates. (See talk page at Noise music) I strongly condemn Semitransgenic's tactics as he is doing it again at Tellus Audio Cassette Magazine in spite. More evidence of Semitransgenic abuse: he has seen the results of the investigation into his charges of sock/meat puppetry against me here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_checkuser/Case/Tellus_archivist) and knows (see his contrib page) me to be innocent of them -- yet he repeats them and has not apologized to me as he promised he would. As you can see, the result of his harassment was: "Clerk note: I've indefblocked Taxisfolder as an abandoned account but there is no overlap in activity or block evasion, so Valueyou is left alone. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:43, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

I ask here for a Consensus that disciplinary measures be taken against Semitransgenic as he is a bully and self-declared nazi (see the top of my talk page – that is how he introduced himself to me). I may or may not be of the Jewish faith, but either way I find this kind of macho posturing repugnant. He also addressed me as “dude” later on in my talk page and as I am not of the male sex, I find that sort of address sexist. So, I am seeking a Consensus to out Semitransgenic from the music section of wiki as clearly he has no love of music or the artists who make it. I don't see any constructive contributions by Semitransgenic other posting ugly flag signs where talk on the discussion page would be better because these signs drive away users of wikipedia by making it look half-ass. I suggest that he be asked to go work on the Nazism page and leave the music section to those who love music. Valueyou (talk) 11:20, 12 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry to waste your time with this but for the record above user (et al.) is throwing a tantrum becasue they don't like regulations. Issue starts here. Long history of problematic behaviour, account swapping over 2 year, see comment by clerk. User believes real world credentials overules policy.


 * Are you an expert in this field? I am offering primary source information. This is differnt than a POV. They are important as a group not because some book said they are, but by their productivity - with which I am aware.


 * This is a fresh and emerging history and I would think that a PhD who has worked as an archivist at the Dia Art Foundation could offer such a list without a book saying it is OK. Valueyou (talk) 15:17, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * user is now engaging in flaming campaign as part of their protest. Semitransgenic (talk) 11:31, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is the above on my talk page? Valueyou, please take a wikibreak until you can return home to your books.

How someone presents himself on his userpage is irrelevant, and an honest mistake about gender is also irrelevant. Semitransgenic has been engaging in discussion on the talk page, asking for verifiable, reliable sources, and stating that claims made in the article aren't supported by the sources he has. Semitransgenic's impatience has led to personal attacks, which I don't condone. Both of you have utterly failed WP:AGF.

Please, don't carry out a behavioral dispute on the talk pages of users who aren't involved. If you want me involved, state exactly what you want me to do. I can offer advice, but remember I am not an administrator. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Apologies for this. I forgot to to get back here and clean up. Things got out of hand. I had no desire to engage you in any of this.The user in question cross posted the above in a number of locations. Won't happen again. Semitransgenic (talk) 20:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Intelligent design
Intelligent design has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. Orange Marlin Talk• Contributions 21:32, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Links to Blogs
I think that the two links that I added and you removed can be very helpful for Wikipedia users. Does it matter that they are on my blog. I know that these links do not affect search engine ranking (which does not interest me). I just think that this information is useful for people who write book reviews, etc. Many thanks, Avior.

Two things: ~Amatulić (talk) 18:41, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
 * External links guidelines are very clear. Blogs are not considered reliable resources for external linking in Wikipedia, unless the blog author is a recognized authority. You may be a recognized authority in musicology, but you are adding your blog links to unrelated articles such as graduate school.
 * The external linking guidelines are explicit that you should not add links to your own web site. Please also review Conflict of interest.

I understand what you wrote yet I think that you miss the point of these links. One should judge the relevance of these links to Wikipedia users only according to their content. I do not know your background, yet many graduate students (also from fields other than musicology) found the pages that I added very helpful. Please read their content carefully and judge for yourself. This is NOT spam. Some blogs are not reliable. Some authors try to promote their blogs by adding links to content that has nothing to do with Wikipedia's content. I argue that this is not my case. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviorbyron (talk • contribs) 16:46, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Please note that although the address of the link contains the word blog, the page appears in "resources" in the upper menu of my site. In other words, this is not a simple blog page, but something that I feel that has more authority and interest. This is why I stil think the link should be returned. Can I return the link? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviorbyron (talk • contribs) 16:46, 3 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Please review Wikipedia's external link guidelines as well as the guidelines concerning conflict of interest. Have you read them? There is no need to debate with me, I don't make the rules. Bottom line, you are not to put links to your own web site on Wikipedia. If you feel the links are appropriate, suggest them on article talk pages and let the community decide. Several articles to which you added those links were not appropriate. For now, I'm leaving the links you added to Pierrot Lunaire alone, because you seem to be an authoritative voice on the subject, having published in a journal rather than a personal web site. If you add your own links to other unrelated pages without getting community approval on the talk pages, they will be reverted. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:06, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

I am new to Wikipedia. Could you please tell me how to do that (getting community approval on the talk pages)? Many thanks, Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviorbyron (talk —Preceding undated comment was added at 05:27, 6 November 2008 (UTC).


 * It's simple. At the top of each article there is a series of tabs. The "Discussion" tab is the article's talk page. Introduce yourself on the talk page, and say you have a page on your site that you believe may be appropriate as an external link in the article. Request that someone place it on the article if the link seems appropriate.
 * If you have a link that qualifies as a source under the Verifiability and Reliable sources policies, then you can use it in the article as an in-line citation in the article text, rather than a link down in the "External links" section. Citations are always preferable. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

heavy metal umlaut
Concerning your recent edit on heavy metal umlaut, please take a look at my contribution at the talk page – the tag was set because the name "heavy metal umlaut" is doubtful, not the fact that umlauts are used. (If you like to respond, I propose the article's talk page, not your talk page.) Best regards --Cyfal (talk) 15:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I responded on Talk:Heavy metal umlaut ~Amatulić (talk) 17:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

List of Common Misconceptions
Yes, it is. I work in a biological laboratory, in a building (Whitehead Biomedical Research Building of Emory University) with at least 50 other biological research laboratories within it. Nearly everyone I meet considers EtBr a potent carcinogen and teaches incoming students the same. There was a similar situation in biological laboratories at my undergraduate institution, Tulane University. This is a common misconception among biological scientists. If you are not trained in a biological field or in some way acquainted with modern laboratory research, please simply do not revert my edit next time. I apologize for editing your talk page here but I am unfamiliar with communicating with anyone who has reverted an edit of mine. Please let me know if my method of communication is unkind. Also, do you mind if I steal your talk page layout / "Helpful Information" box?Pwhitwor (talk) 19:57, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi. I disagree that your addition qualifies as a "common" misconception. The list of common misconceptions article concerns misconceptions common to the general population, not a subset population of specialists.
 * I don't mind you conversing on my talk page; that's what it's for. Feel free to copy what you want from it. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:52, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree that not everyone has heard of EtBr, but believe that despite the introduction of the article referring to the general populace, the list is meant for misconceptions that affect simply a significant percentage of the general populace. Because there is a large number of universities, at which many students have taken biology courses in which EtBr is used, I believe this misconception qualifies as "common enough."  Other misconceptions on the list seem likely to affect a similar or smaller number of people; for example, that ENIAC was the first digital computer, that a Crookes Radiometer does not rotate due to radiation pressure, and that the motion of a pendulum is only isochronic when the small angle approximation applies. Pwhitwor (talk) 23:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The examples you mention are familiar to students at or below the high school level. Students haven't developed specialized fields of expertise by then. I seriously doubt that the small subset of biology students, and the even tinier subset of students who are exposed to knowledge about EtBr, qualifies as "common".
 * In any case, I will not revert you if you restore it with qualifiers stating that this is a misconception among biologists. The general reader would otherwise have no idea what you're talking about. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:23, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I disagree with your characterization of biology students as a "small subset," but understand your desire for qualifiers. Is the statement concerning EtBr all right as it is now?  ("Ethidium bromide, despite its reputation in biological laboratories, is considered a possible mutagen but is not a known carcinogen.")  The "reputation in biological laboratories" is a pretty good qualifier, but let me know if you don't like it or have something in mind.  Pwhitwor (talk) 17:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Biology students who have been exposed to EtBr are a small subset of the general population. In any case, the qualifiers are fine. Don't be surprised if someone else deletes what you add for the same reasons I did, however. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:39, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Reinsurance page
I'm not sure why you keep deleting the link to GC Capital Ideas on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinsurance. If I were listing our corporate website, that would be a different story. But, GC Capital Ideas contains a substantial amount of information from which readers of the Reinsurance page may benefit. The research has been cited in several major publications (such as the Wall Street Journal, Financial Times and Economist). Google News has recognized GC Capital Ideas as an independent news source. Each of the users referred by Wikipedia has viewed several pages, suggesting the site's value as a source of information.

Also, on the Catastrophe Modeling page, how can you refer to the GC Capital Ideas link as "link spam" when you have allowed its use in five citations? Doesn't that suggest its value as a deeper source of information?

I understand the need to control link spam, and I absolutely agree with it. Yet, I do suspect that a knee-jerk reaction could deprive readers of useful information that has been carefully researched and written.

Guycarp (talk) 17:58, 9 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The links are being removed, and will continue to be removed, per the guideline Conflict of interest. Because you are associated with the site, you should not be adding links to it in Wikipedia articles due to your conflict of interest. I reviewed the site, and the links appear to me to be an indirect attempt to promote services.
 * Submit your links for consideration on the article talk pages instead. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

William Bull Brewery
Regarding your note to another editor at William Bull Brewery about not removing a speedy deletion tag: that restriction only applies to an article's author. See WP:CSD (and the text of the speedy templates themselves). —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:28, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I already knew that. However, in this case the author of that article and the editor who subsequently removed the speedy tag have substantially similar edit histories, leading me to suspect some sockpuppetry going on. Therefore I felt it appropriate to provide a harmless warning if indeed the editor and author were associated. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:33, 11 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, OK, I see: Billrobo created the original De Bortoli article, so there's reason to think they're working together. —Largo Plazo (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

1/ Is it possible to please reinstate the William Bull Brewery page? (please note that there many other Brewery and Micro-brewery articles on Wikipedia that have been treated more delicately). Alternatively, please provide some details of dispute resolution mechanisms.

2/ I always assumed Wikipedia editors are expected to update areas of expertise - the pages that have been created and edited fall into that category.

3/ The sockpuppetry accusation / slander is interesting. In most other areas of life mentoring the young is considered an honourable enterprise, but I can understand the issues of control faced by Wikipedia which cause (unfortunately justified) paranoia.

Sadly, the major outcome of the not too subtle approach has been the disillusionment of a young and potentially enthusiastic Wikipedia editor (and the disappointment of an existing editor).

Thanks for help with this. Billrobo (talk) 00:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Billrobo, thanks for engaging in discussion. To answer your points:
 * To reinstate a page that has been speedily deleted, you can appeal to the administrator who deleted it (User talk:Anthony Appleyard), or you can simply re-create the article. Be warned, however, that any article failing to meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion (particularly Notability) are subject to deletion. Also bear in mind that an article must exist on its own merits. "Other articles like this exist" is not a reason to keep an article here. If other articles also fail to meet notability requirements, they should also be deleted. William Bull Brewery, unfortunately, is far too new to have achieved any notability. In a year or two, maybe it will warrant an article. For now, I suggest the best solution would be to create a section on "Other business ventures" in De Bortoli Wines, mentioning William Bull Brewery and any other spin-off businesses.
 * You are welcome to update articles in your area of expertise. However, the edit patterns of you and Beckycakes strongly suggest a conflict of interest. That's a different issue than merely editing in your area of expertise. Please read the Conflict of interest guidelines. You shouldn't be creating articles about business entities with which you are associated. Instead, you can request that an article be created at Requested articles. The William Bull Brewery article in particular appeared to be an advertisement, as does 3Tales currently under deletion review. Advertisements masquerading as articles isn't permitted.
 * There was no slander, only an allegation. Many companies try hard to gain exposure on the English Wikipedia. Evidence of relationships between two accounts can be gleaned from editing patterns. If you are mentoring another editor to write articles about the business entities you work in, you are compounding a conflict of interest, especially when the results appear to be, essentially, advertising.
 * As to disillusionment, well, sometimes learning isn't easy. Wikipedia has many policies and guidelines. Editors are responsible for their actions. In this case, your actions have only resulted in deletion of some contributions. Fortunately they don't rise to the level of needing to block access to Wikipedia. Hope this helps. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:01, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguating that which is already specific
Hi again. I saw that you added a hatnote to Steven Weber (professor). That really isn't necessary, is it? If someone's typed in "Steven Weber (professor)", then that person already knows which Steven Weber he is looking for and doesn't really need to know about other Steven Webers. If the person came here through a link, then as well the person would likely not need to know about other people sharing that name. Just curious, particularly since I removed a bunch of hatnotes that the Australian duo had added to articles like this, which at the time I took as another attempt to get more pairs of eyes to go to pages with links to their articles. —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:43, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


 * It's not wrong to reference a disambiguation page in the event that there are alternate spellings of a name that a reader may be interested in, but I see your point. I won't object if you remove them again.
 * I only stuck it back in because I've made use of such things in the past myself when reading specific pages, to get information about related subjects that aren't appropriate to list in the "See also" section of the article. In that sense, it is useful to know what other articles exist with similar names. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:53, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's true if the topics are related. Some cosmically-oriented people would see having the same name as indicating some deeper relation, but I don't. :-) —Largo Plazo (talk) 19:56, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * If the topics are truly related, they would go in the "See also" section. I personally like seeing links to articles with similar names in a disambiguation note, but as I said, I won't object if you remove it from the "Steve Weber" article variants. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:34, 12 December 2008 (UTC)