User talk:Basket of Puppies/Archive 3

Welcome
Hello, Basket of Puppies, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   and your question on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer. Here are a few good links for newcomers: We hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on talk and vote pages using four tildes, like this: &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! -- moe.RON   Let's talk  01:20, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style


 * Great! Thanks, Moeron! Basket of Puppies  02:29, 2 January 2009 (UTC)

Colorware
Hello, I had recently posted an article on the subject of Colorware. I noticed that you have marked it for deletion and understand your status as an administrator on Wikipedia and was wondering what could be added to this article to further show its reasoning for staying on Wikipedia. If you could PLEASE contact me as to how I could keep this article from being deleted, would GREATLY appreciate it! I feel that on the basis of this article being deleted for its 'promotional' status is argumentative because my reasons for writing this article was not to promote it but was to create an area of understanding in what the company does as well as its notability in both nationally/internationally recognized magazines and websites. Also I can assure you that this article is not a 'one-edit' type of article that can be found on Wikipedia, but rather one that will have continuous changes in which I plan to improve upon for my college class that this has been written for. Please contact me on how this article can be improved upon so that it fits ALL criteria to remain as a Wikipedia article. Thank you and best regards! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicogsu (talk • contribs) 03:56, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Autoconfirm?
helpme I am just wondering when I might be put into the autoconfirm group? I don't mind having to type in the code in order to edit but just looking forward to when it'll go away. :) Thanks! Basket of Puppies  20:34, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Autoconfirm should be granted shortly to you, after 4 days and 10 edits. I wish there was some way to grant you it, but unfortunately it is impossible. Just hang in there, it should go away soon. NuclearWarfare  contact me My work  20:37, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahh, good to know. It'll be soon. Thank you, NW!!!! Basket of Puppies  20:39, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hello!
Hey, Puppies! I saw your version of Geoff Norcott. The person that tagged it with should have tagged it with. So, it really needs to be rewritten to take out the weasel words. I have also made you your own sandbox do you can go there and try out all the cool little gidgets and gadgets that Wikipedia has! Follow this link User:Basket of Puppies/sandbox. In it, I have also made an example article to guide you on the format that basic wikipedia articles should follow! If you need help or have questions, I pretty much live here and you can contact me anytime on my here or email mee through my main userpage! Happy editing!--Sallicio$\color{Red} \oplus$ 21:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Help!
helpme Sorry to bother you, but I think I've somehow broken the ref list from appearing at Talk:Spontaneous_cerebrospinal_fluid_leak. Can you help me get it back? Basket of Puppies 18:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ - When you try to call a reference for the second time as you did, make sure to include a / at the end of the tag: . Otherwise the page thinks you're making a new reference, comprised of the entire remainder of the page. It's fixed now, though. Hers fold  (t/a/c) 18:33, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of "Fibrin glue"
A page you created, Fibrin glue, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is very short and provides little or no context.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you.  Blanchardb - Me•MyEars•MyMouth - timed 15:50, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on getting this past the Speedy delete that was rather premature. There is an adoption project at you may wish to have a look at if you are interested. I'd be happy to assist if you wish, just drop me a line. Best regards. Paste Talk 16:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your reply, do I take it that you do not want me to adopt you as that is what I was offering, no problem if you don't? Paste Talk 16:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, have a look at your adoption page it will give us a starting point. Regards. Paste Talk 16:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * By the way remember to put the adoption page on your Watchlist so you'll see any changes. Paste Talk 16:57, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Check! Basket of Puppies  17:02, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Rollback
Hi. I've fulfilled your request. Please review WP:RBK or ask me for any help. Pedro : Chat  07:36, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

The Motley Moose
Heh, very appropriate moniker you have there, beautiful puppies. Anyway, I noticed you contributed in the AfD discussion for The Motley Moose. I appreciate your input, but I might have something that will satisfy your desire for more sources. Yesterday, a couple of users who had voted delete went through and dramatically changed the page; here's what it looked like before they did so- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Motley_Moose&oldid=277928852. If you think that version is also lacking, no problem- I just wanted to bring this to your attention. Thanks again for your input! Ks64q2 (talk) 04:16, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Order of the Black Skull
Hi, I created the page "Order of the Black Skull" that was deleted. It gave your name as a reference for rolling it back. It is a quasi-secret, really more invitation only, fraternity of docs and students form the Caribbean. It was quite challenging to create and it was deleted by a guy who has deleted many, many pages without warning. The grounds for deletion were that it was a club that failed to show its relevance. We have over 10,000 members, were est. in 1978, and have chapters in 21 countries.

Any ideas?

Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cup of Asclepius (talk • contribs) 16:43, 18 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, Cup! How are you? It's sunny and really beautiful here so I am glad to be alive! So I read the article which you wanted included here in Wikipedia. The problem is, as far as I understand it, is this club is so secret that there isn't any independent press about it. If there were a few newspaper articles written about it, a book, an investigative report, etc and those things could be easily references then I think it might be able to pass the "notability test". I think you should read up WP:N for some more info. Sorry I can't be of more help. :( Basket of Puppies  17:20, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Peteandfayjones.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Peteandfayjones.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like PD-self (to release all rights), (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 18:25, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Page blanking
Please will you not describe removal of a reference as "page blanking" and remove your related warning from my talk page. There is nothing ambiguous about the situation. A link to a private medical office is not a feasible reference, please convince yourself at WP:MEDMOS that self published materials are not valid references. Furthermore a link to a private business constitutes advertisement for the commercial purpose of that site and constitutes spam for that reason. By this nature such links also constitute a conflict of interest. Sources have to be neutral and peer reviewed. They preferably represent broad medical consensus as reflected in secondary sources. There are guidelines. Please read them. The article now almost exclusively sources to Dr. Hains commercial activities, and this has to be removed. This has now been on the associated talk page for sufficient time to be answered in a meaningful way. That one or more editors think the source is such an authority that we can skip or override the sourcing guidelines seems to be a misunderstanding of WP policies. 70.137.153.83 (talk) 00:14, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Nwcinside2.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Nwcinside2.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like PD-self (to release all rights), (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 20:37, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Nwcinside5.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Nwcinside5.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like PD-self (to release all rights), (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. Additionally, if you continue uploading bad images, you may be blocked from uploading. STBotI (talk) 20:38, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Nwcinside6.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Nwcinside6.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like PD-self (to release all rights), (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 20:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

New Waveland Cafe and Clinic
New Waveland Cafe and Clinic is now listed as a good article. Congrats. — LinguistAtLarge • Talk  22:50, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Well done indeed, that's quite an achievement. -- Paste Let’s have a chat. 21:14, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Just in case you haven't had had had had had had had had had had had enough...
I'm hoping to keep the conversation about this article active and avoid the usual fleeing from a topic that takes place after an AfD has closed. There was much talk about merging this article but little agreement on where to merge it to. Therefore I am informing everyone who participated in the debate of the ongoing conversation here in order to bring this matter to a close sometime in our lifetimes. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:02, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Eep! Ok, I'll comment. Thanks for letting me know! :) Basket of Puppies  03:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
— LinguistAtLarge • Talk  03:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Re. Awwwww thanks
It's not a problem. You're the one doing lots of work. :P Lәo(βǃʘʘɱ) 14:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Automatic processing of your editor review
This is an automated message. Your editor review is scheduled to be closed on 13 June 2009 because it will have been open for more than 30 days and inactive for more than 7. You can keep it open longer by posting a comment to the review page requesting more input. Adding  to the review page will prevent further automated actions. End of line. DustyBot (talk) 10:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Shin vs. Sin
Hi Basket of Puppies. I noticed that you made an edit to the article Beit Shikma which removed the Shin dot from the Hebrew text. You wrote in the edit summary that it showed a Sin dot, but this is not the case. I have reverted your edit. If you are convinced that you are seeing a Sin dot, please upload a screenshot and send me the link, I'd be interested to know what it looks like; it is possible that some nikud is malformed for some readers who do not have Hebrew fonts like David and Narkisim. Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 04:34, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi again! Thanks for sending the screenshot. It does look awful. I didn't know that Mac users saw it like this. If you have time, please help me diagnose the problem so that I may fix it for all Wikipedia readers. I need the following information:
 * What web browser are you using? Can you try viewing the page in multiple browsers and telling me the results? I'm especially interested in Safari (the native browser), IE and Firefox, however, if you have others like Opera, Google Chrome, etc. that would be great.
 * Can you please check if you have a font called David? If not, Narkisim? The screenshot looks like David, but there are so many similar fonts that I can't tell for sure.
 * Can you try to open an office suite or charmap (is there an equivalent on Mac?) and write some words with nikud with the David or Narkisim fonts if you have them? just write a sentence or something. See if it looks proper, then copy&paste to a Wikipedia page and save (with the lang-he-n template) and post a link.
 * If you can do these things, I would be really greatful! And probably any Mac user who understands Hebrew.
 * Thanks, Ynhockey (Talk) 21:10, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It renders fine on all Windows-based browsers I have tried. If this is only a Mac + Firefox problem, I'm wondering if I should add it to the documentation. Do you have any other browsers to test it on? Thanks again, Ynhockey (Talk) 00:40, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be great if you could fire a BugZilla report, and I will add to it if anything is required. Since I don't have a Mac and you said you didn't have the fonts anyway, maybe this isn't something I can add to, but we'll see. Being anti-Firefox (and pro-Opera ;)), I have never used FF much or filed any bug reports. I will add the documentation to the relevat template on Wikipedia. Cheers, Ynhockey (Talk) 01:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

ERPs
I've tried to answer your question at Talk:Event-related potential. Let me know if it's too jargon-y or difficult to follow, r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 01:41, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Veitshakmah.png
The problem with the image was that you'd tagged it as a nonfree Wikipedia screenshot: not sure why you did this, but as a result, it was automatically removed from your talk page because nonfree images aren't allowed on talk pages, and then it was deleted as orphaned because nonfree images must be used in an article. I brought it up at MCQ, where it was agreed that the image fits PD-textlogo; therefore, I'm restoring it. Please feel free to restore it to your talk page. Nyttend (talk) 23:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You actually may have to wait a bit: as you may know, the servers have been working slowly in the last few days, and I get an error message whenever I try to restore it. If I've not restored it in the next day or two, remind me that you're still waiting.  Nyttend (talk) 23:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Teva Learning Center
I went to the discussion page, as asked. I responded. I am trying to build this page, but you, or someone, deleted all of the stuff I jsut posted. I don't really understand why... There are plenty of companies that have pages on here. Why is Teva any different? As well, this whole, html/text based communication is really frustrating. Is there another way to pass information on from one to another besides editing pages and hoping that the person sees the message? I'm not a computer programmer and it seems like this site is designed for someone like that, also a frustration. Tevacenter (talk) 18:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Replied on their talk page, asking to keep the discussion centralized at the article talk [Talk:Teva_Learning_Center#Sorry|here]. Basket of Puppies  18:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Orly
Hi - just FYI - the deletion of Orly Taitz is being contested .. Thought you might want to chime in :) Luminifer (talk) 22:00, 3 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Um, why bother keeping a blank section in the article? If people find information they'll add it in. In the meantime it does a disservice to readers, looks ugly, and will make people who see it more inclined to argue for deletion in the AfD. JoshuaZ (talk) 00:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
 * JoshuaZ, I've replied on your talk page :D Basket of Puppies  01:42, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Caribbean Accreditation Authority for Education in Medicine and other Health Professions
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Caribbean Accreditation Authority for Education in Medicine and other Health Professions, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.fsmb.org/pub_inmeded_vol2_num1.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 15:24, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Dropped a note on the bot owner's talk page indicating that this is very much a false positive. Basket of Puppies  15:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Academy for Jewish Religion (California)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Academy for Jewish Religion (California), and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Academy for Jewish Religion. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page&mdash; you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally moving or duplicating content, please be sure you have followed the procedure at Splitting by acknowledging the duplication of material in edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 05:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Copyright issues
Hi, so how's it going? I note however that you've had a few tags ref copyright issues. Do you need any assistance? All the best. Paste Let’s have a chat. 12:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, Paste! Long time no chat! Regarding these copyright issues, I am completely miffed! I created a new article as a stub with one line or handwritten content. Somehow Corenbot thinks that the one line that I wrote is copyrighted. It's not even close, which is odd. I dropped a note on the bot owner's talk page letting him know that it's issuing false positives. I think it's just a technical glitch. :P Thanks for writing! Basket of Puppies  15:04, 13 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Glad to hear it, do keep in touch. Paste  Let’s have a chat. 18:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

a whole basket!
...of puppies! How nice!!!! (I'm just one puppy, myself.) KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 18:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Aren't they adorable? Should we form an association of puppies who edit the wikipedia? Basket of Puppies  19:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A puppy cabal? The idea has merit! KillerChihuahua ?!?Advice 13:47, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Puppy Cabal! BWAHAHAH! Let's do it! Basket of Puppies  14:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
 * baa..wwWOOF support from the big lovable mut! Surely it is our duty to pawn this site! ;-) — Ched :  ?  05:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * pawn the site. *headdesk* Basket of Puppies  13:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * I LOVE IT! Basket of Puppies  02:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Template:Dont Hangon
Hi there. I just noticed you created Template:Dont Hangon and used it and I wanted to ask you to not use the template anymore. It's confusing to new users, unnecessary and makes the process for admins harder because it cannot be automatically removed. Unlike proposed deletion, speedy deletion does not need endorsement or contesting to be used, criteria just need to be met and the admin needs to decide to delete it. Regards  So Why  18:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, SoWhy. I am SO SORRY! I didn't realize it would be so poorly received. I really just thought there should be a way to endorse a speedy deletion. I am so, so sorry! I feel really horrble. Sorry. :( Basket of Puppies  18:19, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't feel bad. The thought was not that bad, it's, well, just not needed. Allow me to explain: I assume you created the template because of the existence of prod2? Unfortunately, they are two different methods of deletion. Proposed deletion is a way to delete articles without using articles for deletion because the tagger things the deletion is uncontroversial. For this purpose, prod2 serves to indicate that someone else agrees with the reasoning. Speedy deletion on the other hand is separate from AFD and as such, is entirely depending on the reviewing administrator's decision whether the page should be deleted. No matter how many people endorse it, they can still decline the speedy. As such, there is no need to endorse the tagging. On the other hand, the creator might felt more bitten if multiple people ask for the article to be deleted, especially if the tagging was incorrect. Hence I wanted to leave you this message. I can delete the template for you if you like. Instead of endorsing speedy deletions, you could help improving incorrectly tagged articles. For example, I have brought 6 articles to WP:DYK level which were tagged for speedy deletion, using simple Google News searches. :-) Regards  So Why  18:46, 31 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Don't forget to feel free to ask any questions - possibly before creating something new? :-)-- Paste Let’s have a chat. 19:43, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:Dont Hangon
Template:Dont Hangon has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. --darolew (talk) 21:49, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Hello Basket of Puppies. I have gone ahead and speedy deleted this template, since you seem to agree and understand that it wasn't such a good idea. As SoWhy said above, you shouldn't feel bad. Mistakes are made by everyone; you have learned from this and so all is well in the world. WP:BOLD is an important policy—and so what you did was fine. Sometimes, though, it doesn't hurt to get some feedback before doing things. If you would ever like some advice or just an opinion, feel free to ask! Most editors and administrators—including me—will be happy to help in any way we can. ÷seresin 04:53, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * *weak smile* Yes, I understand now. Thanks, Seresin. Basket of Puppies  11:33, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Don't let it get you down. :-) If you need any help, feel free to ask. Regards  So Why  11:38, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Your RfA
Hi. Unfortunately, I have closed your RfA early per WP:SNOW. Please do not be discouraged, many admins pass on their second attempt and you are likely to do the same if you continue to be an asset to the community. All the best, \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 03:47, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Sigh. I understand. I really thought I had an excellent chance at RfA this time and am sad that it was closed as SNOW so soon after opening. I honestly didn't expect that. I promise to take to heart the rationales for the opposing votes and learn from this. Basket of Puppies  03:52, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you have need any help in understanding some adminny stuff, don't hesitate to ask me or any other admin - I'm more than happy to give some assistance where required any most admins would be willing to do the same. \ Backslash Forwardslash / (talk) 03:58, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Request for Admin'

 * Hi, sorry to see that this didn't work out in the way you hoped. However, as the editor that adopted you I feel that I must say that I am pretty surprised that you didn't discuss it with me first as I could have given you some advice that may have helped. If you feel that the adoption process is no longer required then I'll gracefully withdraw and stop watching your progress. All the best. -- Paste Let’s have a chat. 08:14, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Jack Herer's death
His death has not yet been verified, with competing sources saying he is still alive in critical condition. Viriditas (talk) 23:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

CSD
Just FYI, Lagu Ular Naga, which you tagged as G1 (patent nonsense) was tagged incorrectly; it's not patent nonsense, but an article in a foreign language. I deleted it as A1 instead (not enough context to identify article subject). r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 01:18, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * How interesting! It did not come up in a foreign font, so I take it that it is a latin-based language? Either way, thanks for the note! Basket of Puppies  01:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know what language it was (maybe one of the Turkic languages), but it definitely looked like language, not just keyboard-mashing. r ʨ anaɢ talk/contribs 01:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks...
...for - no idea where my head was. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:23, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
 * My pleasure! I've been patrolling ANI recently helping to be a wikignome and tie up any loose ends. Basket of Puppies  14:34, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Fairly Notable.
Vietnam Securities Indexes, would be extremely notable in Vietnam. Just a friendly reminder all it has to do to pass csd is claim notability. You may wish to Prod or AFD. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:00, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see that now. Thank you for the note! Basket of Puppies  04:02, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Article does not meet criterion
I declined speedy deletion for Sheikh Nizam Yaquby, since that article fails WP:A7; it obviously credibly asserts importance. Please read or reread our policy Criteria for speedy deletion. &mdash; Sebastian 06:46, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops, I didn't see the two references at the end of the article. Yes, I agree that it does assert notability, tho it likely fails the WP:N threshold. Basket of Puppies  09:04, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Superduperblah
Thanks, I was about to do that - even got an edit conflict with your notice. :) 98.248.33.198 (talk) 19:56, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Re ANI inform
Thanks for informing 58.69.73.209 about my ANI thread on them, I completely forgot to. --Golbez (talk) 03:42, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I am happy to help!!! Basket of Puppies  03:53, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
 * In general, though, leaving a very prominent Procedural note on every ANI thread that you do this for (I see you did it for another one below Golbez' discussion), is about distracting and really not necessary. Thanks in advance! ╟─ Treasury Tag ► constabulary ─╢ 19:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It is distracting and not necessary? I thought it was just the opposite- helpful and useful. I have seen somewhat frustrated and critical comments levied at those who open ANI threads but fail to inform the subjects that they are being discussed. I have been trying to help out these discussions by acting as a sort of clerk and notifying those who have not been. In fact I've received several "thank you" messages. Now I am really confused and can't help but to feel a little bit hurt. Basket of Puppies  19:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that notifying people of threads is courteous, and it's great that you're helping out when others forget to do that. I think you should carry on with that, it's good work. However, I don't think that adding a Procedural note (as you seem to have done at least thirteen times, looking through your history) is helpful or necessary. It distracts people from the substance of the thread. Why do people need to know (need to be told by bolded text) that you, Basket of Puppies, did the notification?
 * Acting like a clerk is good; clerks don't need to announce and broadcast every time they do everything. They're subtle!
 * I did not mean to hurt or confuse you; I trust that you have neither problem any more. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► cabinet ─╢ 19:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Treasury, I only added it in bold in order to make certain that people know the associated parties have been duly notified. Indeed, I modeled it after an admin who was doing the very same thing. I guess I could change the font, but thought it was maximally useful for the procedural note to be clear and unambiguous that all parties have been notified. I am still a bit confused as to why this is a bad thing. Basket of Puppies  19:21, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * You really, genuinely do NOT need to tell everyone that you've notified. Why do I, reading ANI, need to have the fact that you've (very kindly) told another user that they're mentioned, thrust in my face? It's distracting, I promise.
 * Could you perhaps just continue the notifying of people, on their talkpages, but stop announcing the fact on the Noticeboard itself? It really would be a help. Thanks. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► prorogation ─╢ 19:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Treasury, I am just more confused than before. I have received several "thank-you"s from editors who had forgotten to include this sort of note, but now I am being told that it is disruptive to do so. Also, I did some searching and I found several identical types of notifications that have been placed on ANI such as this and this. I guess what I am saying is that I am rather confused and can't help but to feel a great deal of pressure from you in telling me to immediately stop. Am I in violation of policy? Basket of Puppies  19:31, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Calm down.
 * Take a deep breath.
 * Calm down. I don't know if it's your intention, but I'm finding your responses a little disingenuous, not to mention passive-aggressive.
 * When you are informing/notifying someone, you are doing two things:
 * You leave a note on their talkpage, saying, "Dear so-and-so, you're on the administrators' noticeboard."
 * You leave a message on the noticeboard saying, "Procedural note I've informed everyone relevant."
 * People are thanking you for doing the important bit, which I labelled Number 1 above. I am asking [not telling, asking nicely] you to stop doing Number 2, because it's a bit smug and a bit distracting; your work with Number 1, however, is very good and should continue.
 * That's all. You're not in violation of policy, but when another editor makes a reasonable and polite request for you to do something a teeny bit differently, it's normally a good idea to help out and go along. Thanks! ╟─ Treasury Tag ► inspectorate ─╢ 19:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * TreasuryTag, I really am not appreciating your most recent message. I am being completely honest in my responses to you and not at all "disingenuous" or "passive-aggressive". Is it really necessary for you to even say those things? Isn't it a violation of WP:AGF? I am sorry, Treasury, but your tone is completely inapproproate. I am a wikignome and just trying to help. I will be requesting administrator assistance on this issue, which really (in my opinion) is not an issue at all. Basket of Puppies  19:39, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

OK; I'm finding you more and more disingenuous, and slightly disruptive now. I'm going to stop this conversation, with one final request that you do not continue posting Procedural notes on noticeboard pages. If you choose to ignore my (originally, at any rate!) polite request, that is your concern. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► without portfolio ─╢ 19:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I am requesting administrator help for the issues presented in this section. I am a wikignome who is just here to help. In this section I feel that TreasuryTag has been ordering me to make changes and has taken to calling me "passive-aggressive", ""disingenuous", "disruptive" and "distracting". I kindly ask that an administrator take a few moments to review this and let me know what to do and if TreasuryTag's statements have crossed the line (as I feel they have). I am only here to help. Basket of Puppies  19:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * TreasuryTag's statement—BasketofPuppies has been adding some very prominent and (I find) distracting procedural notes to AN threads, after he has (admittedly helpfully) notified parties that they are mentioned. I don't see that these comments offer any benefit at all, and I find them a little smug and self-serving –


 * I am also concerned that this user is putting on a disingenuous front (he's oh-so-innocent just a Wikignome), but I'm sorry, it doesn't ring true to me. Wikignomes don't need to broadcast and announce what they do at every oppurtunity; that's why they're called gnomes. If BasketofPuppies would just have heeded my perfectly polite initial comment, we wouldn't need to be in this extremely boring situation. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► senator ─╢ 19:47, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I am willing to help out with mediation, if both parties are willing. Maybe we could come to a compromise, and sort this out.  SparksBoy </B>(talk) 19:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * No thanks, I'm fine to wait for an administrator :) ╟─ Treasury Tag ► First Secretary of State ─╢ 19:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, perfectly willing to! I really am feeling a bit overwhelmed by this. Please help. Basket of Puppies  19:51, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

All right, both of y'all, quite down for a moment. This is a stupid argument. Basket of Puppies, bear in mind that not everyone may like how you organize things. TreasuryTag, bear in mind that not everyone will organize things how you like, and there is nothing wrong with a procedural note even if it annoys you. Annoying you is not against policy. The main point of a collaborative and voluntary project is to each his own, edit how you like where you like as long as it is not disrupting the process, no matter which one of you it is. No need for blocks, no need for mediation, the two of you need to just take a day away from this conversation and reflect on the points that both of you were making. Step away from the keyboard, or at least go to a different page. Each orange bar that pops up is only going to flame the fire that started from a little spark. K? Keegan (talk) 20:05, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Keegan, I agree! I will be going out and doing some errands for the next few hours. I think I will switch the fonting to the small type when notifying folks of ANI threads. I wish that TT refrained from calling me "disruptive" and the personal statements, but I am totally willing to forgive and forget! Have a great afternoon! :) Basket of Puppies  20:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I stand by absolutely everything that I said, particularly in light of the above comment. I once again stress that my complaint never was about when BoP notifies "folks" of ANI threads; it was about the notices he added on ANI after having done this, particularly the bolding (not the text-size).
 * I take on board what Keegan has to say about the collaborative nature of the project, and with that in mind, I urge BoP to consider toning down or turning off his procedural notes. True, they don't directly and explicitly violate written policy, but that's irrelevant.
 * Thanks. ╟─ Treasury Tag ► inspectorate ─╢ 20:13, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Back from my errands now. Reading that TT has said above, that he/she "absolutely" stands by everything he/she said, all I can say is that I am very confused. TT said some things which were very personal in nature and in my opinion really inappropriate. I don't know what to do next other than hope Keegan can help work this out. Please help. Basket of Puppies  22:37, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Why not just do something a little more surreptitious, the way the notes in AFD discussions are done? –<b style="font-family:verdana; color:black;">xeno</b><sup style="color:black;">talk 23:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC) (thusly...)
 * Notified user(s) of discussion. ~
 * Agreed the small note like above suggested by xeno is the best solution, it seems right to inform everyone that should be and to let the people on ANI know they have been informed, seems to be just a case of how to present it. BritishWatcher (talk) 18:28, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Never in your life should you take something in a written format personally. TreasuryTag does not. It should be okay from both ends. TreasuryTag, I do not support your point of view in turning off notes. To each their own, as I said, and perhaps a new approach can be made. It is neither here nor their, wander off to the wiki ways and pretend this never happened. Keegan (talk) 04:59, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I've switched over to using the small font. It looks so cute! Basket of Puppies  19:32, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

RE Tkguy
He was already informed here. Why two notifications?--Crossmr (talk) 04:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I noticed he has already been notified after I had done so. However, I immediately corrected my mistake just a minute later. Basket of Puppies  04:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

RE Chuck Parsons
Hi, thanks for your information, comments and suggestions. My article was deleted as a "copyright infringement" and I do not believe it was, it was a summary of interviews, reading and other sources in my own words. Obviously I am not ready for posting, but I do not think the reason for deletion was accurate. I guess I will post it in the work area for other members such as yourself to look at. Again thanks and if you have any comments for my draft please feel free to make them. I would like to post a few articles in this genre based on information from friends who were active in the era.DGNW (talk) 06:06, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Stefan Janos
Hi, I hope you don't mind, but I've declined the deletion of Stefan Janos as I consider that silver medal in a world championship meets our requirements under wp:athlete.  Ϣere Spiel  Chequers  09:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh my, you are absolutely right! I should have not nominated him for deletion. Thank you for letting me know! Basket of Puppies  16:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bad_Boys_Blue
Hello, thank you for the information and the nice welcome @ Wikipedia! Indeed I'm the representative of Mr. John McInerney as finally we thought it's the highest time to revide some untrue facts or gossip stories concerning the Bad Boys Blue. All the changes I have implementd in the Wikipedia Bad Boys Blue page are objective facts, as we just have only one goal - let the fans and people interested in the real history of the group know that truth and those objective facts, not just gossips stories created and written by people who have no idea what Bad Boys Blue are about or are in relation with people who claim to be Bad Boys Blue without having any right to do it. The said people support guys like Kevin McCoy, one of the former members of Bad Boys Blue, who a few days ago posted such a "nice" video at youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Br1iI8UwcaA Their only goal is to make false impression, to fake the real history of the said group and to damage John McInerney because he has taken legal actions against people (McCoy, Cuming, Barnes) who are trying to perform as the fake group using McInerney's name, voice and original sound recording produced by the original label. And they have done things like this it on Wikipedia too. Don't you think it's time to clear the facts if Wikipedia claims to be the most objective source of information? One, Herb McCoy was a member of Andrew Thomas' formation named The Real Bad Boys Blue and after he left he never performed as Bad Boys Blue, but under his own name. And as opposed to the said TRBBB formation he was using his own versions of some BBB songs and was singing with his own voice. But it doesn't change a fact that he never had any rights to the group's name and putting a link to his website is needless as he has nothing to do with the true history and career of Bad Boys Blue. He can be treaten just as a cover artist performing in this case some of their well known hits. Two, John McInerney naver proclaimed himself to be called "The Official Bad Boys Blue", this term was created by the people behind Andrew Thomas. I'm repeating - on the basis of the contract signed back in 1993 between Coconut Records (the orignal label of the group) and McInerney/Thomas the name BAD BOYS BLUE have always belonged to John McInerney, so he had no reason to use prefix The Official. From 1984 till present John McInerney is the member of the group BAD BOYS BLUE, he's the lead singer since 1987 and since 1993 he has owned the right to the said name. After Andrew Thomas' death he's the only original member staying alive and the only person in the world having rights to the said name. Also now our lawyers in Russia (becaue the fake group performed most often in there) have done a great work and both names: BAD BOYS BLUE and THE REAL BAD BOYS BLUE have been registered in the territory of RF (Russian Federation) and their only owner is Mr. John McInerney! That means that any other group cannot perform under the said names and of course any other group cannot use Mr. McInerney's voice! Three, I did some little corrections in dates of birth, places of birth of deceased members which previous ones were untrue, also corrected discography section and line up's, it all has been done to provide the most objective and true information. Also cannot understand why information about the forthcoming aniversary album titled "25" has been deleted... it's available everywhere: on the official website - www.badboysblue.eu on the offical message board - www.badboysblue.eu/board on the official myspace - www.myspace.com/originalbadboysblue on the official facebook - http://www.facebook.com/pages/Bad-Boys-Blue/33116799449 on the official snowfish - http://snowfish.com/badboysblue/ If needed please let us know, so we can send to the official Wikipedia staff some official document confirming our rights cause this is our right to let the people know the truth. We don't change the real history of the group, we wanna make it available for people around the world as for last months they have been feed up with lieds and gossip stories. Thank you! BAD BOYS BLUE —Preceding unsigned comment added by BADBOYS BLUE (talk • contribs) 23:35, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

ANI notice for User:Scribner
I appreciate your zeal, but I actually told Scribner that I would be mentioning him on ANI in my comment on his page. The template wasn't needed, and I'm removing it. Thanks. kmccoy (talk) 05:39, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I see that now. It's interesting, tho! I had gone to Scribner's talk page and head searched for both "ANI" and "administ", in hopes of seeing such a notice. However it didn't dawn on my to check for "noticeboard", as you had wikilinked it. My apologies for it and I fully recognize that you had informed him and that my note was a duplicate of what you had already done. Basket of Puppies  14:42, 8 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, I can understand that. :) Thanks. kmccoy (talk) 18:36, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

RE: Cabal
Haha, no way! I was actually considering talking to you just a few minutes ago; I saw your name on AN/I and for a second thought it said "Basket of Puppets". But then I thought you would consider me weird if I did that, so I went back to playing guitar. :P This cabal sounds like a genius idea, though! Master of Puppets - <sub style="color:#7d7d7d; cursor:help;">Call me MoP! :D  20:34, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

IO2
Why have you marked this page for deletion? It follows formatting guidelines and contains only published information with fully cited sources. Stho002 (talk) 01:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have marked it for deletion as, well, I can't make heads or tails of it. After looking at it for a few minutes I am completely confused as to what IO2 is and what the article as-written is supposed to convey. Would you like to move it to your userspace and then we can work on it together? Basket of Puppies  02:10, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I contest that as a valid reason to delete it. The article will make sense to some people, and if you took the time to read all the associated links and references, then you would probably begin to understand, but even if you don't, show me where it says that an article has to make sense to anybody and everybody? The important point is that if anyone searches for certain keywords, they will find this article, and it is likely to make sense TO THEM. I cannot explain to you publicly what the intention behind the article is, but I am happy to do so privately by email. So, if the article conforms to policy, please remove the deletion flag. Thanks Stho002 (talk) 02:20, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * My apologies, Stho002, but it's a basic precept that Wikipedia can only have articles which are notable, verifiable and backed up by reliable sources. Furthermore, the article should try to come to the standards and guidelines as listed here, which is about how to start a new article and what to avoid. As far as the privacy issue, all I can say is that this is not how Wikipedia operates. My apologies, but I must leave the deletion tag in place for now and until the point where the article matures quite a bit. Basket of Puppies  02:33, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The article is clearly verifiable with reliable sources, and is linked to other already existing articles (e.g., FRST, Landcare Research New Zealand Limited), to provide context. As for notability, well it concerns where a significant amount of public funding by FRST goes, and what the outputs are of that investment. All this info is "conveniently" scattered in the public domain, but I am just trying to summarise it in a straightforward way without the usual dollop of propaganda. So, again I don't see any valid reason to delete. If there are SPECIFIC ways you would like me to change it, then I am listening ... Stho002 (talk) 02:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Stho002, synthesis of information, or putting a novel spin on an issue, is not something that Wikipedia is allowed to do. Further, the article as you have written it does not meet the encyclopedic standards. It can possibly be merged with FRST, but I cannot see how it can be an article on its own. Again, I apologize. Basket of Puppies  02:53, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't mind merging it with another article, like FRST, except that I want it to come up in a search for the key term IO2. According to my understanding of both terms, an encyclopedia is precisely a synthesis of scattered information, nothing more or less. There is really very little "spin" in my article, it is just a list of published outputs from a group who are funded by public money. This information is not easily accessible to the general public, although it is all out there in the public domain, it just takes a lot of "nous" to know where to look and put it all together. There are Wikipedia articles on companies, and artistic outputs (tours, albums), and all sorts. This is no different. IO2 is a long-term, publicly funded scientific project in New Zealand, involving millions of dollars, so whay can't it have it's own article? Stho002 (talk) 03:09, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Stho002, I know it's rather confusing and even a bit frustrating. IO2 might be able to have its own article, but it has to pass the notability test as demonstrated by using reliable sources, as I mentioned above. However, the information must also be easy to understand, which is the point of an encyclopedia. However, Wikipedia isn't a "normal" encyclopedia, in that we do not allow for synthesis. We basically have to let someone else do the work and then we can using it as a source. I suggest spending some time at the links I mentioned above. Sincerely, Basket of Puppies  03:26, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No, you are incorrect about synthesis. It is no different to this U2 360° Tour, or any number of other articles. The U2 article isn't just taken from a single information source, but is a synthesis of scattered information, such as, for example, Boxscore data from Billboard magazine, and data from other sources. The author of the Wikipedia article did "the work" I refer to in synthesising the information. Please explain why that article passes notability, while mine does not. At any rate, as I said, I am happy just to have a merged article rather than a separate one, so if that is your only problem, then go ahead and delete IO2. Stho002 (talk) 03:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

You may wish to suggest protection here.
He may or may not have given up. HalfShadow (talk) 22:16, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, you already have. Good for you. I was half tempted to do it myself. HalfShadow (talk) 22:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The level of vandalism was disgusting. --Sooo Kawaii!!! ^__^ (talk) 22:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently you've never seen a 4chan ip-bombing. HalfShadow (talk) 22:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I fear 4chan. However, it seems I just got someone who was upset I tagged his article for speedy deletion. Thanks again for the extra eyes. Basket of Puppies  22:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure and it's my pleasure
I don't like vandalism, and I don't like schmuckish behavior. Anything I can do to help. :-) -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 02:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Prototopia
Why did you tag Prototopia as a test page, exactly? Ironholds (talk) 10:34, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi there, Ironholds! The reason why I tagged it as a test page as, well, it surely seems to be. Other than not meeting the notability threshold or having any reliable sources, it also has been signed by the creator on the article at the bottom. I can only assume it's meant as a test as it's surely not ripe to be in the article space. It likely needs to be userfied and worked on and then return. I hope this answers your question. Thanks for writing! Basket of Puppies  14:27, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * None of that is a reason for "test page" tagging. A test page is "does this work?" or "can I create an article here?". This was obviously intended to be a fully fledged article (particularly if you look at the user's other contributions). Signing it means squat; he's a new user. Any time spent at Special:Newpages will turn up articles that have been signed and that don't meet WP:N. This doesn't mean that they're tests. Ironholds (talk) 14:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey, Ironholds! It's interesting- I think we have ever so slightly different interpretations of what a test page is. I view a test page as how you described but also a page written by a new editor where the page is in very poor shape- such as signing the article. Usually someone will say, "I tested out trying to created a page, but I was really new to Wikipedia and didn't understand how to make it and what all the coding meant." I hope this explains. Thanks for writing to me about this, I really appreciate your concerns! Basket of Puppies  18:50, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, but that certainly isn't how the test page CSD category is meant to be used. Ironholds (talk) 19:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Are you sure? I only ask as I spent a lot of time familiarizing myself with CSD before embarking on it. If you look here under G2 it only says "test pages". However, it does not define what a test page is. I think that it can incorporate our shared understanding and also my additional understanding of it. I'll bring this up on the CSD talk page in order to try to get consensus. Basket of Puppies  19:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Just so you know:
If article's are written in a different language then English, you should add the template and then register it to the pages needing translation list. If the article is not translated within reasonable time it will be removed. Of course, this should not be done in case its present at another wikipedia (CSD A2), or if it clearly isn't suitable for another reason, such as a copyvio. Not being English is technically not a reason for PROD removal. Also, glad to see some help on the new page list; It is a bit undermanned this evening. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 18:34, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Howdy, Excirial! I should have removed the PROD in favor of the copyright CSD, as I found the exact same text elsewhere. You're right- the notenglish tag should have been placed. I will make sure to do that now. Thanks for the info! Also, I try to do new page patrolling every day. It's fun! Basket of Puppies  18:49, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Bozorgmehr Hosseinpour
Hello Basket of Puppies, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Bozorgmehr Hosseinpour - a page you tagged - because: Contains sufficient content to be a stub. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Skomorokh, barbarian  04:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Skomorokh, really? When I tagged it the article was empty with no content at all. I see that is has now been improved, but the version that I tagged did indeed qualify. One question, tho. Is this a template you are using? I only ask as you informed me not to tag any further pages until I reviewed WP:CSD. I have to admit that I am a bit miffed. Can you help make it clear for me? Basket of Puppies  04:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually there was content, just obscured by the top part which is empty. And he is using WP:CSDH. Tim Song (talk) 06:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Tim is correct about the article; this is the version you tagged, and has the stub article right under the generic formatting. It's very important that you look through an entire article before nominating it for deletion under WP:A3 as often there is an article in there somewhere. Hope this helps, and thanks for volunteering for new page patrol! Regards, Skomorokh,  barbarian  07:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Your username makes me smile
I apologize that I could not think of a Wikipedia improving reason to leave a comment on your Talk page, so allow me to be off-topic and say that your username makes me smile every time I see it! Attempt at obligatory wiki-improving comment: perhaps if I change my username to something equally heart-warming, like "Lap full of kittens", people will assume more good faith when I'm doing vandalism patrol. Happy editing, --4wajzkd02 (talk) 02:35, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * P.S. I noticed this - you'd have my support. --4wajzkd02 (talk) 02:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * What else can I say other than "awwwwwwwwwwwwwwww". Thank you! I cannot tell you how much I appreciate the random kind saying. Yes, Lap full of kittens would be super cute. Have you considered a change? And I am being semi-serious. :) . Basket of Puppies  06:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Accusing of hoaxing
I noticed at the article dry glue, you had requested deletion on the grounds that the article is a blatant hoax and therefore vandalism. A very quick Google for "dry glue" found a Reuters source at the top of the page, a couple more including "gecko" found ample sourcing. We need to be very careful before accusing any editor, including a new one, of hoaxing or vandalism, and be sure that they really are, as a false accusation of such actions when the editor is acting in good faith is quite unwelcoming and could easily drive an editor with potential away. Seraphimblade Talk to me 16:29, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Seraphimblade, thank you for your note and your concern. When an article includes such statements as, "Dry glue is not well known about yet, the scientists developing and researching it are keeping most of their findings to themselves for now." I cannot help but to consider it is a hoax. As I was doing speedy deletions at the time I tagged it accordingly. If there was an AfD discussion then I would surely have done more extensive research. If the article was written with some references to Reuters then I would have not tagged it in the first place. Please know that I didn't tag the article as a hoax with the knowledge that the editor was new. I had utterly no intentions of being unwelcoming and would have tagged it the same had it come from a long and established editor. However, as it currently sits, the article is in rather poor condition and needs rather immediate assistance in order to be up to Wikipedia standards. Again, thank you for your concern. Additionally, edits like this that I have sent off to WP:ANI make it extremely concerning. Basket of Puppies 16:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You were absolutely right to take that to ANI, we need to take things like that seriously! Hadn't checked the rest of the edits. What I'd generally recommend, on stuff that looks like hoaxes but may at least have some plausibility, is to run a quick Google search before you mark it as a hoax. You'd be amazed what you'll find is actually real sometimes. Seraphimblade Talk to me 17:47, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi - like you I worry about the editor, but I've polished his article up for him. Hopefully that might make him feel more cheerful. Elen of the Roads (talk) 19:15, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Australian Sailing Magazine wiki page - deletion
Hey Basket of Puppies

As a wiki Noob I'm afraid I've gotten into a pickle. As you advised I have abandoned my YaffaPublishing username, due to the promotional use of it. Noted. And now have an innocuous username. As you are aware the former username is now banned from updates.

I had to anonymously do the updates on the magazine article to satisfy TNXman307, the user that has put the magazine wiki ref on the deletion list.

The references required to prove notability are tricky. Those references would be other news sources. In other words, our opposition... News Corporation, Fairfax Australia, Australian Consolidated Press. They as a rule don't like to refer to their competitors.

Is this all out of your hands? is TNXman307 now the supreme ruler of my wiki article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zizyphus (talk • contribs) 03:33, 10 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear Zizyphus, I know where you are coming from. First, welcome to Wikipedia! However, the circumstances in which you've arrived are a bit concerning. Basically, you signed up for Wikipedia in order to do one thing- create and edit one singular article. This makes you a single purpose account, something that is seriously frowned upon. Second, you have an admitted conflict of interest, also seriously frowned upon. You see, all Wikipedia articles need to achieve notability, through the use of reliable sources that establish if the topic is notable or not. Please have a look at the blue links I included here and let me know how I might further help you. Basket of Puppies  04:36, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Hey BOP thanks for your time. I didn't know it was such a bad thing but realise now. I had intended to add an article page for all of our magazines. We have 30. Some date back to 1933 such as Adnews which will have no doubt zero problems with notability, it's such a huge magazin i.e. some are some of the oldest magazines in Australia, but they have such a niche audience. I am formerly of News Limited and I used to update the Wikipedia page all the time. Update that is. I've never created before. As described above, being a major media publishing house is actually working against us because the other majors won't report on us so we can't establish notability to satisfy your rules...Zizyphus (talk) 06:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI
Thanks for notification, I hope we will quickly sort it out :) --Čeha (razgovor) 22:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * My pleasure! Good luck! Basket of Puppies  22:41, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks:) --Čeha (razgovor) 22:48, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

American University of Antigua Page
Dear Basket of Puppies, I notice that you have undone the edit that I have made to the page. This is because the article that it references to is not a legitimate source of information. It is filled with personal bias, lies, and distortions. Wikipedia is a source of neutral information and my edits are only meant to make the page just that. I'm only making sure that the page is as accurate as possible. I will be updating the AUA page shortly but I wanted to make sure that you understand where I'm coming from. Thanks for your time and hope you understand. -BedTimeForBonzo —Preceding unsigned comment added by BedTimeForBonzo (talk • contribs)


 * Dear BedTimeForBonzo, while I understand your concerns, you must realize that I have undone no such edit. You can look in the history section of the article and you will see that I only placed the conflict of interest tag, as you have an admitted affiliation with the school. However, I have made sure to not undo your edits as I do not wish to engage in an edit war. I suggest you go to the talk page of the article and begin to discuss your concerns there. Sinerely, Basket of Puppies  17:43, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Invitation to participate in SecurePoll feedback and workshop
As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome. For the Arbitration Committee, Risker (talk) 08:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

PowerPoint to DVD Solutions
Can you tell me what you think this article is promoting? Tim Song (talk) 07:49, 12 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes I can. Because Wikipedia is WP:NOT. Basket of Puppies  16:33, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Which, I might add, is not a speedy criterion. Tim Song (talk) 16:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Altered Speedy Deletion rationale: Myxer
Hello Basket of Puppies, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I have deleted a page you tagged (Myxer) under a criterion different from the one your provided, which was inappropriate or incorrect. CSD criteria are narrow and specific to protect the encyclopedia, and the process is more effective if the correct deletion rationale is supplied. Consider reviewing the criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know. Thanks again! <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 02:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * NW, do you think you can be a bit more specific? If memory serves I tagged this page because it had absolutely no content on it. It was blank. You seem to have deleted it under it not being notable. There are times where there are two equally valid reasons to delete a page. However, tagging it as having no content is not inappropriate or incorrect. Thank you for your concern. Basket of Puppies  02:56, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That was indeed my mistake, and I should not have notified you. Your tagging of the article was correct at the time; I had to switch rationales because the article had changed in between your tagging and my deletion. My apologies for this useless notification, <b style="color:navy;">NW</b> ( Talk ) 02:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Ahh, ok! Glad to know we're on the same page. Basket of Puppies  03:06, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Georgia_Osmeña
Hello. I've removed your Speedy Deletion tag on the article Georgia_Osmeña as I'd just started an AfD posting for the article. While the article features only a lightweight claim of notability at best (relationship to the former president of the Phillipines), it does nonetheless assert notability, which is all that's required to be an invalid candidate for speedy deletion as are my understanding of the speedy deletion critera. While I too wish the article could be dealt with more swiftly, the criteria are what they are, and I've seen enough of these borderline cases rejected to bother with the Speedy tag. Thanks for tagging it nonetheless, though. DJ Bullfish  07:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI notice
Thanks for that, nice to know somebody appreciates me! :) GiantSnowman 18:47, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll have a wander over there and give my two-cents. Cheers, GiantSnowman 18:54, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

BoP I was very impressed with the cordial and collegial way in which you informed another editor about the need to provide notification of ANI threads. Way to lead by example. Very impressive. ChildofMidnight (talk) 06:21, 19 November 2009 (UTC)


 * *BLUSH* I AM BLUSHING! Thank you, Child of Midnight! *still blushing* Basket of Puppies  06:32, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
 * No need for blushing. It was refreshing and inspiring. Thank you. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:36, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Jaden Adrastos Callaway
Hi. Just to let you know that I have deleted as A7 this article which looks as though you created it, though I think what actually happened was that you were adding templates at 06:25 just as Toddst1 deleted it the first time, and there was some sort of edit conflict. Regards, JohnCD (talk) 10:35, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I noticed that also. I was doing my nightly new page patrol and was tagging it at A7 when it seemed to hiccup. The TW script was running as Toddst1 was deleting it and it seems to have somehow recreated the page with the A7 tag. How odd is that?! Thanks for the note! Basket of Puppies  16:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Busterwings
He's already had a level 4. He cleared out the warning a wee bit ago. Eeekster (talk) 06:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Figured another wouldn't hurt. Has he been blocked yet? Basket of Puppies  06:09, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Not that I know of. I haven't reported him yet; still waiting for one more solid bit of abuse. ;) Eeekster (talk) 06:14, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * He's blocked now. Eeekster (talk) 06:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI
Sorry, forgot. Thanks for the reminder G  ain  Line    ♠  ♥ 09:24, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your assistance, I didn't know that you had to inform them. Thanks again :-)--عيسى (talk) 18:46, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Jon Howard
Hello Basket of Puppies, and thanks for your work patrolling new changes. I am just informing you that I declined the speedy deletion of Jon Howard - a page you tagged - because: Being or having been member of a notable band indicates importance/significance. Please review the criteria for speedy deletion before tagging further pages. If you have any questions or problems, please let me know.  So Why  19:30, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Dear SoWhy, I think I have to disagree. I understand that the band may be notable, however I am under the impression that notability is not inherited. Your thoughts? Basket of Puppies  19:35, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You are correct but you misunderstand A7. Despite a frequently made mistake, A7 is a.) not about notability (but importance or significance, explicitly mentioned to be a lower standard) and b.) an article only needs to make any credible claim of importance or significance. Being a member of such a notable band, while not making the person notable (in itself!), still is an indication enough that they might meet the guidelines for inclusion and thus speedy deletion has to be declined. If they are really non-notable, WP:AFD is the way to go. If you want to understand more about A7, my essay WP:A7M outlines common mistakes and what can be considered reasons to decline an A7 tagging. Regards  So Why  19:42, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello, again, SoWhy. I understand what you are saying. I do understand A7 reasonably well, I think, but I will make sure to go ahead and read your essays. In the meantime, I will assess the article for AfD. Basket of Puppies  19:45, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

test section for new ANI forgot template
Basket of Puppies 04:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear Basket of Puppies, I just wanted to drop you a kind note and let you know that you forgot to inform an involved editor in the thread that you opened on Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. Don't worry! I've take care of it. Just wanted to gently remind you to make sure to do so when and if you open a new ANI thread in the future. Thanks!!! Basket of Puppies 04:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

ANI amnesia
Yeah, it looks good to me - nicely worded - but we'll need community approval which could prove tricky...great work though, well done! GiantSnowman 14:06, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Amnesia! HAHAHA! I love it! I figured we can be WP:BOLD and begin using the template. It seems pretty minor and oh so nicely worded. What do you think? I am inclined to begin use. Basket of Puppies  17:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Good idea - why don't you begin using it, and it it goes down well I'll join in; if you get some backlash then we'll tackle issues when & if they arise. GiantSnowman 17:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you have a good plan! Basket of Puppies  17:39, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

KNUST Department of Planning
Hi,

If you have grounds to believe that an entry on WP:CP was cleared erroneously, I'd appreciate if you would consider taking it up with the person clearing it, or at least brought it up at WT:CP rather than solely tagging it for G12, if only to help other stop repeating the same errors. Further, I'm a bit skeptical that the contributor who submitted the content has any means to figure out why the article was deleted for copyvio again after he tried to license the source website to meet our guidelines. Thanks, MLauba (talk) 22:32, 27 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi, MLauba! I appreciate what you are requesting and trying to convey. Fortunately, every time I tag something TW automatically sends a notice to their talk page indicating what and why. The user has been repeatedly informed of the reason why the article has been deleted. Their website still says, "all rights reserved", so it's hard to see how it complies with Wikipedia copyright policy. Basket of Puppies  23:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Polipo
Thanks for your good work patrolling changes. The link to Polipo was only a redlink for 1/2hr until I created the article. My understanding is even as a redlink, it is valid, and I'm sure if you had time to check my edit discussions you'd see I was creating the article. Widefox (talk) 02:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Re your note
I'm not sure what you're referring to. Could you clarify? Thanks, EyeSerene talk 19:11, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for explaining. However, I don't think you read their talk-page carefully enough ;) EyeSerene talk 19:31, 30 November 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem. Have one on me :) EyeSerene talk 19:50, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Well handled

 * Thanks, CoM! Basket of Puppies  04:03, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

AN/I
Hmmm. It seems that an edit conflict lead me to "unclose" that section. All the more strange because the difference in revisions portion of the edit conflict page showed nothing. My mistake. If you like I can restore the close templates or you may. Protonk (talk) 04:06, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * It's the gnomes! Or the elves! Well, I've taken care of it. Thanks for the headsup! Basket of Puppies  04:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I blame the Menehune. Protonk (talk) 04:12, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Question re service badges
I know there is a place for questions on the RfA, but I thought I'd ask here first - I hope I'm missing something or there is a very innocuous answer, in which case I won't clutter up the RfA page.

You added the Journeyman Editor badge to your user page in May. While you didn't have 2000 edits nor six months service at the time, I'm guessing you felt it was OK to count IP edits and time. However, two months later you added the Experienced Editor badge, which requires and additional 4k edit and an additional year. How did you add a year of experience in two months, and 4k edits when the tools suggest about 2K?-- SPhilbrick  T  22:20, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Slow down
I put up the ANI note at 22:11. At 22:13 I put a note on Tedders talk page. That is *2 minutes later*. 7 seconds before I put up my notice, you put yours on Tedders page. At 22:14 (*after* I'd put a note on Tedders talk page) you put a note on my page reminding me of my duty.

In short, you are over-eager. Please slow down William M. Connolley (talk) 22:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, WMC. Basket of Puppies  22:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)


 * OK, that is fine William M. Connolley (talk) 22:27, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:Twinklefirefoxosxscreenshot.png
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Twinklefirefoxosxscreenshot.png, has been listed at Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. -- Mr.Z-man 03:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

RFA
I'm not sure you are ready for adminship yet, but please don't start contributing to AN/I in any other way than as you do now, politely notifying other editors when they are the topic of conversation at AN/I and have not been notified. There are far too many admins who discuss AN/I threads to the detriment of AN/I and en.wiki in general. Not contributing to overblown conversations is not a problem, imo. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 01:12, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

BoP, I noticed that your RFA was unsuccessful, and I too thought that adminship would not be a good fit for you at this point. However, as I suggested at your RFA, I too appreciate the contributions you make to wikipedia, including in the "admin areas" and hope that the RFA won't dissuade you from continuing that positive work. I think given some more time and experience you will make a good administrator here, and would suggest that you simply wait till some experienced users offer to nominate you for an RFA. For now, take some time off wiki, if you wish, but keep our spirits up and know that you are an asset here. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 17:27, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I followed you RFA with interest and I am sorry that it did not work out the way you wished. I would concur with the comments above, but please don't be put off contributing to the project by the RFA experience. Opinion was very split as you know which says volumes about the whole RFA process. Heres hoping you have a great Christmas season. Kind regards. Paste  Let’s have a chat. 08:59, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Your recent RFA
Your RfA did not show community consensus for you to become a sysop at this time; I have closed it as such. As you are aware, that is the purpose of RfA, and it is not a judgement on you as an editor. I hope you will continue to contribute, take into account the concerns of opposers, and re-apply if/when you feel ready to do so. -- Pakaran 17:24, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Drama and bickering (perhaps a sign)
Normally I would think that is a bad thing, but for some strange reason ... I feel it is simply a sign of a miracle. :-) Happy holidays, BoP ... I have voted in favor of the miracle happening (whatever it is). Cheers. Proofreader77 (talk) 11:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the kind wishes and thoughts, Proofreader77! Happy holidays! Basket of Puppies  16:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, it looks like it's going to be a different miracle ... but keep an eye out for some kind of surprising smile from the universe. :-) (I have a direct [connection], but it's by string-can-phone. ^^) ... Meanwhile, happy holidays. (PS, if you check the top of my talkpage, you'll see a fresh little userbox. See the symbol. lol All drama is not bad ... and trials by fire, can warm your feet on a cold night. lol Too much spiked eggnog. :-) Proofreader77 (talk) 00:37, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

hug
~hugs~ - Gurch (talk) 17:32, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * * huggles to Gurch* Basket of Puppies  17:42, 13 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Epidural blood patch.svg


 * Text is a little odd but best I could get it, MediaWiki and Inkscape don't seem to play nice. Let me know if you want labels adding/changing. Gurch (talk) 07:34, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Duplicate PMIDs
Regarding articles with two PMIDs, it's the same article published in two different journals, each gets its own PMID. Compare  -- Gurch (talk) 12:38, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Gurch, I was thinking that, and you proved it! Rather interesting for an article to be published in two journals, I think. Thanks for the sleuthing! Basket of Puppies  19:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, not unheard of but discouraged in general, it seems. In this case the two journals were Current pain and headache reports and Current neurology and neuroscience reports, I don't know what the etiquette is on submitting things that fall into different areas like that. -- Gurch (talk) 20:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Copyedit
Finished the copy edit, check it and make sure it's fine :) NativeForeigner (talk) 20:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Native, thank you! Your copyedits are terrific! Basket of Puppies  21:03, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Just yell if you need anything else, and thanks! Hopefully it'll get reviewed for GA and pass, it's pretty close.  I can see it becoming featured potentially. NativeForeigner (talk) 21:25, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

in need of a pdf?
I have the full text pdf (I think) downloaded onto my hard drive. I daren't upload it cuz I'm not sure if it's free (as in freedom) content or not. It's 446 KB, correct? John Riemann Soong (talk) 19:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)


 * JRS, that would be hugely helpful! Can you email it to me? basketofpuppieswiki@gmail.com Thanks!!!  Basket of Puppies  19:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussion moved from WP:RDS
See WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request Nil Einne (talk) 20:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations!
Hey BoP, I just wanted to stop by and say congratulations on the GA pass on Spontaneous cerebrospinal fluid leak -- I know you did a ton of work on it. Great job. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 05:34, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * I AM BLUSHING! Thanks, Shirik! There is still some work to do before I apply for FAC. Gonna roll up my sleeves and keep on workin! Basket of Puppies  05:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Article "Julia Lindsey"
Hi Basket of Puppies,

I saw that you tagged the article Julia Snyder out of suspicion of plagiarism. Though I consulted in some sources for some of the information to verify the information, I wrote all of it from my own memory. How would you recommend citing the sources?

I'd appreciate your feedback. Thank you!

Regards, A-Supreme —Preceding unsigned comment added by A-Supreme (talk • contribs) 08:33, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Giropay candidate for speedy deletion?
Hello BoP, I'm the creator of the new article about Giropay and I would like to know why do you think that article meets Wikipedia’s criteria for speedy deletion. Of course, it's true that this very first version of that article is just a modified version of the article about iDEAL but I didn't think this would be a real problem for the very first version of it, especially since (technically) both payment systems are extremely similar. By the way, English isn't my native language (I'm German) and I'm not so sure that my English skills really are good enough for the English Wikipedia. Anyhow, I did want to write an article about Giropay which has a significant market share in Germany. Of course, it is limited to that country, but the same applies to iDEAL, so what is the difference? There is of course one problem with my version of that article: all sources are in German, but it is not so easy to find REALLY GOOD english sources about that system. Are these acceptable? I'm not sure...
 * http://www.viaden.com/products/giropay.html
 * http://www1.netbanx.com/content/en/giropay_payments.htm
 * http://www.paymentsnews.com/2006/02/giropay_launche.html
 * http://thebankwatch.com/2006/02/24/paypal-join-giropay-in-germany/
 * http://www.pago.de/Acceptance-of-giropay.3149.0.html

And no, I'm not an employee or shareholder of that company. I'm even no costumer until now, but many Germans are and I think it makes therefore sense to write an article about it in the English Wikipedia. I hope you will answer my question. Mintaru (talk) 20:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Dear Mintaru, I suggest you look at the following Wikipedia policies of WP:RS, WP:N and WP:V. Also have a look at WP:NPOV. Basically, you needs good news coverage to prove the company is notable. If you can insert those references into the article then it might be able to pass the notability test. I hope this helps. Basket of Puppies  20:11, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

PROD removed from Basket of Puppies
I have removed the prod tag from Basket of Puppies, which you proposed for deletion. I am leaving this message here to notify you about it. Prod is only for articles; Basket of Puppies is a redirect. This appears to reference a joke made by Anthrax (band). You may wish to try WP:RFD. If you still think the article should be deleted, please don't add the prod template back to it. Thanks! Cnilep (talk) 22:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Gotchya! I've listed it for RFD discussion. Basket of Puppies  00:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

A. E. Goonesinha
An article I authored bearing the above title was nominated for speedy deletion and was eventually deleted, for unambiguous copyright infringement. I have now modified it and want to add again to wiki. Since it's mentioned that I must inform you before that; I'd like to ask if it's ok for me to go ahead with it. Thanks. Gihaned (talk) 06:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

WikiBirthday
I saw from here that it's been one year since you joined the project. Happy WikiBirthday! Keep up the good work, <b class="Unicode">r ʨ anaɢ</b> talk/contribs 23:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * THANK YOU!!!!! Basket of Puppies  00:16, 3 January 2010 (UTC)



Michael Sterling (entertainer)
I have updated article with sources/references/Discography and listed the 2 billboard hits he wrote/composed. Can you please consider removing your nomination for deletion.Msmayer (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your improvements, but the sources do not establish notability. They only mention him in passing. Basket of Puppies  19:53, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year
Hey BoP. I hope all is well with you. Take care and have fun. ChildofMidnight (talk) 07:06, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Klippel-Feil syndrome (Clin Orthop Relat Res
Your request is filled here.--droptone (talk) 13:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

An edit using AWB
I think with http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Spontaneous_cerebrospinal_fluid_leak&curid=20355155&diff=337751221&oldid=337750374 the software was trying to group all references under one name that looked the same. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yeah, a bunch of those papers have the same name, which makes it super annoying when naming the refs using the paper name. I usually append ",AUTHORLASTNAME" to the end of the ref name. Manual editing might be needed. It's annoying. Thanks very much for your efforts. BTW, I go in for surgery tomorrow to close the massive dura hole I have at C7. Basket of Puppies  06:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Good luck with the operation. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:28, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Good luck
... with your surgery. See you back soon. Cheers. Abecedare (talk) 14:29, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes all the best. Paste  Let’s have a chat. 14:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Abe and Paste! I really, really appreciate the well wishes. I spent 5 hours in the MRI over Monday and Tuesday and they found out that I am leaking 90% of my spinal fluid through a large tear at C7 and a bit more out of some microtears at the lower and mid thoracic spine. I'll keep you all updated, but won't be on for a few days at least. Again, thanks so much for the well wishes! :) Basket of Puppies  14:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Good luck Basket. :) -- MW  talk   contribs  00:30, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thinking of you BoP!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 01:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds nasty. Hope the procedure goes well.  All the best --Elen of the Roads (talk) 10:09, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I saw you edited today! How did it go? CrimsonBlue (talk) 23:21, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * About as well as can be expected. Unfortunately, there is another one scheduled for July 1. :( Basket of Puppies  01:26, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

They're trying hard
As you can tell, that user left this comment "I am somewhat tempted to use it right now, given your unreasonable behaviour." which is trollish. They take advantage of people being nice and polite. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 00:50, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * You are right, it is trolling and baiting. I think I'll detach from the conversation for now. They give this project a bad name and poor reputation. Basket of Puppies  01:19, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes they do. --Matt57 (talk•contribs) 01:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Saying editors who disagree with you "give this project a bad name and poor reputation" is a personal attack. It's absolutely possible to make them without using curse words, as you've aptly demonstrated. AniMate  01:39, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Animate, you are trolling and trying to bait Matt and myself. It's unwelcome. Please stop. Basket of Puppies  01:42, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to troll and bait you. It is a personal attack. Saying someone brings the project in to disrepute is a direct aspersion on their character. Saying things like that in the middle of a conflict is generally a bad idea. We always say focus on content not contributor, and that's most important when we're in disagreements. There's no snark here, just a straightforward observation about what you said above. AniMate  01:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you, AniMate, for your comments. Basket of Puppies  01:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Vulgarity
Vulgarity, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Vulgarity and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Vulgarity during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Gigs (talk) 01:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back
I saw that you've changed your health status and are feeling better. Welcome back! :-) --Jimbo Wales (talk) 22:51, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi, Jimmy! Yeah I am on the up. Feeling better as the most recent patch in my spine is holding pretty well. I am back to editing and hope to work on the Meconium aspiration syndrome as one of my first orders of business. Thanks for the well wishes! Basket of Puppies  00:29, 17 May 2010 (UTC)
 * :-)--Jimbo Wales (talk) 06:05, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

More Trace Cyrus
It looks like the Trace Cyrus vandalism is part of a co-ordinated attack involving The Maine (band) and their associated acts, including A Rocket to the Moon and The Summer Set. Everard Proudfoot (talk) 06:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 05:08, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * While I don't recall asking for this new permission, I am flattered that it was granted! Basket of Puppies  05:14, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Please restore my comments
Excirial, my comments on this RfA were meant in earnest and represented my true opinion and feelings on the matter. I state for the record that they were not campaigning in any way, shape or form. I ask that you please assume good faith in that I was in no way campaigning for NF but rather putting forth an opinion only. Additionally, striking through the comments of an editor on this project without first discussing the matter with that editor is poor form. Lastly, the strikethroughs make it seem as if I changed my mind and wished to withdraw my comments. This could not be further from the truth. I ask that you please undo these edits. Please and thank you. Basket of Puppies 18:00, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Even if your comments were made in good faith, i would point out that the other editors opposes were also made in good faith - at the very least i don't think that anyone opposed just for the sake of opposing. Calling their arguments "Extremely Poor" while urging the crats to disregard them altogether is bad form to say the least. What would you think if i placed a message under every comment-less support vote (4 or so), stating "The user didn't include any supporting reason for his vote, and therefor should be given less weight"? I doubt you would be to thrilled about that. Ergo: You are free to have your own opinion, but there is a difference having your own opinion, and placing a message under three oppose votes which requests that the crats ignore that editor.


 * Your "not me" striking concern is valid though. Therefor I added an addendum after each strike indicating that i made the strike trough, while also pointing to the reason for doing so. That should prevent people from thinking you changed your mind. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 19:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Exciral, you have neither consensus nor my permission to modify my comments in any way. You may post a followup statement with your opinion, which is welcome, but I see no policy, guideline or consensus that would indicate you can modify my statement. Can you please provide a rationale as to why I should not revert my comments to their virgin state? Basket of Puppies  21:54, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * See WP:CANVAS, Campaigning subsection (Even if you didn't intend for it to be campaigning, the amount of posts and the content of this message makes it a case of campaigning). You may also wish to consider NativeForeigner opinion as it is his RFA, and i would point out that two other editors (Me and native not included) voiced their opinion on this matter as well. If you are still not convinced that those comment are better left striped, go ahead and de-stripe them. I thought that pointing to the campaigning guideline would be sufficient to explain the stripes, but seeing it isn't i don't think it is worth the time to quarrel about it. The bureaucrats tend to be sensible in these matters, and i don't believe that a comment asking them to change their opinion will actually do so. Excirial ( Contact me, Contribs ) 22:32, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Answer to your question on NativeForeigner's RFA
I'm not going to answer on the RFA, because I think it's unfair to NativeForeigner to argue the toss there any more.

I'm also not going to have a long discussion about it, because we obviously disagree. However, you asked me a question, so I should answer.

You asked:
 * So I am not allowed to voice my dissenting opinion?

If you read my comment I didn't say that at all. I said that it was lacking in respect to suggest that other editors' opinions should be ignored. That's totally different. You can disagree without suggesting that an opinion should be ignored.

That's really all I have to say in reply - and I'm only answering because I felt it would be rude not to respond to your question. I'm not inclined to discuss it past that point, though, because I think everything I would say has been said here or on the RFA - and I certainly wouldn't wish to "fall out" over something like this - so if it's ok with you I'd like to leave this as just a clarification in response to your question. Thanks  -  Begoon (talk) 01:24, 22 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think you quite understand, Begoon. I can disagree and suggest it be ignored, while maintaining civility and lacking personal attacks. There is no guideline or policy against this. If you feel that I should be disallowed in making my opinion then this would be problematic. Basket of Puppies  01:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I really do understand. I have not implied at any point that you should be disallowed from stating your opinion. Nor have I suggested that you have contravened any policy. I have offered my opinion on the comments you added to the oppose votes, and it remains my opinion. I don't expect, or need, you to agree with it - I just offer it. As I pointed out above, I really don't feel I have anything further to add to this. I'm sorry we disagreed on this point, but that's life - it happens. Hopefully next time we have cause to interact we'll find something to agree on - I'd much prefer that.  -  Begoon (talk) 02:38, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As do I. :) Basket of Puppies  02:50, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

DETC Does Accredit Law Schools
Regarding Taft Law School...

DETC does accredit law schools and has accredited Taft Law School as well as Concord Law School

See http://www.detc.org/accred.html

Type "Taft" in the search box.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.106.56.242 (talk) 18:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)


 * DETC has accredited Taft as a college, but now as a school of law. Only the ABA can do that. Basket of Puppies  19:14, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Documentation from DETC Website
From the DETC website:

Taft Law School 3700 South Susan Street, Office 200

Santa Ana, CA 92704

USA

Phone: 714-850-4800 or 800-882-4555

Fax: 714-708-2082

E-mail: admissions@TaftU.edu

Web Site: http://www.TaftU.edu

Founded: 1976

First Accredited: 2003

Next Review: 2013

Category: Degree Granting

Offers degree programs in law (Bachelor of Science in Laws, Juris Doctor - Attorney and Executive Tracks, Master of Laws with a concentration in American Jurisprudence), taxation (Master of Laws with a concentration in Taxation).

Subjects:

•Academic Degrees •American Jurisprudence •Juris Doctor •Law •Law, Business •Law, Juris Doctor •Law, Juris Doctor Executive Track •Taxation —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.106.56.242 (talk) 19:33, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

ANI Notice
*headdesk* Thanks for catching that. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 21:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

Noticeboard thread about RegentsPark
(Cross-posted to you and Tariqabjotu)

I’ve commented again in the administrators’ noticeboard thread about whether or not RegentsPark has misused his sysop powers. I’d appreciate it if you could continue to participate there, since it would bother me if this thread ends up being archived without any kind of resolution either way. --Captain Occam (talk) 16:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Comment
I was pleased to come across your thoughtful and respectful comments. Although I think it may be best to avoid Wickedpedia all together. :) Take care. Freakshownerd (talk) 00:23, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I am sorry, but I am unsure of which comments you are referring to. Basket of Puppies  23:01, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

ANI Notice
Please check page histories before issue these kinds of notices .--Crossmr (talk) 12:01, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

likely not accurate template
I noticed you placed a "likely not accurate" template on Template:Visa policy by country, without placing a rationale on the corresponding talk page. It strikes me as odd that this template is needed on this template as it is merely a list of countries + links. If you'd like to pursue putting the template, please find consensus first on talk... Rgds! L.tak (talk) 18:58, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * The consensus is here, which indicates that the articles are wildly inaccurate. If you wish to remove the template then please find consensus on talk first. Basket of Puppies  19:25, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps there has been some confusion. You put the "likely not accurate" template on Template:Visa policy by country, but you link to a discussion about "Visa requirements for Palestinian citizens". These are different pages. They are not the same page. If you think some other page is inaccurate, put the template on that page - or, even better, try to fix it. bobrayner (talk) 06:52, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Please stop tagging deletion
Dear BoP, I noticed you tagged several (all?) articles which carry the title "visa policy of xxx" for deletion. Your argumement is (nearly) always i) non encyclopedic, ii) not acurate. However,
 * for non-accuracy you will have to come with some proof!
 * for non-encyclopedicity, please explain. There is a (probation-like) consensus on Talk:passport/Archive 3 with several involved editors which discussed this item at length. Please address this concern if you want to go agains the concensus.
 * list class articles on relevant subjects are encyclopedic. What a country chooses as for who can come in for how long has historical and security and political reasons. In many cases these articles can be expanded to fill this content. It is however no reason for deletion of this kind of list classes...
 * I think many wikipedians will be getting tired of having this discussion on so many venues. In your discussion with me you clearly indicated that only a AfD discussion will be the correct venue for this (I agree). Would it be possible to have the discussion (since you bring up general points which relate to all deletions you proposed in this field) at 1 centralized place? I would strongly appreciate that! L.tak (talk) 06:18, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * L.tak, again you are trying to change procedure and policy. This is inappropriate and I ask you to please stop. Basket of Puppies  13:02, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * BoP, I didn't know the exact procedures, but just pointed out the route which you chose now with a large number of identical requests for deletion is not very productive (as many people have pointed out now). Also the discussion below comes to the same conclusion... I agree with alinor, that if you wish to pursue this there should be better means, a template such as Template:AfD_footer_(multiple) allows discussion at 1 venue as I suggested and requires less time from many wikipedians... L.tak (talk) 16:05, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Again with the deletion tags
If you tag very many articles in a few minutes, it's very difficult to believe that you've actually read the articles or looked at the refs; in which case I can only assume you regard them as inherently inaccurate, en masse, simply because they exist. Could you explain? If you genuinely believe an article is inaccurate, I would advise you to fix it, even though that may take much more time than adding a deletion tag. If you do not have a good reason to believe an article is inaccurate, then attempting to delete it on the pretense of inaccuracy merely annoys a lot of other wikipedians and wastes their time. Many of the articles you tagged were sourced from government pages about visa policy. Either you didn't see that in your rush to delete as many articles as you could, or you don't feel that government pages about visa policy are an accurate source of information about the respective governments' visa policies, or you feel that the articles do not accurately reflect the source; your copy & pasted deletion notice does not allow me to discern between the three possible explanations. I think it's probably the former, in which case I would strongly disagree with you and advise you to improve articles rather than trying to delete them as fast as you can. If you have an alternative explanation I would welcome any correction. bobrayner (talk) 06:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The topics are not encyclopedic and Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Adding reliable sources does not make the topic encyclopedic.  Basket of Puppies  13:01, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I do not see how they fail WP:NOT. Which part do you suggest they fail? Articles on well-documented government policies that affect many people should have no problem passing WP:NOTABILITY, and the encyclopaedia certainly does not suffer from the presence of additional, nonspammy, well-sourced information of international interest. Wikipedia isn't going to run out of bytes any time soon.
 * Did you read the articles before saying that they should be deleted for inaccuracy? Your very rapid copy & pasting of the deletion notice across many articles makes it hard for me to come to any conclusion other than that you did it en masse, blind, without regard to whether or not they were 'actually' accurate, much less any attempt to improve them.
 * Improving articles may often be harder work than simply pasting in a deletion tag, but it can help expand wikipedia. bobrayner (talk) 13:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The proper location for this discussion would be at the AfD. I firmly believe these articles are violating the precepts of Wikipedia is not a dumping ground for random information and Wikipedia is an encyclopedia while these article is not at all encyclopedic.  Basket of Puppies  13:20, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * My concern is with your behaviour in spamming many articles, rather than with one particular AFD. Expecting users to make a reasoned response on very many AFD pages, when you merely have to expend a few seconds flagging each article for deletion without even reading it, is setting a rather slanted playing-field. It is unfortunate that you went on another spree despite objections to your previous spree. If you insist that deletions should be dealt with individually, why didn't you try to seek consensus on each article, rather than clicking delete over and over again? bobrayner (talk) 13:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I spoke with an admin on IRC who stated I need to open an AfD for every article. You are teetering on not assuming good faith. I think it's important for you to no longer debate this with me but instead go discuss the issue on the AfDs. Good day. Basket of Puppies  13:30, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Excuse me If I am mistaking something, but I think this Template:AfD_footer_(multiple) should be used for multiple-page-AfD. I will post this to Morocco, Kyrgyzstan, EU and Basket of Puppies discussions. Alinor (talk) 14:37, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I have requested for an administrator to merge the 41 visa policy AfD nominations into a single page. See Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. — Tetromino (talk) 17:00, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

What does "random information" mean to you?
Hi there, I don't think we've "met" before other than in discussions at the Palestinian visa AFD. So, nice to meet you :-) You said you were curious about what I meant by a "valid article", and I'm also curious what you perceive as "random information", but I don't want to clog up the AFD with chatter which is a bit more "meta" and fairly personal. (If I write about that AFD here, I'm not attempting to canvass or persuade you, it's just to try and explain where I'm coming from. The correct place for substantive discussion about the AFD is obviously at its own page, as I'm sure you'd be the first to remind me!)

I wonder why your reaction to this article was that it just looked like a collection of "random information"? It's a common reaction at AFD and I'm genuinely interested as to what provokes it. The information in this article is anything but random - it appears to be wrong (which is a big problem, albeit fixable) but it is carefully and coherently organized. It would have been more random if the list of countries was given in an arbitrary, non-systematic order, or if information about Palestinians was mixed haphazardly with information for other nationalities, or if the article was interspered with information utterly irrelevant to the theme of visa requirements. I think your reaction might be more to do with a feeling of "woah, an article on visa requirements for Palestinians! Someone actually wrote a topic about that! That's just crazy!" But we have a lot of articles on very niche things that may look bizarre to a non-expert or someone not interested in that niche; actually this article is on a coherent topic, it's quite plausible that demand exists for this information, and indeed the topic of visa requirements is covered in a range of references (e.g. specialist handbooks and - at least online - gazetteers). Press "random article" here a few times, and you'll see some crazy-looking stuff, but if you want to experience something even more eclectic than the scope of Wikipedia articles, imagine being able to go to a random page at a random Wikimedia project. I did a few times, see if you can guess the Wikimedia project responsible for: a selection of quotes about physiognomy, eggs and ketchup banned in Norfolk, genealogy of a butterfly,, writing control statements in C#, text on an inscription at Blenheim Palace, interview with US Nazi leader, Australian English body parts, Vincent van Gogh's suicide note, quiz on anatomy of brachial plexus, words descended from Proto-Slavic *zima, how to cook Zuppa Regina di Riso,. Now that's pretty random. But none of those individual pages simply consist of random information: they all organize a particular set of information in a format appropriate for their native Wikimedia project. "Visa requirements for Palestinians" seems the kind of topic that fits into the Wikipedia schema - it isn't instructional, and belongs more in a reference handbook than in an instructional textbook.

My general philosophy is that if noteworthy verifiable information exists and could be useful to someone, we (not just as "Wikipedians" but in the broad "Wikimedians" or even wider "free culture activist" sense - we don't often think about the latter, but if you're here and being productive, that's exactly what you are!) ought to cover it somewhere. There are a wide range of Wikimedia projects, such that almost every conceivable piece of noteworthy verifiable information can be formatted to fit in at least one of them. (The biggest weakness is free mapping information, which is currently done with difficulty at Commons; OpenStreetMap isn't a WMF project but does a very good job - they're better technically equipped than us - and we share a lot of goals with them.) The way I approach questionable Wikipedia content is to first figure out if the information is actually potentially verifiable and useful (even if only to a niche audience), if so that information ought to be somewhere. That might not be Wikipedia, so I have a think about what other projects might suit that information better (sometimes it may need to be reformatted to fit). If it does seem "valid" for Wikipedia (and anything that can be found in a non-instructional reference book probably is) then it may not deserve its own article. Standalone notability matters here but other factors do too; it might be better integrated into another article (depending on whether the proposed parent article is already too long or the addition would give undue weight), or in some cases presented in one of the other namespaces (usually category, template or portal). There is an added complication for BLPs and some other articles (especially health-related) where it's worth thinking what harm the article could be done and whether it is maintainable in quality state, but of course that's a different set of arguments!

I hope that the above doesn't make me a diehard inclusionist; I do delete a lot of pages! Does that help explain what I mean when I talk about information being of a "valid" or "appropriate" type for inclusion? I'd love to understand what you perceive as "random" information; is it to do with the organization of the information, or more to do with its theme? TheGrappler (talk)


 * WP:TLDR. Basket of Puppies  18:03, 26 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Apologies, you said you were curious, so I thought I'd explain properly :-) My thought process isn't straightforward and it's hard to summarize in a few lines! And I am genuinely curious as to what you mean by "random information" - whether you mean that the theme of the information is so unusual as to be "random", or whether the information in the article is random in the sense that it is not systematic, or whether you mean something else altogether. I'm not trying to persuade you of anything, it's just that there is a lot of disconnect between people at AFD - we seem to be using the same words in different ways, and the more we understand each other, the better. It would dissipate a lot of tension if everybody could at least understand where everyone else is coming from. TheGrappler (talk) 20:19, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Visa Afd
I don't want to come down on you too hard, no doubt a few people have already so. I don't how you regarded the visa pages as useless and random information, when clearly many 10's thousands or even millions of people are going to be coming to WP look for that information. But that's not the reason, certainly you could be right, not in this aspect, but in other aspects, in the future. The question I have is why did you think that dumping 20-30+ articles in Afd, all of the same subtype, and expect that would somehow be useful to Afd? Why instead, did you not think, yea I'll post one and get an Afd discussion ongoing to remove the rest. Instead of us having to defend them, having to edit each one in turn. Frankly, it a been a complete waste of time. scope_creep (talk) 19:08, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * This has been explained ad nauseum. Basket of Puppies  18:11, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I found out there is a template for multiple articles for Afd submit. scope_creep (talk) 20:32, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Canvassing Votes Discussion
Hello,

On August 19, you notified Mariordo of this discussion:

Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive633

It is entirely evident that the only editor who feels that Mariordo has engaged in unfair canvassing is his accuser, OSX. Is there a way to officially end this discussion and clear Mariordo's good name? Many thanks. Ebikeguy (talk) 15:03, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar!
Dude, sorry about what happened to you. Of course your noms were obviously in good faith and legitimate. Hope you don't really let yourself get driven away. Herostratus (talk) 16:00, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Heymid
Hi, I just wanted to clarify what I said yesterday, and this page is a bit quieter than Heymid's, mine or ANI, so it won't get drowned out by all the other noise. I don't want to get into a discussion on the validity of the bloc etc. I just wanted to say that if you want to advocate (for want of a better word) for Heymid, that's great and you have my full support, but please familiarise yourself with the history. I'm not some rogue administrator preying on a hapless editor. As you'll see from Heymid's talk page history and archives, this isn't an isolated incident. Hopefully you'll also see that I'm only trying to help Heymid, and have gone well out of my way to do so, even convincing another admin I hold in high esteem not to block him. I've blocked over 1,000 editors (mostly vandals), but this was by far the toughest block I've made. I guess what I'm trying to say is that, if you're trying to help Heymid, I'm not the enemy. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   17:36, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Ok. Basket of Puppies  17:43, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

User_talk:FellGleaming
Howdy! Great username! I saw the note you left on User_talk:FellGleaming about Christine O'Donnell. There's a bit of discussion on the talk page of that article about the removal, which may explain his actions. I would encourage you to take a look at that conversation. (Also, some people have the view that template warnings are mostly for use with new users, see Don't template the regulars. It is not a rule of any sort, but just good practice, since experienced users are not likely to make the mistakes which are commonly mentioned in template warnings.)  In any event, keep up the good work and thanks for the work on the project! It looks like you're doing great stuff. Let me know if you have any questions or concerns, --TeaDrinker (talk) 19:47, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * First, Do Template The Regulars. Second, removal and sourced information is not a good editing technique. Basket of Puppies  20:11, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to argue or criticize, simply to point you toward the talk page discussion and make you aware of the discussions about the use of warning templates. --TeaDrinker (talk) 20:21, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

witch
Would you stop attacking that BLP with tabloid trivia. Off2riorob (talk) 20:52, 19 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It happens to be a Reliable Source. Have a nice day. Basket of Puppies  20:53, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Reliable source means nothing to me, your adding a witchcraft header is reflective of excessive undue editing. Off2riorob (talk) 20:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your opinion. It is summarily rejected. Have a nice day. Basket of Puppies  20:56, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Stuff your nice day. Off2riorob (talk) 20:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Wouter Schievink
Hello, good work at the article. There is some problem with one of the "list of published articles". Can you check what is wrong? N6n (talk) 05:13, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've seen this before. I'll try to fix it... Basket of Puppies  05:32, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Ahhhh frak. I can't figure it out. Basket of Puppies  05:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * It may be a bug with the citebot. I will also check and tell you the result here. N6n (talk) 06:23, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That is really a bug, I've filed a report here: . In the meantime I have used http://diberri.dyndns.org/cgi-bin/templatefiller/index.cgi?ddb=&type=pubmed_id&id=15824366&dont_use_etal=1 to generate the citation. N6n (talk) 07:15, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I've seen this before but never did figure out how to fix it. Thanks so much for the help. Basket of Puppies  18:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Oops
--Steven J. Anderson (talk) 14:36, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

— JPMcGrath (talk) 19:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

ANI re BLPN
Thanks for responding to the ANI Can you please explain what your rationale is for your comment? I've pointed out that I want to continue discussing the BLPN dispute and FTN dispute appears to be moving along well. --Ronz (talk) 21:27, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 21:50, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

What is a 24 hour block going to do?? -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE GOOD WORKS 00:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Please keep the discussion centralized to WP:ANI. Basket of Puppies  01:26, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It was intended as a friendly question. Just wondering why the limit to 24 is all? -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE GOOD WORKS 01:32, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Basket: just as an observation (because you're a relatively new editor), if you keep acting the way you're acting on ANI, you are going to get yourself in trouble (and justifiably so). Blocking is a decision that Admins will make based on discussion of the issues, not because people keep calling for it.  You need to trust that they know what they are doing, and stop with the saber-rattling.


 * I have to ask, because your behavior seems so personal - have you had a bad experience with Ronz someplace or other? If so, you should let us know what it is.  or if it's under an old user account, and you want to maintain anonymity, then you should let it go (don't carry grudges across accounts).  either way, unwind it before some sysop gets mad at you.  -- Ludwigs 2  05:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't think I'm a new editor any longer- been editing here for 1 year and 9 months. I have 2 GAs and a host of articles under my belt. Regarding Ronz, I have never had any interaction with Ronz in any way, shape or form. About the block, I feel that consensus on the issue is clear. If the community can ban someone then can't the community block someone? I am only suggesting these things, not demanding (I learned my lesson on that a few hours ago). Please disregard my suggestions if they aren't appropriate or correct. Basket of Puppies  05:23, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * ok, that's true, you're not a new editor. and please just take my comments as those of an interested bystander: I really was concerned that you might be pushing the limits a bit too much.  but if you've been here 1.75 years then I'll grant that you're not acting out of ignorance, so...    life is good.  -- Ludwigs 2  05:29, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Confused
Basket of Puppies, I'm confused by this. When I look at Ronz' block log I don't see a block.Griswaldo (talk) 02:35, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents where there is overwhelming consensus for blocking Ronz for disruption. Basket of Puppies  02:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes but that's not how it works. Admins use those templates after they actually do block someone.  Someone might see your use of the template as disruptive but it appears to me to be a simple mistake.Griswaldo (talk) 03:01, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Heads up about an RfC
Please note that there's a new discussion at Requests for comment/2010 ArbCom election voting procedure in which you may wish to comment. It is expected to close in about a week. You have received this message because you participated in a similar discussion (2009 AC2 RfC) last year. Roger talk 05:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

October 2010
Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. Thank you. --Ronz (talk) 02:44, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Could you remove "Hilariously" from your comment ? --Ronz (talk) 03:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You need to stay on the ANI page, Ronz. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE GOOD WORKS 03:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I don't. Please let me try to work out disputes. Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 03:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, you do. Ronz, you are hearby banned from my talkpage. I've had enough of your badgering. Basket of Puppies  05:28, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

And thanks Basket of Puppies for the apology --Ronz (talk) 03:41, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Let me be perfectly clear about this: putting a block template on the talk page of an editor who isn't blocked is generally considered to be vandalism. I understand that you meant well, but don't ever do that again. That "hilariously" comment made it even worse. This situation is already messy enough without nonsense like that. Looie496 (talk) 03:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * No vandalism intended or implied. Hope you accept my apology. Basket of Puppies  04:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I would also suggest that you cut us off at the knees a bit by titling the section on the motion for a 24 HOUR BLOCK. We hadn't discussed a time period yet, which I happen to not agree with. It's water under the bridge now, but check with others next time, okay? -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE GOOD WORKS 16:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I had suggested 24h as it seemed to be a short period of time and reasonable, but I fully realize and understand that there may be other suggestions. I thought that there would be other opinions as to a duration and mine was just one of them, but it appears others did not offer additional suggestions. I am sorry. Basket of Puppies  17:42, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Read my support response. -- T HE F OUNDERS I NTENT  PRAISE GOOD WORKS 18:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Citation basics
You are apparently creating a series of medical stubs without citing them correctly, all following the format at VZV immune globulin. What is Essential neurology, 2005, and what is the page number? If you are referring to this source:



please consider going back to those articles you have recently created, correcting the source, and adding the page number where you found the info. You can do that by copy edit/copy paste of my text above, adding the page no. Thanks. Also, please do not assess stubs as C-class articles. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 17:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the kind note, SG. I will go back to those articles. Regarding the class, I marked them as stubs, not C-class. I have no idea how or why they are registering as C-class. Basket of Puppies  17:56, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * See here; thanks for offering to clean up those citations. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:59, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * It appears that buried deep within the syntax there was a mistake. I am very sorry. Basket of Puppies  18:00, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Done! ✅ Basket of Puppies  18:18, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

FAC
It surely can, although it will probably take quite time. It has taken me 800 editions and a full year to take parkinson's disease from | this to its present state, and I have not yet taken it to FAC (I hope I do soon). I will not be able to directly work in your article, but I will help you as much as I can. First of all I would recommend 2 different things: I believe you should familiarize with MEDMOS, MEDRS and FAC criteria, to see what are you trying to head towards. On a second step you could try to find the most reliable secondary sources on the disease (you already have some): try to look for the newest reviews, in the best journals, by different reputable authors, etc. Read them and as you do try to see what info is missing in the article, what info you could source to that articles, and which info in the article collides with secondary sources...--Garrondo (talk) 22:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Question- if every primary source was also joined by a secondary source, do you think the article might stand a better chance of passing? If so, I will get to work on scouring the neurology textbooks. Basket of Puppies  07:56, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I already told you that I saw two major flaws: one was regarding sourcing and the other was regarding quantity of content. The first problem would be solved using secondary sources, however I would recommend that as you add secondary sources you eliminate at the same time the primary sources that are already covered by the secondary unless the primary source itself has some added value, such as being an historic landmark in the description of the disease or not having a secondary sources reviewing it because it is too new. Additionally if you add these secondary sources with care (reading them, seeing which aspects of the disease they give more importance, looking for things not covered in the wikipedia article...) you could probably also minimize the second problem. Finally it is probably worth remembering that secondary sources are not only books, but also reviews in journals. You already have some of the latter in the article and you may find them more useful than textbooks since they are more updated. Finally just as a proposal: Why first of all don't you create a full list of the different secondary sources you find on the issue including books, reviews, etc, and post it in the talk page of the article? That way other editors can give their opinion on them and/or have it easier to improve the article. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 08:44, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Campus Ambassador Program
Hi Basket of Puppies, I'm glad you're interested in joining the Campus Ambassador Program. The first step of the process is to have you fill out an application. Could you let me know where would be the best place to email the .doc? Thanks! Pjthepiano (talk) 19:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * basketofpuppieswiki@gmail.com  Basket of Puppies  20:57, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Sent. Thanks! Pjthepiano (talk) 21:10, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Signatures
Your question re: including the F-word in your signature:

don't. You're smarter than that. It will cause needless drama, which will spawn long-lasting resentment, and eventually lead to at least one indefinite block and/or angry retirement.

It's not worth it. DS (talk) 17:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * This is why I am asking before anything else. Basket of Puppies  18:16, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Your upcoming article
I am more than a bit envious that you are going to be published. I wish I would ever write anything worthy of being published, believe me. When I started here, my goal was to, maybe, be seen as eventually being an honorary Bollandist, but with things being what they are I haven't edited anything directly related to that topic for some time now. But if you ever want any assistance regarding the content based on that article here, even though I am far from being an expert in pretty much anything, I would be more than willing to do what I could at your request, even if it just meant looking things over and saying you weren't unduly self-serving in the content you add here.

If it is your own wish, I would hope that you have this problem rather a lot in your future, thinking about how to include material in our articles from your own published work. We could certainly use the input of someone who operates at a level where he is published in academic journals. Even if it does make some of us feel a bit smaller than we like, expert input is always welcome, and anyone published in an academic journal is expert enough for most of the purposes here. John Carter (talk) 22:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi, John. First, let me say that I am embarrassed that you see the would-be-published article as a major accomplishment. While it is something that I have worked very hard for, it all began with the SCSFLS article here. As you may have seen I worked for over a year to bring that article up to Good Article status and that included 2 failed GAs and a lengthy peer-review. The article that I am going to have published is based largely on the wiki article, but large chunks rewritten for the neurology/medical community. Meanwhile, a professor of mine at university read the wiki article and said, "You need to rewrite it for the scientific community and get it published. I will edit it for you and guide you." He really has been very, very patient with me and very, very encouraging.


 * If I can offer a suggestion if you wish to do the same (this advice might only apply to medical articles)-- bring an article up to GA or FA status, having compiled every journal article written on it. Then, with the help of a physician or professor, rewrite it for the medical community as a review article. It's won't be a huge rewrite from a general wiki article, so it won't require an entire rewrite for the published article, but it will be exhaustive and (hopefully) authoritative. I'll surely send you the article once it's published and hopefully you'll find it useful for your own purposes. Basket of Puppies  23:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Make sure that when the article is published, you leave a message with the Wikipedia Signpost about the publication. If you are saying that, basically, a rewrite of one of our articles here (your article, but still an article here) got published in a peer reviewed academic journal, that is certainly a significant enough event to be mentioned there. I honestly don't know of anything like this having happened before, and it is certainly something that we can brag about in general. For all I know, it might even eventually get referenced in our Wikipedia article or a related article in the future, as one of the highpoints of our production. Don't be too humble about writing something of sufficient quality to be an advertisement for the project as a whole, OK? ;) John Carter (talk) 23:38, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I really appreciate all the kind words. When the article is published I'll touch base with you for seeing how it might fit into the articles you listed. Basket of Puppies  02:44, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism on this page
Dear admins, for some time now my talk page has been subject to harsh vandalism that makes fun of my spinal disease. This talk page has been permanently semi-protected, but it appears that is something very easy to overcome. Is there some higher level of protection that would only enable registered editors able to edit this talkpage? Specifically, the autoconfirmation that is required for those editing from a Tor network requiring 90 days and 100 edits seems like a very good threshold. This harassment is burdensome and weighing heavily on me. Thank you. Basket of Puppies 23:02, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Elockid semi-protected it, which only allows autoconfirmed users to edit it. This means their account must be more than four days old and have more than ten edits. IP editors are unable to edit it. I believe that will keep that person from attacking you, as s/he seems to be creating multiple accounts to evade the block. Unless s/he is willing to make other edits and wait four days for each account, s/he won't be able to edit. Also, feel free to restore the helpme if this isn't a sufficient answer! — GorillaWarfare talk 23:11, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Did the semiprotection expire at some point? I thought the previous semiprotection was indefinite due to persistent vandalism? Basket of Puppies  23:13, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks like Elockid's semi-protection was only for a couple of hours and yes, it did expire. I've now semi-protected the page for a months.  If you need more, just holler.  Favonian (talk) 23:15, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If you need more feel free to holler to me too, in case I can get here quicker than Favonian. JamesBWatson (talk) 23:21, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Can I suggest also that you talk to this guy and maybe ask him to set up an edit filter for this page, which might catch some of the vandalism attempts? - A l is o n  ❤ 04:23, 5 December 2010 (UTC)
 * The old cluebot had an "angry mode" which would automatically revert most rubbish off of pages that were opted in. I'm not sure if the new bot will have this feature (it was disabled last time I checked, dunno if it will be re-enabled). You might speak with the owners and see if they can help you. User:Crispy1989 is probably the person to talk to for this. <span style="font-size:smaller;font-family:'arial bold',sans-serif;border:1px solid Black;"> N419 BH  07:32, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

You are cool, dude

 * Awwwwwwww!!!!! Basket of Puppies  02:56, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

FYI
Since you weren't informed, Sockpuppet investigations/Basket of Puppies. But it's been closed as. I just figured you should know. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 02:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I told you to not have your puppies wear socks! Now they are leaving them all over and there's a royal mess. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's very cold here in the Boston winter! I thought that maybe the puppies needed extra socks and blankets because I'm concerned they get cold at night. Oil is expensive and this old building doesn't have the greatest insulation. :) Basket of Puppies  02:22, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm over fifty miles away in Amherst, it isn't that cold. Give me your socks! Kevin Rutherford (talk) 02:28, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * True! Wasn't today an unusually warm day?! I was walking the 5 minutes to my synagogue this morning and half way there realized I was sweating! Took off my hat, gloves and moved the zipper on my coat down a bit. Basket of Puppies  02:30, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:Civil
"I was hoping to be suggested to specific articles," did read a little curtly and condescendingly imho, as much as my reply read sarcastically anyway. In other words: i think you're being pedantic. But that's fine, no harm done. Vespine (talk) 06:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't know when to let things drop, do you? Shame. Basket of Puppies  06:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Bag of Kittens
Sure enough, as I was walking out of the gym this afternoon I saw a man sitting on the sidewalk with a large clothing bag. Out of the opening there was a small kitten who had just stuck her head out to say hi. He had a bag full of kittens!!! Thought you all might enjoy. :) Basket of Puppies  21:51, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of William Hamman


The article William Hamman has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Doesnt appear to be particularly notable outside of one event - being found out

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. MilborneOne (talk) 16:56, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of William Hamman for deletion
The article William Hamman 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/William Hamman 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. MilborneOne (talk) 17:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit warring on Schizophrenia
Please be mindful of WP:3RR; I believe you've already breached it and need to revert yourself. Also, please be mindful of WP:OWN and establish consensus on talk for your changes; you are currently making changes against consensus, and during a FAR of the article, where other editors are working to improve the article. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 02:57, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I haven't done even 1RR let alone 3RR. I haven't edited against any consensus. I am simply working on the neurological section and expanding it. Basket of Puppies  02:59, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * AN3 report. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:29, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Mechanism
Not sure if you have seen this page here Mechanisms of schizophrenia. It would be great if this was better written than summarized into a couple of paragraphs and added to the main schizophrenia page. Not sure if the best layout is by imaging modality. Anyway will leave it to you for a bit to decrease edit conflicts... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:11, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I will be sure to edit that in depth. Thank you for the link. Basket of Puppies  03:13, 27 December 2010 (UTC)


 * To be sure, I am only editing this article only. Ok? Basket of Puppies  18:58, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

FYI
This is about you. Loopy48 (talk) 19:00, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I am aware of this and am paying more attention to content development than drama. Thank you for telling me about it. Basket of Puppies  19:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Now blocked, but you likely got e-mail from various socks. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 17:18, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

About schizophrenia articles
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks"> I think you deserve one of these, after what you've been going through the past couple of days. In my opinion, Sandy is a brilliant editor and a great contributor to the project, but things just didn't click between the two of you, and you really got whacked by it. I think you know that some of the earlier things were your fault, and you need to continue to recognize that it's a good idea to try to meet her part way where you can. But I also recognize, and I think the other involved editors recognize too, that you are making a good faith effort to do just that. Happy editing! --Tryptofish (talk) 18:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you, TF! I really do appreciate this! Basket of Puppies  19:07, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

SCFL
I believe that your last changes in the article are in the good direction. I would recommend however that if you are going to use a primary source at some point you make its status clear and do not generalize its conclussions. While I am specifically referring to this edit, it is valid in general. For example I have changed the sentence to A study found a 0% success rate for proper diagnosis in the emergency department.: this way it says that it was only 1 study (saying "studies" was OR) and also better to use "found" that demonstrated since it is not an experiment and neither can be generalized to other emergency departments or hospitals. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 08:23, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. Thank you for catching that. Basket of Puppies  08:25, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I've gone through the secondary sources I have and have been able to add those refs to many parts of the article that only had primary sources, but then I added a bit that I only had the primaries for. I'll work on it again later. Bedtime now. Basket of Puppies  08:29, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Such use of primary sources is perfectly valid. Good night.--Garrondo (talk) 08:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes I agree, but I'd like to get the article in shape for a FA review, which will necessitate secondary sources. May have to wait until another review article is published. Such is the literature life of rare neurological diseases. Good night. Basket of Puppies  08:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Having everything sourced to secondary refs is no requirement for FAC, but to have everything sourced to the best possible existing reference. Some use of primary sources, if adequately done, will not impede the article becoming a FA. Nevertheless if at some point you think of taking the article to FAC I would recommend another peer-review. If you want I would be willing to do it. --Garrondo (talk) 17:58, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Want to start on the peer-review now? Basket of Puppies  20:39, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Uff... I have just done a review for GA, so I will need some time to have a rest of reviewing. Additionally it has not been too long since the FAC, and I do not think all comments have been addressed. What I cand to do is take a look to the article and think and propose some areas that I feel that still have to be improved without being a formal review.--Garrondo (talk) 20:56, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Any sort of review and commentary would be sincerely appreciated. I looked through the FAC last night and it was a bit confusing as to what the issues exactly were (other than 2ndary sources, which I've added a few). Please have a rest and don't place this as a high priority. Been working on this article for 1.5 years now, so I am patient. :) Basket of Puppies  21:03, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I know the feeling... I have been the same time with Parkinson's disease. I will begin taking a look as soon as possible. Bests. --Garrondo (talk) 21:21, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I can help you out with Parkinson's disease if you like. I read parts of the article earlier today. Basket of Puppies  21:40, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Murdocgr mentor request
Hello Basket of Puppies, I am a student in the Writing, Rhetoric and Technical Communications major at James Madison University and am involved with the public policy project. I am hoping you will be my mentor throughout my work this semester!

Looking forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely, Murdocgr — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murdocgr (talk • contribs) 19:28, 25 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Dear Murdocgr, I would be happy to be your mentor! If you can give me an idea as to your experience and expertise editing Wikipedia thus far I am sure I can custom design a mentorial for you. When you can reply here with those details and we'll be on our way! Basket of Puppies  19:31, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Academic incentive
This isn't really an essay, it's a proposal. But it's not a Wikipedia proposal, it's a suggestion that external bodies adopt a change in their academic credit system. Rather than leaving this proposal/essay languishing unread here, why not discuss your idea at Wikipedia talk:School and university projects, Wikipedia talk:Ambassadors, or http://outreach.wikimedia.org? Fences &amp;  Windows  01:09, 26 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I guess it's fine to move it there. I really didn't know where to put it but thought an essay wouldn't be a bad idea. Basket of Puppies  01:10, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

BofP Videos
I’m new to the Ambassador program (MSU-Bozeman Montana State University) and to contributing to Wikipedia. I think your videos posted on the USPP - Spring 2011 Public Policy page have a straight forward approach on how-to do a task, are easy to follow, and can be very helpful. I plan to show my class where to find them if they need them. You asked if we had other topics we’d like to see covered. I’d very much like to see one done on “use and creation of images for Wikipedia” as saving and using images seems a more complex process. If I have posted this comment/request to the wrong place just let me know where it should be. I’m still figuring out what goes where and how to communicate with others. Thanks. McMormor (talk) 16:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey, McMoror! I am blushing by your compliments! So, you'd like a video covering how to upload a video to Wikipedia and insert it in an article? Just confirming before I actually do that. Let me know! Basket of Puppies  16:31, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Yup, “covering how to upload a video to Wikipedia and insert it in an article,” that’s what I’m hoping you’ll make. It would also be very helpful to my professor and students --me too-- if your videos where also listed on the Wikipedia:Ambassadors/Resources page with all the others. If you do one on images it would be there with the one on CC licenses. Can you put them there? Thanks. McMormor (talk) 17:19, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Gotchya! Give me a few hours and I'll make a "how to upload videos to the WIki and insert them into articles". I'll let you know when I finish. Basket of Puppies  02:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Here is the first part, adding an image to Wikipedia and inserting it in an article. The second part, of what to do with those imaged (size, space, etc) will be in a follow up. Basket of Puppies  04:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter: 28 January 2011
Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 00:30, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Video
Nice video! Very informative. Only one thing: you got the gender pronoun wrong, haha! Contrary to popular belief, I am female. No worries though! – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 17:53, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, the audio seems fine, but I'm having issues with the video. Is that just my computer? – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 17:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with the audio? It should be in sync. You might need to turn your volume. I have no way to turn up the input volume with the programs I am using. That's what happens when it's free. Basket of Puppies  19:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No, the audio is fine. Towards the beginning, though, I can hear you typing and clicking, but nothing is happening in the video itself -- it's just a still screencap. Nothing starts moving until about 2:30 for me. If it's working for you, though, it's probably just my computer... Also, what software do you use? – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 20:26, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I just asked in IRC and the folks there don't report a similar issue. I use OS X and QuickTime to record it as a .mov, then MPEG Streamclip to make it into an .mp4 and then VLC to make it into an OGG. I can't go from .mov to .ogg directly as it causes the AV to be out of sync. I think it might be your computer. What sort of machine are you running? Basket of Puppies  20:28, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

BofP as Possible Mentor
I'm new to Wikipedia as a student at Montana State University NAS 426 and am looking for an online mentor, who will be availble to offer advice and assistance as I start editing. Thanks Misstbird153.90.170.89 (talk) 19:11, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi there, Misstbird. I appreciate you considering me, but I am all full up. One of the other ambassadors should be able to take you on, tho. Good luck! Basket of Puppies  19:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your time. Misstbird 153.90.170.89 (talk) 19:27, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Not terribly sure where to start...
I just chose you as my wikipedia mentor (or at least initiated that process by clicking a button) for the United States Public Policy WikiProject. Would you be able to give me some help getting started? I made some edits to wikipedia ages ago but have since fallen a bit out of practice :)

To give you an idea of exactly how bad it is - I clicked "Watch this page" and I'm assuming I'll be notified somehow of your receipt of/response to this message, but I'm not sure exactly how I will receive that... So yes, please do let me know if at all possible. Cheers! - Boonefrog (talk) 03:37, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I would be happy to be your mentor! If you can give me an idea as to your experience and expertise editing Wikipedia thus far I am sure I can custom design a mentorial for you. When you can reply here with those details and we'll be on our way! Basket of Puppies  03:42, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Quite limited expertise, really. When I signed up and added my username to my course page I couldn't even figure out why it was red. Still don't know exactly.

I browse Wikipedia endlessly, however, for both pleasure and academic inquiry but have never really tried the username/talk/discussion/edit/etc functions in any meaningful way. Does that help give you a sense of where I'm at? - Boonefrog (talk) 03:57, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey, Boonefrog. I am going to make a subpage where we'll begin your Wikipedia education! Click here and we'll go step by step. Basket of Puppies  04:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey BoP!~ Videos were awesome - good job! What's my next step at Wikipedia U?? - Boonefrog (talk) 18:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Hey BoP - I added some candidates for Policy Project topics to my user page. I'm not terribly excited about any one in particular but I do know that they encompass some of my general areas of interest in US policy and they are better than regular class assignments. If you have time or any input - I'd love to hear your feedback on them or your ideas on any related topics or derivatives of those that may spark my interest a bit more! PS: do you want me to use the colon marks to thread a conversation? Is that normal/what we should be doing? - Boonefrog (talk) 18:06, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey, BF. Thanks for writing me and asking for my advice on your topics. I'll be fully honest in telling you that I have no expertise or experience with policy issues, so I am unsure if I am the best person for that topic. I do think that medical amnesty is a super interesting topic and one that I wasn't fully aware of. You can try to craft an article that would explore the medical amnesty policies of various US universities and their relationship with law enforcement. Maybe that's one idea? Regarding the formatting of messages, a colon is really only necessary when replying to something existing. Otherwise a new line (or section) is cool. Good luck. Basket of Puppies  18:30, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Cool. Let me assure you, though: expertise and experience have little bearing in most cases (I know this because I have neither!). As far as I can tell, all that makes a policy discussion of an issue any different from a Wikipedia discussion of an issue is maaayyybbee attention to how it relates to the Policy Process - and that's if you want to get technical and if you are a proponent of that particular linear explanation of policy process or one of the dozens of others out there! So really, as far as I'm aware, my only constraints on topic are that there is some policy (judicial, legislative, executive, or broad practice - DADT, for example, could fit multiple categories) concerning the issue and that it's interesting to me/needed by Wikipedia. I guess it's just the "interesting/needed" part I'm having the most trouble with. To give an example and better explain how it is that I'm stumped, I'd really love to do something cognitive-psych or post-detection policy-related, if possible, but can't come up with any US or state policies related to it - closest I can get for the latter is SETI's Protocol. I feel like I'm always stumbling on large Wikipedia entries of multi-disciplinary bad-assery like that but for some reason, it's really tough to think of my interests from a policy angle. Ah well, let me know if you have any ideas based on my interests and that Wikipedia/its users would benefit from.
 * Oh! and also part my assignment for tomorrow is for me to ask you for feedback on my article possibilities :) - Boonefrog (talk) 21:37, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Alright, let's take a look at your possibilities

Let me know if you need any more feedback. Basket of Puppies 22:07, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) 3D Printing Copyright Issues -Not an existing article but likely to be an important one
 * 2) Post-Detection Policy of SETI or NASA -I personally find this to be very interesting (I'm a big geek) and I bet you can make it into a well developed article
 * 3) Medical Amnesty in the US -existing article that is poorly developed and can certainly benefit from a lot of help
 * 4) graffitti/street art response policy in the US -it seems to be completely blank (the US section) and thus can benefit from a lot of help
 * 5) evidence-based drug policy in the US -define 'evidence-based'
 * 6) e-government in the US-definitely can be spun off into its own article and use a lot of expansion


 * Gggah! You are awesome. This helps a lot - just kinda needed to see that I was on the right track ya know? I've narrowed a bit further. I'm interested in the first 4 listed above in descending order of interest. The first two are particularly intriguing to me but: (1) may be a bit complex and I would have a hard time getting sources due to the the lack of authoritative bodies of legal opinion, and (2) you are right, would be sweet, but I don't think NASA has a PDP - I know SETI does and maybe a couple other international orgs. Does this Wikipedia Public Policy Project thing need to be gov'ts or can it be non-profits? Need to be US or can they be international? Thanks! - Boonefrog (talk) 15:29, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you!
Thank you, Basket of Puppies, for your honest and thoughtful  assessment of the article! If I am still around, when you apply for the administrator-ship, I will support it. Best wishes. --Mbz1 (talk) 15:17, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for adopting me
I'm glad you've adopted me. It makes me feel very welcome! I'm still learning the ropes, but it's nice to have someone I can ask questions when I get confused.--PolicyRocker15 (talk) 16:07, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Questions about footnotes
Hi BOP,

I just added to the discussion page on Land Use Planning. For the heck of it (practice), I directly quoted something, and footnoted it. I then used your instructions on making a reference list at the bottom, but it didn't show up. Is that because it was a topic on a discussion page, and not an actual article? I'm confused. SylvaSG (talk) 17:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi Sylva! Reference lists will only work on article pages, not talk pages. Try it again on the article page and let me know how it goes. Basket of Puppies  17:50, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Will you be my mentor?
I'm TOTALLY new to Wikipedia editing, here as a requirement of a Public Policy class at Western Carolina University in North Carolina. I hope I'm successful in this first assignment, to find a mentor..... ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by SylvaSG (talk • contribs) 04:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Dear SylvaSG, I am happy to be your mentor! I am creating a subpage for you here that we'll use for lessons and introducing you to Wikipedia. I have several videos there that teach you the basics of Wikipedia. I'll be creating and adding videos all the time and can easily make new videos based on any topic you are interested in. For now watch the videos and let me know if they make sense and when you might be interested in taking the next steps. Basket of Puppies  04:55, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you BOP! Heading to class this evening, armed with my new knowledge. Next wikipedia assignment is to evaluate an article and leave suggestions for improving it on its discussion page. I won't be doing this until tomorrow, probably. Also, I am considering editing the article entitled "land use planning" for my main project. Can you have a look and let me know what you think about my selection? SylvaSG (talk) 14:51, 27 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I've just added a video on how to add things to your watchlist. Check the subpage for it. I used the land use planning article as an example. Next I'll make a video on how to assess an article. Basket of Puppies  15:27, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for all of the great videos! I'm assessing the Land Use Planning video now, and will use it throughout the semester for my class. By spring, it shall be much more readable, informative, and well referenced. Thanks again for all your help. SylvaSG (talk) 16:22, 3 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Excellent! Please ask any questions and i'll be happy to make a video on any topic you feel necessary. Basket of Puppies  14:12, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Taft Law School
What's up with the "Notable Persons" section? Do you mean "Alumni"? Or will ANY notable person (such as you!) will do? This needs to be cleaned up. It also needs to be objective and not loaded with a few bad apples biasing the reader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.196.65.122 (talk) 05:18, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

The PDP article's humble beginnings
Hey! So I've gotten a start on the sources and (very) rough outline for the article. I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on organization before I get too far down the line. You can view my notes and such at my Sandbox. Cheers! - Boonefrog (talk) 22:35, 10 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Looks good. You have a good outline and a lot of references from reliable sources. I'll watchlist it and keep an eye on it! Please let me know if you have any questions. Basket of Puppies  00:05, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Editing Fridays article for 11 February 2011
--Guerillero &#124; My Talk   02:59, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter: 13 February 2011
Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 18:20, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Ted Kaptchuk et al.
You're pretty clearly coming off the rails on this topic, I highly suggest turn it down several notches or take a wikibreak. Just some friendly advice; it's easy to get up in arms and lose perspective. Please don't reply to this as I have no desire to embroil myself in some personal dispute. If I have anything else to contribute I'll do so on the appropriate talk pages. Best wishes. Kuguar03 (talk) 06:56, 13 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Kuguar, I am participating in the discussion and conversation regarding the issues of this notable scientist and am keeping a very level head from beginning to end. I invite you to participate as equals and in a rational manner. Asking me not to reply to something posted on my talk page and after you accused me of losing my cool and WP:TE is very confusing. When you feel you are ready to participate in the conversation as equals please let me know. Until then I suggest you take a wikibreak as it is against the most basic principals of collaboration to engage in the manner in which you are. Basket of Puppies  14:51, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Yeshivat Ohr David
Hi Basket of Puppies! I see that you have removed the proposed deletion of Yeshivat Ohr David. Judging by your edit summary, you seem to have more knowledge than me on the yeshiva. Can you please expand the article to make it more clearly notable? Also, I'd greatly appreciate it if you added geographic coordinates to the article. Thanks, Ynhockey (Talk) 14:33, 19 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I shall. I am in the middle of exams but will get to it very soon. Basket of Puppies  00:51, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Mentoring students: be sure to check in on them
This message is going out to all of the Online Ambassadors who are, or will be, serving as mentors this term.

Hi there! This is just a friendly reminder to check in on what your mentees are doing. If they've started making edits, take a look and help them out or do some example fixes for them, if they need it. And if they are doing good, let them know it!

If you aren't mentoring anyone yet, it looks like you will be soon; at least one large class is asking us to assign mentors for them, and students in a number of others haven't yet gotten to asking ambassadors to be their mentors, but may soon. --Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 20:05, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Question About Adding Students to the Program
Hey. I was hoping you could help. I don't know how to add student accounts to my class list (in fact I don't know if I even have a class list). I wanted to be able to keep tabs on how much editing my students do. Profgennari (talk) 13:49, 22 February 2011 (UTC)Profgennari


 * Hey Dr Gennari! Nice to hear from you. I made a video showing how to do this for another course, but it should be the same for you. This is the video and I hope it helps! Basket of Puppies  20:17, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

great, thank you. is there a place I can go to find a list of items which need work. I know I'm not part of the public policy issue per se but I am looking for easy pickings to guide the students. We're doing history events, but I was hoping there was a wiki list of "things that need work" I could peruse. I hope you are well in Boston, hows the snow? Coming to NYC anytime soon? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Profgennari (talk • contribs) 04:45, 23 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I was actually in NJ and NYC this past weekend for a friend's wedding. I set out Sat night and spent Sunday and Monday in Teaneck, NJ, Queens and the Bronx. Good times. As far as the list of things to work on, those exist in the form of both maintenance tags and article assessments. Since you are a historian you might be interested in the Wikipedia History Project. It's a group of folks who spend their time creating, expanding and improving history articles on Wikipedia. These sorts of project exist for many different topics and it might be a good place to get started. If you tell me specifically what you're interested in I think I might be able to give you specific details. Basket of Puppies  05:29, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Mentor Request
Hello, I am currently working on articles with a focus on policy analysis. My last mentor seems to have gone inactive, and I was hoping you would mentor me. I would greatly appreciate this. Thank you. BrickWallBartholomew (talk) 17:12, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi BWB. I am honestly touched that you would ask me to mentor you, but I am currently filled up. I am mentoring an entire graduate school class and two people online. I am sorry but I just don't have the time. Basket of Puppies  18:47, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi Basket of Puppies, I just wanted to check in and see if you are my mentor? Im really new to Wikipedia and see that I have a message from you on your talk page but cant seem to find it! Im working on the White House Conference on Aging under the Public Policy Project through JMU. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Murdocgr (talk • contribs) 19:13, 24 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi BWB. I am honestly touched that you would ask me to mentor you, but I am currently filled up. I am mentoring an entire graduate school class and two people online. I am sorry but I just don't have the time. Basket of Puppies  19:32, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Article on gun violence in Texas
Hello BoP,

I am writing to you to give you the address of Realpolitikz and HMring's sandbox article in Wikipedia: User:Realpolitikz/GunControl_Sandbox or here. Thanks for your help!

--Realpolitikz (talk) 06:51, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

Sandbox
Hi BoP - our article-in-progress is in my sandbox, and I've put a link next to the subject line on our course page. Thanks for your help and feedback! Dglasser13 (talk) 01:08, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

my sandbox
Deefalvo (talk) 01:10, 6 March 2011 (UTC) hello - i'm in prof weil's public policy class. here is my sandbox for your reference and perusal: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Deefalvo/Sandbox

Veterans' Mental Health Benefits in the United States
The link has been added to the course page. I tried to post it here but got this error message: "An automated filter has identified this edit as potentially unconstructive, and it has been disallowed. If this edit is constructive, please report this error." AnandJRao (talk) 04:59, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Veterans' Mental Health Benefits in the United States Basket of Puppies  05:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey there. As I understand it you tried to post the above link but got the filter error. I just tried it and it came up for me, so it might have just been a temporary error message. Please try it again and let me know if the problem comes back. Basket of Puppies  05:20, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Veterans' Mental Health Benefits in the United States I guess it worked this time. Thanks for your help. AnandJRao (talk) 05:27, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I guess it was a momentary Wiki-Hiccup. Basket of Puppies  05:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Trouble with Wikimedia Commons
Hi there, I am unable to log into wikimedia commons. I'm using my wikipedia account, but it says my username doesn't exist (and I saw that it's case sensitive). Any advice? Thanks! -Asoler — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asoler (talk • contribs) 21:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I am checking to see if there are any technical issues. One moment... Basket of Puppies  21:07, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * On the very top of the screen click on there it says "My preferences". Tell me what it says under Global account. Basket of Puppies  21:08, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi again - it wasn't unified, so I did that and now it works. Thanks so much! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Asoler (talk • contribs) 21:39, 7 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Excellent. Basket of Puppies  22:01, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

St Matthews edit reference to banning is actually correct
St Matthews edit reference to banning is actually correct (please read the whole reference link) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katherineswift86 (talk • contribs) 16:46, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Marking articles students are working on
Howdy, Online Ambassador!

This is a quick message to all the ambassadors about marking and tracking which articles students are working on. For the classes working with the ambassador program, please look over any articles being worked on by students (in particular, any ones you are mentoring, but others who don't have mentors as well) and do these things:


 * 1) Add  to the articles' talk pages.  (The other parameters of the WAP assignment template are helpful, so please add them as well, but the term = Spring 2011 one is most important.)
 * 2) If the article is related to United States public policy, make sure the article the WikiProject banner is on the talk page: WikiProject United States Public Policy
 * 3) Add Category:Article Feedback Pilot (a hidden category) to the article itself.  The second phase of the Article Feedback Tool project has started, and this time we're trying to include all of the articles students are working on. Please test out the Article Feedback Tool, as well.  The new version just deployed, so any bug reports or feedback will be appreciated by the tech team working on it.

And of course, don't forget to check in on the students, give them constructive feedback, praise them for positive contributions, award them The WikiPen if they are doing excellent work, and so on. And if you haven't done so, make sure any students you are mentoring are listed on your mentor profile.

Thanks! --Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 18:10, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Polyspermy
Before you revert the stable version - please discuss this first on the talk page. As for your question: Hope this helps. Anyway, next time, please consult pefore you revert the stable version.
 * Look at the beginning of the third line. The Talmud quotes the verse from 1 Samuel 17, 4, which goes as follows: "And there went out a champion out of the camp of the Philistines", right? Now, look at your Bible - ibid., and see the full verse: "And there went out a champion out of the camp of the Philistines, named Goliath...". Right?
 * So, the Talmud quotes the verse about Goliath, and then: interprates this verse - using a pun - in the following way (see the Talmud ibid. in that third line): "One hundred foreskins of Philistines - got her [i.e. his mother] pregnant". In other words: the Talmud explains, that the biblical words "And there went out a champion" - mean: "And there was created/born a champion", and it also explains that the biblical words: "out of the camp of the Philistines", mean: "out of a hundred foreskins of Philistines". Note that this fantastic interpretaion made by the Talmud - is based on a pun: the word for "camp" is similar to (i.e. sounds like) "a hundred foreskins" (not in English of course). Note also that fantastic interpretaions for the Bible - are very common in the Talmud.
 * Now, look ibid. at the next line (i.e. the fourth line); The Talmud now explains how - having so many fathers - is really possible from a biological point of view, so the Talmud continues: "Rav Matania said: no controversy over that; as long as the sperm [of the first man] hasn't gotten rotten [in the woman's body] yet, a woman can get pregnant by two men - all at once".
 * Notice that all of the Talmud's commentators explain all of this - as I did.

Eliko (talk) 10:55, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * The version that you are attempting to revert to is unstable. Your Talmudic source might be correct but it does not have any relevance to the article. You are attempting to edit against consensus. If you continue to revert then I will report you for WP:3RR and edit-warring. Thank you. Basket of Puppies  15:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * You've made three mistakes:


 * Is the version I'd reverted to - unstable? On the contrary: the version that you were attempting to revert to - is unstable, because the chapter you'd removed, was added three years ago (on 5 May 2008), and lasted until 14 March 2011, i.e. until the day before yestreday, whereas the version you were attempting to revert to - lasted for less than 40 hours only - that were uncontinuous and broken, so which version is more stable?
 * Returning the chapter you'd removed - is not against the consensus at all. The chapter is supported by User:(MOB)DeadMeat, and is also supported by User:Chrishatch1973, and is also supported by User:Eliko; whereas the removal of the chapter is supported by User:Basket of Puppies only. Really, it was also supported (in the past) by User:DragonflySixtyseven, however their reason for the removal - was refuted on their talk page (and on the article talk page as well), and they didn't respond to the refutation. According to the law: Silence gives consent, the very fact that User:DragonflySixtyseven didn't respond to the refutation - shows that User:DragonflySixtyseven does not reject the explanation given on their talk page (and on the article talk page as well) for returning the chapter. To sum up, three editors (User:(MOB)DeadMeat, User:Chrishatch1973 and User:Eliko) support the chapter, and one single user (User:Basket of Puppies) rejects it, so which option is more consensual? Returning the chapter, or removing it?
 * The chapter you removed is relevant, as I'd explained on the article talk page - before you removed the chapter. If you think the chapter is irrelevant - despite my explanation (on the article talk page) why it's relevant, then please discuss that on the article talk page.


 * Note that when you responded to me on my talk page - each one of us had made one revert only - during 2011, so: considering that the single revert I've made during 2011 - was sufficient for you to warn me of your reporting me for WP:3RR and edit-warring - if I "continue to revert", also your single revert you've made during 2011 - should be sufficient for me to warn you of my reporting you for WP:3RR and edit-warring - if you "continue to revert".
 * If you continue to both - remove a consensual chapter - and replace it by an unstable version which is against the consensus, then I will report you for violating Wikipedia policy, that requires - to discuss everything on the article talk page - before removing a consensual chapter and before replacing it by an unstable version which is against the consensus.
 * Anyways: due to your claim about irrelevance, I will add to the (stable consensual) chapter - some clarification, to make sure that every reader (including User:Basket of Puppies) understands its relevance.
 * Eliko (talk) 21:37, 16 March 2011 (UTC)


 * WP:TLDR. Basket of Puppies  23:31, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Wallace
Honestly, I've looked at the Wallace stub, and... it really shouldn't be in mainspace, is my opinion. It's much too... too 'one event', you know? If someone else had made this, I would have deleted it by now; the only reason I haven't yet is that I'm giving you the chance to agree with me and mark it for deletion yourself. DS (talk) 14:47, 20 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Not going to disagree with you, but I don't think sandbox articles are usually deleted. Basket of Puppies  16:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I concur with DragonflySixtyseven on this one; I don't think an article on her would survive in the mainspace, however well-written it is. Airplaneman   ✈  04:53, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
 * You just might be right, but it is possible she will become notable at some point considering the continued coverage on her. If she does then having a basic, well referenced article might not be a bad thing. Basket of Puppies  04:56, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassador Program Newsletter: 21 March 2011
Delivered by EdwardsBot (talk) 22:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

question about images
Deefalvo (talk) 06:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey! I checked my email but don't see anything. Sure it's there? Basket of Puppies  13:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of 2011 UCLA racism controversy for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2011 UCLA racism controversy is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/2011 UCLA racism controversy 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.  Will Beback   talk    21:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Live!
Hi BoP - I just wanted to let you know that our article has gone live. You can find it at Movie Production Incentives in the United States. Dglasser13 (talk) 02:50, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Elizabethatbu
BoP, my sandbox is currently at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Elizabetsyatbu/sandbox but the Ambassador Box with a link to the sandbox says there isn't one, I think because when I finally was able to create a box, it wasn't capitalized: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Elizabetsyatbu/Sandbox&action=edit&redlink=1 I am trying to figure out if I can make the link inside the ambassador box on my userpage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Elizabetsyatbu actually go to the existing sandbox. Also, could I figure out a time with you to talk about how to merge bits of my article (still in the sandbox) with the existing article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_Brazil. I hope I figured out this posting thing correctly. Elizabetsyatbu (talk) 17:00, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hey there. I've gone ahead and moved your sandbox from the lowercase 's' to the capital 'S', and this fixed the link on your userpage's Ambassador Box. Regarding merging, the best thing to do it to manually copy/paste the sections you wish to merge into the live article and when that's done let me know and I'll have an admin do the history merge. Basket of Puppies  17:10, 28 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Awesome. Thank-you for the quick fix on the sandbox.Elizabetsyatbu (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Slow down
BoP, please seriously consider deleting the nascent ArbCom request you've started; that is simply not the type of thing they handle, I can pretty much guarantee you will not get what you're looking for there. If you want to discuss it on my talk page (or here), we could do that... --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:16, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I respectfully decline. The issue isn't being taken earnestly. Basket of Puppies  22:17, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * But it isn't going to be taken earnestly at ArbCom either. "Angry" is not a good mindset to have when creating an ArbCom request; at least consider putting it off until tomorrow? Everyone will still be here then. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I have seen that ArbCom is one of the few places to find earnest in the administrative process, for better or worse. I am certainly not angry, just seeking an earnest hearing of the matter. Basket of Puppies  22:21, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I wish you'd reconsider. If you change your mind and want to talk a little more before leaping into this, ping my talk page. --Floquenbeam (talk) 22:24, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Basket of Puppies, I too suggest that you indicate that you wish to withdraw the RFAR; arbitration is the last venue of dispute resolution and your request will almost certainly be declined because other avenues have not been explored. Regards Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 22:34, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Like above, it appears that I may only be able to get an earnest review at ArbCom. Basket of Puppies  22:42, 29 March 2011 (UTC)


 * This request is one of the most frivolous I've seen at the arbitration requests page for some time. I understand that you were hurt by MZMcBride's remarks, but by filing such a baseless arbitration request you are wasting everybody's time and demonstrating a lack of understanding of site policy on disputes. In short, if anything will be achieved here, it will be that you look a little foolish. Please: withdraw the request, before a clerk does in a day or so. AGK  [</nowikI>&bull; ] 00:22, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I certainly do not view it as frivolous. Regarding your suggestion to withdraw it, That said I believe this issue can be closed. Basket of Puppies  00:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * I do view the request as frivolous, because it is. If you cannot see that that is the case and that that is the belief of every other editor who has commented at the arbitration request (including all the arbitrators), then I genuinely will be worried. When I first read your request for arbitration, I thought it was a joke; that probably speaks more about this situation than anything else. I've made my opinion on your actions clear, so I won't say anything else. Regards, AGK  [</nowikI>&bull; ] 12:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that with this the matter is settled as well. Would this apology happened if the issue hasn't been escalated, is a different question to consider. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 00:34, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Quite so :). AGK  [</nowikI>&bull; ] 12:27, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Just to clarify, does this mean that you wish to withdraw the request for arbitration? I ask in my capacity as an Arbitration Committee Clerk. Alexandr Dmitri (talk) 12:43, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * AD, yes. Close it however clerks close arb requests. Basket of Puppies  17:48, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

PDP article in live space
Hey, I just moved my post-detection policies article from my sandbox to the main space. I still have 10 or so promising references that'll probably add to more content and the major problem with the article right now is that I didn't standardize the formatting in the reference list (is there a page that gives guidelines on this?). Anyway, check it out and let me know what you think! Boonefrog (talk) 20:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * From first glance this article is fantastic. The only thing you'll need to add is a WP:LEDE. Let me know how I can help. Basket of Puppies  23:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
 * So that basically just means that I should reformat the intro paragraph(s) to be a summary of the article body? but can I keep the rest of the info in there since its sort of summative of PDP theory but not necessarily referenced or fleshed out later in the article?? Boonefrog (talk) 02:42, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Oh! and what's the deal with the tagging and rating of articles related to the Public Policy WikiProject? Do I need to add something? I checked out the Assessment tab of the Project page and became instantly confused... Boonefrog (talk) 03:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll make sure to tag it appropriately. The intro that you moved seems good to me. Your article is very impressive- certainly B-class. I highly suggest you check out WP:GA and see if you might qualify to elevate it to a Good Article. Basket of Puppies  04:29, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Cool - thanks! I just got done doing some more edits - mainly in lead section as per the WP:LEDE link you sent (let me know if it checks out!) but also some other clarity stuff in the body. Other things I wanted to throw out there are the poor state of my "References" section and the possibility of "See Also" or "External Links"-type sections. What do you think? As for the WP:GA stuff I think that my assignment for next week is to get it to a place where I feel comfortable nominating it for Good Article status. I'm at least somewhat okay with my content but I feel like I could use your suggestions on meeting WP-specific standards... maybe leave feedback on the articles's discussion page if that's appropriate at this point? Boonefrog (talk) 05:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I looked over the WP:GA stuff and I think I can get it there soon. It wasn't the assignment for this week, but it will get nominated once the necessary changes are made. Let me know when you get a chance to look it over for specific criticisms and/or tag it with the WP:Public Policy stuff! Boonefrog (talk) 21:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I've been showing this article to people as an example of excellent work. Also, I think the topic is really cool. You may want to ask the folks at the WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors to go over your article for things like spelling, prose, etc. Not that you did anything wrong but it's always good to have some outside eyes. Basket of Puppies  23:40, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Available on 4/17 for Boston meetup?
Since you aren't available on Sunday 4/10, we're likely moving the date of the April Boston meetup and Wikipedia Takes Boston to the next week, 4/17. Are you available on 4/17? Best, Emw (talk) 12:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I think so!! I'll mark it on my calendar. :) Basket of Puppies  18:33, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Autoconformation RfC
A formal Request for Comment has now been started on this topic. Feel free to contribute; best, Ironholds (talk) 19:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Problem uploading new version of image
I changed a pie chart on our page Benefits_for_US_Veterans_with_PTSD by uploading a new version to wikimedia commons http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:PTSD_statistics.PNG. However, the thumbnail is still the old version. If you click on the thumbnail, it takes you to the updated picture. I also noticed that if I take the word "thumb" out of the code, it replaces it with the right picture (but its too big). Any ideas for how to get the right thumbnail image? --AnandJRao (talk) 07:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Hey there. I think Images is what you're looking for. This has instructions on how to change the image size. Let me know if you need further help. Basket of Puppies  15:09, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I tried that and its still the wrong image (the old one). The only way I get the right image is if I put not restrictions on its size.  Should I just upload another image as a new image and try that? --AnandJRao (talk) 16:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I've just checked and confirmed with others- you've come across a technical glitch. I am trying to find a fix. Basket of Puppies  16:34, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * They say that the thumbnail server is not doing well but they are working on a fix. Hold tight for now- it should be fixed in a few hours. Basket of Puppies  16:51, 4 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The right thumbnail is there now. Thanks for your help! --AnandJRao (talk) 22:35, 4 April 2011 (UTC)