From the author of 5 Section Taijiquan (五段太極拳):
This is from: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/5 Section Taijiquan (五段太極拳)
With each prompting for a change to the article I have responded.
I was unaware that the template should not be removed once revisions had been made. It remains unclear to me who should be notified.
At this juncture it still remains unclear who to notify. I will message Bradeos Graphon directly to ask for advise.
The content is legitimate as the style of taijiquan involved is a legitimate variation with a real history and is practised by enthusiasts in many countries. This article should be included.
As to the charge that the article reads like an advertisement, this has also been changed. If, in someone's judgement, the problem remains, I would appreciate the opportunity to rectify it rather than have the article deleted. If Bradeos Graphon would be kind enough as to assist me with this I'd appreciate it.
Regarding [[WP:COI] (conflict of interest), the article, like many is intended to be a starting point for others interested in this topic to enlarge and expand upon.
Regarding Chinese (五段太極拳) in the title: I was unaware that this was not allowed and would like rename the article as simply ' 5 Section Taijiquan ' (which was in fact its original title).
There are what I feel are deliberate attacks being made to the NATV_Native_American_Television page regarding information that is not factual, or from incorrect/old postings on the Internet from a user who lists on his page on Wikipedia that his "likes" include what he calls "Indian" content. Indians live in India, and information associated with this page is brief and factual with the intent to be made available to Wikipedia users as an interactive community. Not a negative one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nativeamericantelevision (talk • contribs) 15:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, thanks for responding - I didn't notice till just now. I just turn up from time to time and review a few articles I consider important. Nice to have some contact :-) --Macbutch (talk) 23:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed it every time I have re-uploaded it, and at this point it seems okay. If i put in a link to the site the video on, does that fulfill my need of establishing a reference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deargod8890 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry. I would honestly like to put this article on wikipedia, because it is all true information, although it is edgy. Is there anything I could say in the article for you to let me keep it up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deargod8890 (talk • contribs) 02:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Why did you delete my article on 2 girls 1 cup? It is all true statements and I don't use any bad language. Don't abuse your privileges to remove articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Deargod8890 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
It is not my intent to be foolish in any way. Obviously, you do not know anything about Contemporary Worship or you would know that what was placed in the article was absolutely correct.
Concerning the article concerning Cowboy Churches. I also suggest that you investigate this material. It is absolutely true and correct. You should investigate before mis-using the power to administrate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daventxs57 (talk • contribs) 00:17, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Due to the importance of Luciana Frassati Gawronska as an archivist of the past, a chronicalist of the present, a narrator and a poet, I think it is important to keep the translation of the article written by Sergio Romano in Corriere della Sera, the most important Italian daily newspaper. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jas gawronski (talk • contribs)
FYI: I've unblocked him/her so he can request a username change because he/she was clearly removing vandalism, but repeating it in their edit summary. -- Netsnipe ► 08:04, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I was working on The Bridgeburners when you tweaked it, I ended up pasting over what you wrote. If you want, have a gander and see if I erased anything important. --WLU 15:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, yes I did read that, and I'd like to know why you believe it's irrelevant.
And the history doesn't matter, I wrote a *new* article, it should be considered separately... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Huo Ma Ke (talk • contribs) 04:05, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Why is Hostile intent irrelevant, but mods such as Counter-Strike, Day of Defeat, and firearms, are relevant? -BlueDog —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.131.173.89 (talk) 04:44, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was decided in 2006! A year changes a lot of things! 1.6 came out, Phoenix Rising is now under development...but Wikipedia doesn't need anything about H/I. It's not like it's trying to be the sum of all human knowledge or anything. --Huo Ma Ke 01:10, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Dahn Yoga page has been changed by Dahn hacks. They took off the Rick Ross website, a clear third party source. What gives? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.130.223.112 (talk) 12:09, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Bradeos Graphon, I wanted to let you know that the same user that left this remark on your talk page (220.130.223.112) also left some x-rated profanity on my talk page. He apparently has some axe to grind with Dahn yoga and is using Wikipedia as a platform to express his discontent. I left the standard "no personal attacks" warning on his talk page, and deleted the profanity from my talk page. (You can check out his poetic genius on the history of my talk page. It's a real literary gem.) I don't know if there is any particular policy for profanity; if so, please let me know. 220.130.223.112, if you have had some negative experience with Dahn yoga, I suggest that you take it up with appropriate persons, such as Dahn center customer service. Wikipedia articles should be written from a neutral point of view, not used as a smear tactic, as seems to be your (and perhaps Rick Ross') preference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicola Cola (talk • contribs) 03:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is quite a bit of evidence that a user you blocked a reincarnation of in the past, User:Jessica Liao, a.k.a. User:MrsMacMan, is active again and working with at least three tied accounts, mainly User:Nitsirk, but also two others who have supported a move proposal by Nitsirk at Talk:Grade retention (one of which only works outside the mainspace on the same articles as Nitsirk). The correlation among the three users there was strong enough that I was consulted by another user about sockpuppetry, and I eventually asked directly about the use of sockpuppets (see User talk:Dekimasu and User talk:Nitsirk). User:Nitsirk claimed ignorance of policy, and made a somewhat questionable assertion that the second and third accounts were meatpuppets. Upon further investigation, I came across comments by User:MrMacMan to the effect that the same articles were edited by Nitsirk and Jessica Liao, mostly concerning alternative education and certain schools in Great Neck, New York. After reviewing Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jessica Liao I noticed a further correlation in that some of the previous sockpuppets were names spelled backwards (then Steve and Christine, now Kristin, Lindsay, and Jennifer). Jessica Liao is also a professed fan of Kristin Kreuk and the writing style is similar.
User:Nitsirk first deleted the question from my talk page suggesting that she was using sockpuppets, and then deleted my comment from Talk:Grade retention suggesting that SPAs were being used in the vote. She removed my vote from the poll (since readded) and canvassed as well. If this is Jessica Liao, it is clear that she hasn't learned from past mistakes. I feel confident enough of the connection that I would make the blocks myself, but I feel that it would be inappropriate due to my earlier involvement in the move request. Can you look into the matter? Dekimasuよ! 16:27, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think there may have been another sleeper account, based on the alternative education/Great Neck link, the Montessori method, and prose style: Contributions. The account was created within two weeks of the first time Jessica "left" the site. Please let me know what you think. Dekimasuよ! 04:47, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was wondering what happened to you. Can you take a quick look at DahnMuDo. It was flagged for copyright vio but has been fixed on the temp page. In a fit of good will I said I'd hunt down a friendly admin. Big news for me is I am moving to China full time - now to start finding a good MA close to where I live.Peter Rehse 08:32, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Went from nearly unemployed scientist to VP of a pharmaceuticla research company. Three weeks from first contact to the final handshake - talk about a wild ride. I'll be in Shanghai.Peter Rehse 09:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the note and compliment you left on my talk page. I appreciate your help on the article, despite our differing opinions on how to describe the practice :) Please take a look at the edit I made to your modification -- I think it's closer to neutral language but welcome suggestions. Forestgarden 05:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
...thank you for your participation. I withdrew with 83 supports, 42 opposes, and 8 neutrals. Your kind words and constructive criticism are very much appreciated. I look forward to using the knowledge I have accrued through the process to better the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers and Wikidudeman for their co-nominations.
Although they may seem like opinions to you, what you deleted were facts. Those sets had several times more gears and those were a list of the problems from the expert user society combined years ago...I am looking for reference. I would have restored them to wikipedia but you'd delete them again. Unless you are an expert and know all the technical info, don't wreck what we are trying to set up which will involve heavy additions over time... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Asdlfjlssijdfi3434 (talk • contribs) 22:59, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Howdy Bradeos Graphon, thanks for participating in my request for adminship. I am happy to say it was successful, 55/0/0, and I am looking forward to getting to work. Thanks for your vote of confidence. By all means, feel free to check in on my work to come. Suggestions and advice are always appreciated.
I was the last contributor to that article. If you're going to trace her contribs and revert, you should click "hist" and not "diff", so that you see if someone has already removed the content she added. K. Scott Bailey (talk) 22:46, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
She had edited that article five days ago. And the ELs you removed included his cast bio from the CW, which seems a pretty relevant EL, I would think. The other one probably needs to go. May I ask why you're doing wholesale reversions on this user's contribs? K. Scott Bailey (talk) 02:59, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above user has just a day ago exercised a right to "vanish" so I'll answer here in case he reads it. Jessica isn't blocked, she was banned after a checkuser showed she has used multiple accounts to push her opinions in the face of consensus. Since, she has used well over a dozen different accounts and anon IPs on a very limited range of articles, as well as a string of disruptive page moves, the most egregious of which being her "archiving" the talk pages of people she has had arguments with. You can find all the relative info linking to User:Jessica Liao's sockpuppet archives. Generally, with a banned user like this, admins remove all contributions whatever from the sock, so that they will (someday) become frustrated with "writing in sand" and stop. Banned users have had the privilege of editing Wikipedia taken away by the community and admins do the community's will by cleaning up the mess thery leave behind. See WP:Arbcom. There isn't anything wrong with another user (as yourself) coming along afterwards and deciding that they liked something of the contributions and putting it back in. That is fine, because it would be a good faith edit made by a member of the community to improve the project. Jessica has abused and continues to abuse the community, so the community polity has rejected her. Cheers! --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 20:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I need help for making a permanent, appropriate article, can u help me? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darth Chyrsaor (talk • contribs) 19:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I added a few questions at the end of the Qigong discussion page but have lost touch since they closed it off. Can we discuss the topic here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.80.43.11 (talk) 07:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We can try, I'm not sure which comments you mean. --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 07:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK I posted the ones on the difference between Chi-Gong and Tai-Chi. Tried to send you an e-mail later but am not sure it reached you. My second question was on the difference between what I've noticed is Chi-Gong in motion and still Chi-Gong, which resembles more of a meditation but is often called inner alchemy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.80.43.11 (talk) 08:05, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure it was a good idea to lessen the block on that account. Every edit I see from that account looks to be like from the same person. I am going to contact User:Jpgordon to see if he can checkuser if there is anyone else using that address. I ask if you could follow the conversation. Thanks. The Evil Spartan (talk) 20:28, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
THANK U 4 TELL ME LAST WARNING I NO ENGLISH HOW YOU PLAY THIS GAME? I ON HIS COMPUTRE HE TELL ME TO PLAY HE POOING NOW. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tunakdud (talk • contribs) 02:29, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Bradeos Graphon. I'll rename the Forrester article as per your note - I hadn't realized that.--Georgette.mccallum (talk) 23:58, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help. Could you explain why you've changed your mind [1]? I've been working at great length to find a way to get controversial articles like Bosniaks from repeatedly ending up in ArbCom. I feel that I'm making some progress here in that the talk page discussions have been rather subdued. Though the real test begins now that the article is unprotected. --Ronz (talk) 19:10, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks again. Turned out he was a sock of a previously banned editor. --Ronz (talk) 03:00, 8 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Bradeos Graphon! I was wondering if you could take a look at the first article I have created, the Ilchi Lee article. Since it is my first time, I would appreciate any advice you can give. Can it be upgraded from "stub" status yet?
Also, I was wondering if you could give me your opinion about the use of foreign language sources. I have seen a Wikipedia policy that states you can use them when no other English sources exist. Some significant details of Lee's life have not been covered in the Western press, so I was wondering to what degree it is acceptable to use them. Nicola Cola (talk) 06:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings Stifle. I saw your Balkans article remedy proposal at User talk:Ronz and want to pass along to you that I think it is a good plan. If I can be of any help, please drop me a line. --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 21:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Most of it belongs to Ronz though. My main function is keeping the peace and using, where necessary, the arbitration remedy to do so. Stifle (talk) 09:13, 7 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for this. "We've" (meaning me only) been discussing it there already, as you'll see if you look in at the Discussion page. Badagnani (talk) 23:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I guess this editor does not really like to discuss (except when leaving aggressive messages on discussion pages). Badagnani (talk) 23:19, 9 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to your deletion log, you help with reducing the backlog in CAT:TEMP. Not only that, but you use the new delete-dropdown reason for a CAT:TEMP deletion. Thanks for both! Acalamari 21:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome! Acalamari 21:44, 11 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Greetings. I was cleaning out some CAT:TEMP pages and came across User talk:76.126.4.212, that you'd indefblocked. I've been told that, normally, we don't indefblock IPs as such. The reasoning is that if the user changes ISP and the blocked IP were eventually assigned to a new computer, it would in turn be indefblocked. Would you consider unblocking and reblocking them say, for 6 months or perhaps a year? Thanks for your consideration, --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 22:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Heh, no you are mistaken. That IP was blocked indef by an other admin, I reduced the block to 31 hours and struck out the "indef blocked" message from that admin. I also left that admin a note about it. Thanks for the message none the less though. KnowledgeOfSelf | talk 22:38, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, sorry. The old CAT:TEMP notice was still on the template you crossed off. I left a note for you by mistake 'cause you were the last warning on the page. My bad! I'll take the template off the old notice. Thanks! --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 22:45, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for pointing out that I would have been better to have placed a long but fixed-length block for 75.34.149.99 (talk·contribs) persistant vandalism rather than an indef block, so adjust as per your kind observations. David RubenTalk 03:27, 13 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your support in my RfA. It was definitely a dramatic debate! I paid close attention to everything that was said, and, where possible, I will try to incorporate the (constructive) criticism towards being a better administrator. I'm going to take it slow for now -- I'm working my way through the Wikipedia:New admin school, carefully investigating the admin tools and double-checking the relevant policies, and will gradually phase into the use of the new tools. My main goals are to help out with various backlogs, but I also fully intend to keep on writing articles, as there are several more that I definitely want to get to WP:FA status! --Elonka 07:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I was going to add yet another warning to his talk page for this:
[2], but then I thought it might be better to bring it to your attention instead. --Ronz (talk) 18:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Should I just take it to another admin, along with [3]? --Ronz (talk) 02:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Looks like he's trying to find someone to fight. Hopefully this can be done quickly and with little disruption. --Ronz (talk) 00:54, 29 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. Just curious as to why you gave a six-month block [4] to 68.89.175.189 (talk·contribs)? Even though this is one of the 100+ IP socks of Mariam83 (talk·contribs) listed at Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Mariam83, this particular address had not been used in nearly a week. While I certainly do not object to your block, Mariam83 has tens of thousands of possible IPs [5], and she rarely if ever uses the same address twice. Thanks, Kralizec! (talk) 20:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For dealing with the 0.999... guy. Nice to see he even took the advice at WP:GIANTDICK, so we wouldn't be confused about his motivations. Confusing Manifestation(Say hi!) 06:19, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I've been doing some research on a topic that you seem to know a lot about, and had some questions about your edits. Would you mind contacting me, so that I could clarify a few things? My e-mail is researchfg@gmail.com .
Happy New Year! --Ronz (talk) 19:27, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've mentioned your warnings to him in my evidence, since they were at least partially a result of my attempts at dispute resolution with him. --Ronz (talk) 23:58, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Ashida Kim, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 06:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just a little curious as to why the Wudang Tai Chi Chuan article has been singled out amongst the many other articles about Taijiquan as one that requires so many in text citations and secondary supporting references. This is bearing in mind that almost the entire history of Taijiquan is based on anecdotal evidence taken from stories told by various masters and practitioners.
Shouldn't all of the Taijiquan articles be treated in the same manner? There are many Taijiquan articles written from purely anecdotal evidence on Wikipedia, what shall we do about those? Realtaichi (talk) 09:51, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've been thinking about the idea of writing an article just about Cheng Tinhung and removing the Wudang Tai Chi Chuan article, breaking it down into separate practitioners. I feel this will remove some of the need for people to vandalise. I think that I can get some secondary material about Cheng Tinhung, and there is, as you mentioned, the video on the Internet. What do you think? Realtaichi (talk) 01:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In reply to your message on my Talk (still a bit confused with the wiki coding and whatnot), the URL for this user is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Deb and the following are just an example of the deletions this user has done.
There are other deletions that other users and myself agree that were uncalled fore. I really hope that some action will be taken care of. Either banning the user or restoring the articles that were deleted by the user. I have been trying to get in contact with this user but was unable to get ahold of them. I thank you for your time. Best regards, Oni Kidou (talk) 05:00, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bradeos Graphon in greek alphabet is actually Βραδέως Γράφων (ς goes instead of σ at the end of a word) and Graphon if masculine is with ω (Omega) and with ο (Omikron) if neutral.
By the way it is the best nickname I've ever encountered in this encyclopedia!
Egmontaz (talk) 21:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bradeos Graphon/archive 1, Thank you for your support in my RFA which passed 43/0/1. I would like to especially thank Bibliomaniac15 for being my nominator and admin coach. I would also like to thank Rudget for being my co-nominator. I'm sure that I can live up to the community's expectations as an administrator, and not totally mess everything up. Thanks again for your support! Malinaccier (talk) 17:26, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps I'm just being paranoid here, but could you tell me whether User:Tnuocca is likely to be another Jessica Liao sockpuppet? The username is 'Account' spelled backwards (like User:Nitsirk is the name 'Kristin' spelled backwards), the edits are all New York and education related (her favorite subjects), the POV and the odd syntax is highly familiar. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:59, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think I can "watch" her favorite Alternative Learning Program page? Would it then turn up in my watch list if it was recreated at a future date? (This would be a trivial technological solution if this is really her favorite page...) WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:38, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It ought to be possible to add a redlink to your watchlist by editing the raw watchlist (follow the link to Special:Watchlist/raw). If a previous version was on your watchlist, then it ought to still be there (you ought to see the redlink at Special:Watchlist/edit). Pete.Hurd (talk) 04:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not one for sending round pretty pictures, but after my recent RfA, which passed 68/1/7, I am now relaxed and this is to thank you for your support. I will take on board all the comments made and look forward to wielding the mop with alacrity. Or two lacrities. --Rodhullandemu (Talk) 21:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Someone dedicated to making your day a little bit better! (talk) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
I just wanted to say thanks for your support for my RfA, which closed (74/2/0) this morning. Your comment and support was very much appreciated. Happy‑melon 15:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for your note. I did read the talk pages but the article still needed wikifying and expanding. If it is "not done" to fix up and expand topics that are in the common field of information, with third person so-called accredited accounts in print and on the net, does that mean other paranormal type contents have to go too? (Y'know, Aura (paranormal), Qi and the rest.) If it's been debated for years, that shouldn't discount it from being edited and expanded in the meantime. If it is contentious, leave me out of it. I edited for improving wiki and in good faith. I have no personal stake here and I just hate to walk into yet another minefield. Really a bit sick of this kind of thing on the pedia. Cheers Julia Rossi (talk) 05:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is just a ps by the way, the look and scope of the article before wikifying etc was to give a really awkward impression with so much repetition, non-encyc language, pov and loads of capitalisation, και ου γινωσκω, it was hard to pass up. : ) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Julia Rossi (talk • contribs) 05:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It;s me again. First, thanks for staying in communication over this because there's a quite bit I don't know enough about so it's been helpful. Though it's a small article, it's a good example for me to learn from. Can you help me with this stuff please: I didn't realise every statement that was from the same source needed separate citations (as it's not academic level). Also, what's a good way to say "Most believe" to avoid the weasel effect when trying to avoid going into it as an issue, when others (who may not carry much authority) hold that it's a DIY job? I didn't realise there were such things as SPA-nners so I'm lucky it was you and not them. Thanks for admitting you've had to back off to breathe, because I nearly left last year after being bitten too often. I'd like not to give myself a Note to self: avoid etheric-type articles... but I still may – even though I too just want readable informative articles, it's a hotbed. ever the pupil, Julia Rossi (talk) 07:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, you might remember me from some conversations regarding the Dahn yoga article a while back. I wondered if you would be willing to take a look over the Ilchi_Lee article and be a voice of experience in the discussion, especially regarding sourcing, NPOV, and non-encyclopedic tone. We have some ongoing discussions right now, but any insight or suggestions you could offer would be helpful. If you don't have time, just let me know.
Also, at what point is a discussion page considered so lengthy that it should be archived? Thank you! Forestgarden (talk) 08:06, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just droping a note to second the plee. I added the original article, so I might be too protective, but it seems that there are some serious violations of general Wikipedia policy, especially those regarding biographies of living people. It would be really great it a neutral, experienced person like yourself could step in.Nicola Cola (talk) 18:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I got your note, and understand. Enjoy your celebrations this weekend, and see you over on the IL discussion page when you get a chance! THanks. Forestgarden (talk) 22:27, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for that block. I wanted to be helpful and answer every question that anon had about the Pipes article, but I really wasn't sure how long that was going to go on. Doczilla (talk) 06:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I explained to you why I said that. The guy didn't care about this article, he just wanted to prove that he was right and wouldn't let go. So I asked him to move on. And yeah, I said "we've been doing this for years" as I already explained to you because I'm one of a few people who actually take care of that page and keep it from being vandalized. If you look through the history, it gets hit A LOT. The sites were sourced from reliable sources and should not be removed. I don't see how it isn't reliable at all. If there's a band going on tour and they're saying "we're going on this tour" on their own site, how is that not reliable? And keep in mind that he didn't just remove links to the Myspace links either. He removed an entire section which to me suggests he acted without even looking into them. I still find it unfair that I'm the one getting any sort of violation for this when he in fact did the exact same thing that I'm supposedly in the wrong for. DX927 (talk) 17:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Help us with erasing the Dahn Yoga controversy- its bad for business[edit]
Bradeos, your help would really be appreciated. All of the Dahn devotees working on the article(ForestGarden, Nicole, myself included) would be grateful beyond words. Wikipedia isnt a place for controversy- its a place for glowing, positive articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew Laffert (talk • contribs) 15:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to your comments on User talk:Itshappyday: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. -ReuvenkTC 23:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I messed this one up, sorry. -ReuvenkTC 23:24, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the confusion. In the diff, all I saw was that someone added a rant, under the heading "Personal attack," so I immediately hit the revert button. Then I saw you were an admin, so I looked a bit further and then realized what had happened. All's well that ends well, right? Again, sorry about this. -ReuvenkTC 23:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for !voting in my RfA which resulted in the collapse of civilization with 92 (94?) support, 1 oppose, and 1 neutral. Blame jc37 and Hiding for nominating me, everyone who had questions or comments, everyone who !voted, everyone who tallied the numbers correctly, and WJBScribe who closed without shouting, "No mop for you!"
Seriously, your response has overwhelmed me. I am deeply grateful.
We seem to have worked through many of the issues on the Ilchi Lee article by this point, although there are still some unresolved discussions. One is regarding the use of rickross.com as a reliable source. We've discussed it on the talk page, and someone else suggested taking it to the RS noticeboard, but I wondered if you'd come across this on any other article before. I think right now there's only one reference directly sourcing the site, and the exact page referenced is a (presumably perfectly legit) copy of a lawsuit, but it would be good to get some clarity on using sites and institutes like this, and whether this particular institute (the Rick Ross Institute) can be considered a RS or not. Since Rick Ross makes his living working with highly controversial subjects, I'd imagine this discussion has come up before on Wikipedia.
What about using scholarly articles as sources? Of course a proper scholar's work is a good Wiki source, but we've been having some discussion about presenting the scholar's theories as fact. There are still some parts of the article that don't seem quite kosher to me in this regard, although we've fixed other parts.
Another issue we've been discussing for a while is how long the article ought to be, relative to his notability and the coverage available from acceptable sources. Any advice on how to gauge this? Also, two of the current editors seem to be duking it out regarding the Training Methods section, but so far they're (mostly) civil with each other :)
Thanks again for whatever suggestions you might have, Forestgarden (talk) 07:59, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Parent5446(Murder me for my actions) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Cheers, and Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
Thank you for participating in my 2nd RfA and supporting me! My RfA passed unanimously at 79 support, 0 oppose, 0 neutral. I would like to take this opportunity to thank AndonicO and Rudget for nominating me. I also want to thank LaraLove for persuading me to keep going after I failed my first RfA.
To be really honest, I am surprised that my RfA passed without any oppose or neutral. Being an administrator means more responsibilities, especially when I'm now an administrator on both English Wikipedia as well as WikiSpecies. I promise everyone that I will use the tools effectively to serve the community. If you need help on anything, don't hesitate to leave me a message on my talk page and I will get back to you as soon as possible.
Last but not least, remember the motto for Ohana: "When it comes to family, nobody gets left behind."
Once again, thanks for placing your trust in me to help the community. OhanaUnitedTalk page 18:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
[reply]
Bradeos, I made a simple request that you help us to cover up the negative information on Dahn. Why didn't you reply? And why didn't you or anyone else revert the personal attack on my page sooner?Matthew Laffert (talk) 13:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dahn Yoga article- this entry needs to be placed under arbitration[edit]
When I read it, it comes off as quite biased and unfair. Let's get permission to make all mention of "cult" go away. How about it, buddy? Matthew Laffert (talk) 14:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to recall you have some interest in Chinese martial arts, could you help me expalin why inline sources are needed on Chan Tai San to User:Nysanda, thanks for your time --Nate1481(t/c) 18:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I just made a wikiquote theme page for tai chi, if you're interested in helping expand it. It's pretty sorry right now. VanTucky 00:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great, thanks for letting me know. VanTucky 00:55, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Due to a wireless router problem, I may be on a bit of a temporary wikibreak. Hopefully I'll be back up by this weekend. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 13:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to your comments on User talk:Itshappyday: Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks will lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. -ReuvenkT C 23:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
"The bad news is time flies. The good news is you're the pilot." - Michael Althsuler 
reverse.jpg){kind=link}
