User talk:Bwithh/archive1

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~&#126;); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! , SqueakBox 22:48, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

If you want your vote to be counted you must sign it with ~, SqueakBox 14:53, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Byron
Thanks for putting in some effort cleaning up those Byron external links. Do you know what happened to the categories in the article? It looks like articles that should be listed as "See Also" got changed into non-existent categories, and now there are redlinks all along the top of the page. Any ideas? Jkelly 20:13, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The article is looking better and better. I just wanted to express my appreciation.  Jkelly 20:32, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

The Quotes
You tagged The Quotes for speedu delteion with db-bio. However thsi speedy delete reason only applies to articles about individual people, not bands. Also, whenm useing db-bio it is suggested that the person who created the article be notifed with nn-warn if at all possible. You may want to nominate this article for deletion on WP:AFD. Thank you. DES (talk) 23:54, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

CCNY & vandalism of its article
I had to revert out vandalism (mal-intended additions to the article City College of New York) by  "Wizard1022" at 03:09, 24 October 2005. You had some familiarity with the user's previous actions elsewhere, it seems. FYI.

Guardian article on wikipedia
Please review the comments at Talk:Encyclopedia about your edit to the encyclopedia article page. I realize you might have wanted to put a notice up quickly, and might not have had time to check the articles or their history - but in this case it turns out it has been extensively revised since the critic's review was written, so the edit you made to the article is not appropriate to the circumstances. flux.books 16:39, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

Malevolent Alien Abduction Research
Unfortunately, the Afd template was never added to the article itself, so I am closing the AfD as out of process and re-listing it. &Euml;vilphoenix Burn! 04:23, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

Word Freak (book)
I was in the process of creating the page. The initial submit was an accident. I have now cleaned it up and edited for NPOV. Please review it and tell me what you think still needs to be done or remove the NPOV tag. WAvegetarian 18:30, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I've addressed the concerns you expressed. I do not feel comfortable removing a tag from my own article and request that you do so. WAvegetarian 19:24, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

Re : Playboy Cybergirl of the Week
Hi Bwithh,

Unless the images are used for the sole purpose of the VFD-ed article (which I then can delete), list them on Copyright Problems instead for possible copyright violations. Image fair use is allowed on Wikipedia though. If you would like images to be deleted for any other reason, list them on Images for deletion.

- Best regards, Mailer Diablo 02:37, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh, I also see that your userpage was blank because of an anonymous user's edits. Let me know if you wish to have it deleted rather than blanking it. - Mailer Diablo 11:33, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

AfD -> T(emplates)fD
FYI, your [|AfD nomination] has been moved to TfD. Not sure if you would/will be aware of it so I thought it was safer to potentially tell you twice rather than not at all. pfctdayelise 13:58, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I didn't know it existed either. I didn't move it - I just noticed that the person who *did* hadn't told you. :) pfctdayelise 06:05, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Alakon
Hi Bwithh, excellent work on the Alakon/Brent Henry Waddington AfD, hats off, barnstar material. Pete.Hurd 04:26, 2 November 2005 (UTC)


 * [[Image:WikiDefender_Barnstar.png]]

I, User:Pete.Hurd, award you this Defender of the Wiki barnstar for your investigations into the Brent Henry Waddington hoax.

Your kind vote on the Hugo Chavez FAC
Could you offer one or more concrete reasons for your decision based on the contents of the article? It need not be extravagently detailed &mdash; maybe a sentence or two. It could deal with perceptions of layout, prose, images, or other areas. Just the tiniest addition of a reason (even a short phrase) will do the trick, and your vote will then count. Many thanks. Saravask 20:49, 9 November 2005 (UTC) I was wrong. I looked up the policies and established FAC precedents. Your vote is perfectly valid as it is. My apologies. Saravask 21:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Related to that (but really just curiosity): How is the Presedent of Venezuela non-western? Is "Western" code-talk for Europe, America, and maybe Canada? &mdash;Bunchofgrapes (talk) 23:14, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Merchant-Ivory
I see you've reinstated the claim that James Ivory and Ismail Merchant were lovers. I removed this because I couldn't find any real evidence to back it up: references to their partnership I assume mean the films they made together. Merchant's obits don't mention it e.g. Guardian, nor do their imdb bios. Some have infered a relationship, but reliable sources don't mention it. Have I missed something? Jihg 15:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the sources! I agree that's enough evidence.  Perhaps we should say something in the article about the media non-coverage of their relationship. Jihg 16:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Emily Davies
Was wondering when somebody would get round to putting this article up :-)

Have you read her biography? It's very good but tough to get hold of a copy - I know there is one in Cambridge Library in the Lion's Yard shopping area... you could also cite it to provide stronger evidence of verifiability. A photo of Emily Davies' portrait in Girton College would also be public domainable so could be included here.

Many thanks :-) VivaEmilyDavies 20:34, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

jingoism alert
Heads up.

Hey, there is a very agressive person who deleted a large portion of your DuPont criticism contributions. I am having problems with this jingoist myself, and decided to investigate his recent edits.Travb 21:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Hey Bwithh looks like we are both working on this page at the same time. I will get out of the way so you can edit, after twiking footnotes a bit, with a link to photo of the NYT ad. Travb 23:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

the problem is the Bogdanovs' continue to maintain their physics is genuine.
so if it's a hoax, it's been going on for 5+ years. i think that Scandals is a better category. it's at least one of the two, but we'ed be "piling on" to include both. i dunno. r b-j 03:02, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it's entirely plausible that the Bogdanovs are no more aware that their work is cargo cult science than Archimedes Plutonium is about his. The tragedy is that such painstakingly crafted technobabble has been deposited in dusty particle physics journals when it could have used in scripts for Star Trek where it so rightly deserves. Well done for John Baez and others for directing the Bogdanovs away from a tragically mistaken career direction. Elroch 21:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

?
Why do you have to be so nasty? Courier new 04:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I thought I was quite polite. Bwithh 14:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)


 * So he's accusing you of being nasty too... User talk:Halsteadk Halsteadk 17:48, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Keep up the hard work. Courier new 00:51, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry i was not sure how to message so i thought i would add it here: What vandalism am i supposed to do? If it is the comment about primitive societies that is perfectly valid, it is very important when reading old enthnographies to realise that times have changed and that we no longer class certain 'cultures' as primitive. By all means challenge the point- but i fail to see how that was vandalism?

Joe Craig

 * 1) You can change your vote, but you can't just withdraw the AfC by removing the template from the article, I'm afraid. That has to be done by an admin, who'll close it properly.  I'll do it myself if you like.
 * 2) In what sense is someone who writes novels not a novelist? A children's novelist is still a novelist. --Mel Etitis  ( Μελ Ετητης ) 17:34, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Shakespeare
Thanks for your wonderful edits to the William Shakespeare article!--Alabamaboy 01:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

History of Michigan State University
There are a couple of answers provided to your inquiry at Featured article candidates/History of Michigan State University. I hope we can obtain your support for promoting the article to featured status. Jtmichcock 23:10, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

peer review of rapping
I addressed your concerns at the peer review. Peace, --Urthogie 11:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

County flower AFD
Hi Bwithh

I notice that at the AFD discussion for the county flower article, you've said that this article represents "marketing abuse of wikipedia" and that "Mentions of the county flowers have been spammed into" county articles (my italics). WHilst I respect your point of view, I find it difficult to read these comments as anything other than a suggestion that my motivations for these edits are not genuine; your comments would therefore seem to be a breach of WP:AGF - have I misunderstood? If so, could you explain what you mean? Thanks.

SP-KP 10:57, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Conrad Black
Hi, I had preivously removed references to Conrad Black being a Knight Commander of the Order of the British Empire because a search of the London Gazett archives didn't show up anything. You changed it to Knight of the Order of St. Gregory the Great. I am wondering where you found this information ? When was he invested, and by whome ? Also, Conrad Black status as a member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, (although his appointment remains highly controversial) entitles him to the post nominal letters PC, no PC (CAN) which I have never see in use by anyone. I understand that is ment to differenciate between the Imperial and Canadian councils and is based upon the Privy Council for Ireland, but as I said, I have never seen it used (for example, Vincent Massey, Winston Churchill, Lester B. Pearson, ect ect ect. The fact that the letters are wikified should be enough clarification for the average reader. Please respond to this on my talkpage thanks Dowew 00:41, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. I still find the PC (CAN) a little odd though.  It must be done for the purposes of not confusing the British, now that he is no longer a canadian (he has recently filed to get his citizenship back but no one in their right mind will ever sign off on it).  Dowew 05:23, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

County flowers
Following the AfD debate, you may wish to join in a discussion taking place at Talk:Plantlife. SP-KP 18:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

List of shock sites nominated for deletion for a fourth time
The article List of shock sites has been nominatied for deletion again. I noticed that during its past nominations for deletion you voted to have the article deleted. If you have time, please support me in my attempt to have this article deleted by casting your vote in favour of deletion. Thank you. - Conrad Devonshire 07:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Paul Revere article???
Malicious vanadalism? Is this a joke? The quote from his father's diary is authentic - it was quoted in a biography of Revere I read in college (which yes, was a few years ago, and no, I don't recall the author at this point), but it is not made-up information, and it certainly was not in any way, shape, or form intended as malicious - it was intended to add what was (I was given to believe from that bio) historical information. Threatening to have people "banned from Wikipedia" for trying to make a worthwhile contribution is acceptable manners to you? If you feel a version is better without something, fine - edit it out. But when it was meant in good faith - and based on what I understood to be historically factual material - threats are uncalled for, don't you think? Melos Antropon 03:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Please accept my apologies. I was a little hasty and I think now your edit was in good faith. You do need to give your references/source when other editors ask you though. Your addition may be valid (from my google search on this), but it sounds made-up and potentially it may seem like vandalism. Bwithh 19:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Apology accepted, and thank you. I would NEVER, EVER, vandalize an article, nor add any information I did not completely believe was factual, though in this case, as I said, it has been too many years, and I cannot cite the source specifially.

Melos Antropon 01:20 April 19, 2006 (UTC)

Simon Schama History Channel re-brodcast
Hello Bwithh, normally I would agree with you about the non-notability of re-brodcasts, but I think in this situation it is notable since it is probably the only context that most Americans have seen him in.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 06:18, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I meant high ratings for the history channel, looking back I guess it seemed like I was saying something different.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 19:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Sunday Times Golden Globe Race
Hi, Thanks for your constructive comments on the Golden Globe Race FAC. I believe I've addressed most of them, particularly the images issue; I now have fair use images of the four main competitors. I can't find any image of the trophy, unfortunately. Anyhow, I'd welcome your further comments. Cheers, — Johan the Ghost seance 11:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi again, you're still voting Object to the Golden Globe Race FAC. Since I believe I've acted on the comments you raised, I was wondering if you would consider going back to the FAC and explaining what the outstanding problems are, so I can fix them?  Or else change to support or no vote?  Cheers,  — Johan the Ghost seance 11:17, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Hwang images contact

 * Hello there, i have received your notification on my talk page, and i have answered at the images pending deletion, while your justification on those images to should be deleted i believe you have a good point. First i want to apologice about my stubborn behavior in the past and pledge your indulgence to those images and let you know i assumed good faith when i uploaded them, with no aims of causing any inconvinience to wikipedia community towards copyright.
 * As you can see, there are many people that uploads images indiscriminately and dont even have a user page, or give a specified reason of why they upload images or give source, i believe image monitors like you, should go behind that people. Anyways your justification is correct. I believe wikipedians we can have an accord whether if we can keep some of those images. btw dont hesitate to leave me a note at my talk page. cheers. --HappyApple 21:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I did remove images from that article, but not in conjunction with PUI; I generally remove any fair use images that are in excess of those necessary to illustrate an article, there are still several in that article that could be removed since they would appear to violate a couple of the fair use criteria. If you think an article is in violation of the spirit of fair use, mention it on the talk page, and then remove the excess images, it also helps if you add a link to WP:FUC in your edit summary.--Peta 02:48, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Good clarification
Thanks for the good clarification on Judgment of Paris.BMackey 17:20, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Apartheid AFD
You may also want to see the AFD at Apartheid (disambiguation)Homey 23:12, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

WWAC-TV
Nice job researching this one. Though, to be completely honest, it was the actions of the hoaxers themselves that had me typing up my reason for deletion just before they admitted the hoax. ScottW 21:22, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

United States article nomination objection
It's not about how the mentioning of Hollywood is less important than the mentioning of Disney and it's not why the American Dream is not cited properly in one of the sections, it's more about keeping the main aspects and some examples to those aspects in focus without having a couple of sentences for each single thing dealing with the United States. Those topics are better mentioned in detail in the main articles of those respective sections, where they belong. --Ryz05 t 15:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Disney is part of Hollywood.  Thus, Hollywood and the film/entertainment industry deserve more mention than Disney.  Disney deserves as much mention as McDonald's, KFC, Levi's and Boeing.  Arguably, Disney is more a symbol of America than those other brands but it's a question of relative symbolic importance.  All of those brands are symbols of the strength of American "dominance" (uh oh, there's that "D" word again) in their respective industries.
 * --Richard 17:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * On a separate note, it appears that the following text by User:Bwithh has gotten misplaced in the discussion of the FA candidacy of the United States article. I wanted to invite Bwithh to reposition it in a location where it makes sense (i.e. what is it in response to?)


 * ***Response' I didn't ask that Hollywood, Silicon Valley, the American Dream, Entrepreneurship, and the development of computers after 1969 be described in detail. Most people suggesting additions fully understand that this is a summary overview article. What we're asking is that these things be at least mentioned in the corresponding sections. The whole point of a summary overview article is that includes mentions of major terms and topics. Can you show how mentioning Hollywood is less important than mentioning the influence of Disney on Chinese comics? Or why the American Dream isn't important to reference properly rather than dump in the See Also section? Bwithh 14:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)


 * --Richard 17:56, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

The issues that you raised in your objection to the nomination have been addressed. Please reconsider your vote.--Ryz05 t 22:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

You are asking for a lot to be included in the article. The section on American Dream is a long enough addition in my opinion. I strongly suggest you change your vote to at least neutral and stop suggesting more to be included, because many topics should really belong in the main articles dealing with those sections anyways.--Ryz05 t 16:11, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I still would like a response to what you think. Thank you.--Ryz05 t 17:41, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Maxwell article
Thanks for helping to delete a personal promotion. At best, this belongs where you suggested. MollyBloom 22:36, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * As it has been requested that more evidence of his stature be provided to support the claim that he is both an international figure & recognized as superlative within his field. I give you these links to recent meetings world-wide where he's been an invited speaker. This is in addition to hundreds of other events he's done before the last two years. Can you plausibly still argue about whether this is someone not exceptional in the field?

South Korea 2005 [] China 2005 [] Keynote Speaker of Kentucky State Meeting 2005[] Stockholm 2005 [] Russia 2006 [] Brazile 2006 [] Orlando,FL ASAPS 2006 presenter/panelist [download/2006ScientificProgram.pdf] Atlanta Breast Symposium 2006/2005 [] [] Speaker at Northeastern Plastic Surgery Society meeting 2005[] 2005 Mexico [] 2005 Milan [European Conference 0.pdf#search='patrick%20maxwell%20surgery'] [] Chicago 2005 ASPS meeting presenter [] New Orleans 2004 ASAPS meeting speaker Quebec 2004 []Droliver 17:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Extinctioners AFD
I do have to agree with a couple of the posters on this discussion that you seem to be a bit enthusiastic with your rebuttals of new editors. I know it's a regular practice, but comments like the ones you made regarding the erstwhile Major could be construed as counterproductive. I'm trying to keep the tone of that discussion as neutral and productive as possible, including posting on one of the discussion boards to keep floods of voters from coming in (not that it seems to matter, I'm still being criticized); could I ask that you try and keep to the same? Much appreciated. Tony Fox 16:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the new comment - I hope that cools people off a bit. For your info, I've checked with the original creator, and will be doing a heavy editing job on this article later this evening in hopes a less extensive piece will be suitable to stick around. Cheers. Tony Fox 22:20, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

afd
The result of the nomination of Shaker Aamer for deletion was "keep". Frankly I didn't understand your objections. I'd like to take them into account, if you are willing to take another run at explaining them.

You wrote: "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not Amnesty International or a webhosting service."

WP:DEL says if you think an article is biased, quoting too broadly from Amnesty International for instance, the proper response is to address that issue on the talk page, or to try to rewrite it yourself -- not to nominate it for deletion.

Sorry, I didn't understand your webhosting objection at all.

Anyhow, if you are interested in explaining your objections I am open to trying to take them into account. -- Geo Swan 15:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/References to The Prisoner in popular culture
Thanks so much for your input into the discussion. I'm so sick of seeing "Keep, it's real." or "Keep, notable in its genre/fanbase," or even worse, Keep per user above." I'd really like to see some real reasons why standalone trivia articles should be kept, but really, no good ones have been advanced.  People just seem to hate to throw things away, even if those things are rather irrelevant.  If you'd like my opinion on a fancrufty article, just call on me, and I shall do my best to bring the proper perspective to it.  I hope we can work together to turn Triviapedia back into Wikipedia.  Thanks!  Erik the Rude 00:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

HWC
i understand your feelings behind the silliness of the whole notion of burning homework, but keep in mind we are all smart students and we understand the importance of our education. Robbie 00:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Saryn Hooks
You participated in the Finola Hackett AfD. Please also join the discussion here: Articles for deletion/Saryn Hooks (second nomination). Thank you. - CrazyRussian talk/email 17:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Sir William Brockman
See Talk:Sir William Brockman. Tearlach 00:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Help researching info on MIT graduate Ed Seykota
I need help writing the article about Ed Seykota, I need help researching his time in MIT, I need access to MITs library. I want copies of his thesis, papers etc. I also need official documentation about his degrees at MIT. Please help.

trade2tradewell (at) yahoo (dot) com - Replace "at" with "@", and "(dot)" with "."

Thanks

--Trade2tradewell 20:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Cincinnati chili
I doubt there is a restaurant that serves the stuff in NYC, but it can be ordered online.


 * Dixie, my personal fave
 * Skyline, the most popular
 * Gold Star, makes the best Coneys

It's worth splurging on anyone of these and I would pay to have them shipped if I couldn't get them all at local grocers. It sounds weird, but serve over spaghetti noodles and top with shredded mild cheddar cheese and some chopped sweet onion (the onion is optional). Really, you can't go wrong with any of the three. Cheers.  young  american (ahoy-hoy) 21:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Andrew Leipus
Delete and merge is not a valid option, as it violates GFDL,and will never occur. Could you please reconsider your position? User:Zoe|(talk) 03:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I like your philosophy. Probably need more strict users to do AfD, rather than lowere the consensus threshold. I stopped AfD since I became an admin - just deleting stuff - but I should probably drop by more often for fluff bios like Thao Nguyen. I nearly lost my marbles deleting 500 things yesterday and have been giving out The Editor's Barnstar to admins who delete a lot of stuff. I'm surprised nobody complained on my RfA that I had deletionist tendencies, probably because I do talk to others a lot and use long reasons sometimes to delete stuff.Blnguyen | rant-line 04:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Research_into_health_benefits_of_Falun_Gong
Greetings, Sir. I understand that this article is improvable. And in fact, health benefits are not a goal of Falun Gong. Instead, in my view, it is a side product only available for genuine practitioners who are willing to be good people first. I personally do not think it is a propaganda or health benefits should not be a motive for people to practice Falun Gong. However, I think it is an existing component of what Falun Gong present to people, whether you admit or not. The word "research" itself could be ambiguous. People may think it only talks about academic research. But actually I see it implies doubts. It does not necessarily mean the article could only address academic journal papers. I am willing to change the title if you think that would help. Also you know this article is one of the daughter articles of the main article which has its own vehement disputes. But all editors on that main article agreed to split the main article into daughter articles and agreed to have this subsection which is turned into the current article. Please feel free to educate me on specific policies in detail. And I am willing to hear your advice. Thank you. Fnhddzs 04:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not a sockpuppet.
Neither are many of the people who are voting, so you may want to stop making such sweeping generalizations. Crystallina 00:57, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Reopened Stuart Millson AfD
In the light of an apparent serious externally-directed abuse of process regarding the original Articles for deletion/Stuart Millson discussion, I have reopened the AfD discussion at Articles for deletion/Stuart Millson 2 with the proviso that anon IPs/new accounts will be excluded as probable sock- or meatpuppets. You voted last time around, so you may wish to take a look at the new vote. -- ChrisO 23:39, 2 July 2006 (UTC)