User talk:Cosmic Latte

{| width="100%" cellpadding="5" cellspacing="10" style="background:#FFF8E7; border-style:solid; border-width:5px; border-color:black; font-family: none; font-size: 100%;"
 * valign="left" style="padding: 0; margin:0;" |

2008
For your work on the years articles. Pathfinder2006 (talk) 00:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello Cosmic Latte. I'm not trying to be cute, concerning mentioning of the United States presidential election, 2008. If Bush dies, resigns or is removed from office before his term expires? Cheney would be the 44th President. This time - I've replaced 44th with next. GoodDay (talk) 14:58, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I've also changed 44th President to next President, at the 2009 article. PS- Though I disagree with using 44th, I won't revert (again) if you guys prefer to keep it. GoodDay (talk) 19:00, 16 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll leave it up to other folks, too. Seems like both of us have pretty much stated our cases on the matter. Cosmic Latte (talk) 10:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * For those of you who might be  interested  in time-related articles and edits, and would like some more information about the above dispute: Basically, it boiled down to a debate about how to apply the WP:FUTURE policy to an upcoming presidential election. A very broad interpretation of this policy might suggest that, because WP is not a crystal ball, it can't predict that the next U.S. president will be the 44th. Because some extraordinary circumstances could make him or her the 45th, WP can only claim that the election will be for the "next" president. My view, however, is that this argument is a "slippery slope" to saying that, because WP isn't a crystal ball, it can't say anything about the future, because there is always the possibility--however minute--that some extraordinary circumstance could change all plans. What if a meteor or supervolcano wipes out the human population? What if a wandering black hole eats the entire planet? Thankfully, however, a close reading of WP:FUTURE excuses us from making such bizarre considerations, because it states:
 * [A.] Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. [...]
 * [B.] Articles that present extrapolation, speculation, and "future history" are original research and therefore inappropriate.
 * To assume that the next presidential election will be the 44th (or that the human race and Planet Earth will be around tomorrow) is to meet condition A, whereas to recognize the possibility that it will be the 45th (or that Armageddon is just around the corner) is to meet condition B. Thus the former assumption is, in my view, acceptable, whereas the latter recognition is not. Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:12, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to be rude, just correct. Since multiple free nations such as the United States view Hezbollah as a terrorist organization I must credit anyone helping their cause or working for them as a terrorist.
 * Thanks for letting me know. But "terrorist" (not to mention "free nation") is one point of view, which, in an enclycopedia, is just as important as any other point of view. "Militant" is undisputed fact. See WP:POV. Cosmic Latte (talk) 23:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

British usage on Wikipedia
Unfortunatley, I've ran into trouble (in the past) trying to push for British usage. The biography articles like Sean Connery (for example), refuse to use British. GoodDay (talk) 16:31, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

If Rab-k thinks Scotland, Northern Ireland, Wales & England are/were the only states to merge into a larger state? He's incorrect. GoodDay (talk) 19:14, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The constituent country article does indeed list examples other than the UK. Even the United States was formed as a sort of "merger" of smaller colonies that still (as states) retain a notable degree of individual autonomy. But Americans are still listed here as "American," not "Californian" or "New Yorkian" (is that a word?) or whatever. In any event, the British listings are highly inconsistent. Some say British; others say English, Welsh, etc., and I imagine that some sort of standardization would be good. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yep, British should be the usage. GoodDay (talk) 14:30, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Tallulah
Maybe MI-5 poisoned Tallulah through her lipstick & cigarettes. S2grand (talk) 22:04, 31 May 2008 (UTC)s2grand
 * Okay, but can you add a reference to back up that idea? Cosmic Latte (talk) 22:06, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

What are you? Hall Monitor for the day??!! While I was researching other material to add to a new section some busybody has to stick his or her nose in in the next minute. That's why the info was at the end. It's enough to make people quit contributing!!!
 * I simply asked if you could back up your claim with a reliable source, and would have said nothing further had you mentioned that, for example, you were in the process of adding and referencing material for the section. That hardly amounts to a WP:AGF violation on my part, as you seem to be implying. You might be interested in this page (I see that someone has already directed you to this one on your talk page) regarding the importance of supporting your assertions. Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:05, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Disasters
Just a notification, but it appears that --who seemed obsessed with plane crashes--has returned as --CalendarWatcher (talk) 09:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, that does appear to be the same person. Still adding unsourced disasters, I see, and (since he's currently on a 72-hour block) is in violation of WP:SOCK, so I've referred him to administration. Thanks for catching that! Cosmic Latte (talk) 10:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Other
Please stop vandalising the marriage page.
 * I am reverting your WP:POV (and now WP:NAD) violations. That is not vandalism on my part. If you think you can improve the article, feel free to take advantage of the article's talk page. Cosmic Latte (talk) 06:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, please sign your comments with four tildes (~'s). Cosmic Latte (talk) 06:10, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Replied
I have replied to your RfA query about which areas might be a good place to get started garnering the requisite experience. I hope it helps. If you have any further questions, do not hesitate to ask. Cheers!  Wisdom89  ( T |undefined /  C ) 20:06, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
 * 'Twas helpful indeed. Thanks! Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:23, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Your RfA
Hello, Cosmic Latte. I have closed your Request for Adminship per WP:NOTNOW as it was unlikely to succeed at the time. Please do not take it personally, as it was nothing against you. If you gain more experience and become active in more projects, I am confident you will succeed in the future, should you choose to submit another request. In the meantime, you may consider taking up Editor Review or Admin coaching, if you haven't already.

If you have any other questions about my closure, don't hesitate to ask me on my talk page. Cheers, -- Mizu onna sango15 / 水 女 珊瑚15  21:56, 13 June 2008 (UTC).


 * Thanks! Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:24, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

In appreciation
Hey, I just wanted to say that I appreciated your effort to present yourself in the RfA process. Please let me know when you plan to give it another go. I believe that time is your ally and that you will be a fine admin in the near-future. Be well. Ecoleetage (talk) 07:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delayed response. But thank you for your kind comments in response to my RfA nomination. I'll certainly let you know if I apply again. :-) Cheers, Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Tim Carter
how is he not notable? he was a former footballer who has made professional league appearances in the past, which is the football notability guideline here on wikipedia, other people of this genre has been added to the death lists in the past and kept, so why not him? 86.148.189.82 (talk) 21:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * If a reliable source demonstrates that he meets WP:FOOTYN criteria, then sure. However, your other entries--Wrestlemania and Guitar Hero--do not belong in the year article. Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmm...looks like you didn't add those other two articles originally, although you certainly re-added them with your revert. Be sure to take notice of what your reverts are actually doing. Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:39, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I did not mean to re-add them, that was an accident. 86.148.189.82 (talk) 21:40, 21 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep, I just noticed. You seem to know the criteria, so I won't raise any more objections about Carter. Sorry about the confusion. Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:42, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

68.186.180.66
You went a little too far adding a last warning on this IP. It was the IP's 1st vandalism warning since November last year. I think a uw-1 would be better.(Planecrash111 (talk) 02:02, 25 June 2008 (UTC))
 * Maybe so. But since this edit doesn't exactly look like an innocent test edit or an attempt to improve the article, I'd say WP:AGF is probably a moot point in his case. Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:15, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * So perhaps v4 was indeed a bit much, but I'd probably have started with at least a v2 in his case, maybe a v3 . Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:19, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In retrospect, by the way, you're absolutely right that V4 was too much. Although I thought I paid good attention to vandalism/warning dates in the past, I evidently didn't pay it close enough in some instances. Thanks for pointing that out. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Ta
Hah thanks for the typo fix, be a bit of a struggle to achieve a neural point of view :)
 * Indeed. =) No problem! Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Syntyche
Can you provide me with a link to the AfD discussion for this article? I can't find it; I'm probably just missing it. Tan  |   39  15:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't believe there was an AfD discussion, but I inferred from the "or" in the CSD A5 criterion that there didn't need to be one if the article had already been transwikied. But I'll get an AfD discussion going anyway. Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:34, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I started an AfD discussion, but withdrew my nomination after it became apparent that the article has potential to be expanded significantly beyond an ostensible dictionary definition. Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Ep. 51
Hey. Episode 51. [http://wikipediaweekly.org/2008/06/26/episode-51-usernames-shmusernames/ Go. Listen. Comment. Enjoy.] W ODU P bot  04:04, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Don't want these notifications anymore? Remove yourself from WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery.

My pleasure
Thank you for your fine message. Yes, please keep me updated on your activities. You will be a fine administrator in the not-too-distant future. Ecoleetage (talk) 22:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

20th century boundary revert.
Thanks. Unfortunately, he tagged all the other (AD) centuries and millennia also. I think I've got all of them. Perhaps we should create a template, but that would have to violate the AD/Common era "cease fire". &mdash; Arthur Rubin (talk) 16:08, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Astrology
I see the subject interests you. I don't know if this is from an observers POV or as a practitioner, but in 1976 when I held a vigil at the Liberty Memorial Mall in Kansas City after the Republican National Convention (Ref: Kathleen Patterson, 'Prophet Chooses Park for Vigil', The Kansas City Times, 13 September, 1976, pg 3A and Robert W. Butler, 'Prophet Plans Appeal of Conviction', The Kansas City Times, 2 November, 1976) I enjoyed frequent access to drop into the studio of a local night radio talk show. One time an astrologist by the name of Gars Austin was on the line from Texas giving brief chart readings based only on the birth date of callers. Coming up to a news break and not knowing me, from the studio I asked if he could do a more in depth reading based on my birth at 8am Sunday morning in Montreal May 21, 1944. The talk show host, the listeners and I were amazed with what he came back with. I asked if the charts showed anything significant around February 1, 1975 the date of my Spiritual resurrection. He didn't know anything about that. We were all surprised when he said, "According to my chart, on that date you had a very powerful Spiritual experience." From that time I had to give more credence to what is written in the stars. Peace DoDaCanaDa (talk) 13:32, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Nucular appeal
I see the discussion to appeal the deletion of Nucular but can't see how to participate. The "edit this page" tab doesn't do the job. Would you kindly divulge the mysteries? Thanks. Thirdbeach (talk) 20:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Never mind -- found it -- the [Edit] link at right. Thirdbeach (talk) 20:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * BTW, really appreciate your comments throughout. Sound reasoning ... love it. Thirdbeach (talk) 22:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your feedback and for your contributions to the appeal! Your reasoning, too, is sound, and is much appreciated. Cosmic Latte (talk) 05:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

DSM-IV Proposal Input
Would you consider adding any input to our proposal regarding the DSM-IV. Input is being collected on our talk page. Thanks! Mindsite (talk) 21:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

My RFA Thanks
Thank you for your support at my RFA, which has now closed as a success. And thank you for your comments about my answer to question 3: outstanding in its thoroughness and thoughtfulness... I'm blushing as I type this!. Seriously though, your support means a great deal to me.

As for the issue you raised about magic secrets - I am in aggreement that secrets should be just that: secret. However, the compromise situation that we have of removing unsourced secrets is about as good as we can get at the moment. Maybe in time we will be able to get all secrets removed, and I am quite happy to champion the cause then. But for the moment, wikicalm has settled on this contentious issue, and I'd rather let sleeping dogs lie. Hmmm... any other mixed metephors that I can add to that last sentence?

Once again, thanks for your support. StephenBuxton (talk) 16:43, 13 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You're very welcome. Congratulations! Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:46, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

You are quite confused
The dictionary is not at the summary page, its at the publication page. If you click on "more information" you will see the official entry. Here. Next time you mock one of the most important mental health research groups, at least get your information correct. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Speaking of "more information," you might like to give WP:CIV and WP:AGF a read in your spare time. Cheers, Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:22, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * By accusing me of being incivil, you are actually breaching AGF. The irony is amusing. By saying you are confused and showing you how to find the actual information is being completely civil and showing the utmost of good faith. Instead, I could have called you a troll who is spreading bad information and attacking valuable contributors to that page. I didn't. Ottava Rima (talk) 21:23, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
 * And I could have called you uncivil, but I didn't; I simply suggested a reading list. Thankfully I didn't actually call you uncivil, any more than you actually just called me "a troll who is spreading bad information and attacking valuable contributors to that page." ;-) Actually, your tone of voice, and your accusatory-sounding section title here, came across as rude to me, and "rudeness" is listed as an example of WP:CIV. But I suppose rudeness is somewhat subjective, and WP:COOL might have been a better first choice. My apologies if I seemed rude to you as well. Cheers, Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:41, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding my RfA
Hi there. I'm just a little confused about why you changed your mind. You're original support was:

"An intelligent, honest editor with firm knowledge of admin-related topics and a clear potential to use admin privileges to maintain the integrity of WP:MED, should he so choose. Answered questions thoroughly, candidly, and downright impressively."

And Dean B's opposition was:

"Don't really want to pile-on, when the user seems a good Wikipedian with excellent intentions. But as well as points raised above, looking through the contribs I don't see evidence the user actually talks and works with others. An admin should be a leader, someone who can work with disparate people and help them work together, a conciliator. An admin has to resolve disputes, to do that you need to be able to understand other points of view. Can I suggest you get involved in some article work and try and act like an admin in adminny places. You don't need the tools to be a leader here."

Considering I don't believe his oppose was based upon anything substantial, I have replied to his oppose and I'd like you to review it to see what you think. Contrary to Dean B's beliefs, I have contributed to article work (as backed up there by another user) and have had lots of contact with other users. Thanks for your time, happy editing! — CycloneNimrod Talk? 20:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Works for me. I've changed back to support. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:37, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

RfA thank you
And thank you for trusting me :) Happyme22 (talk) 05:01, 16 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your kind remarks both during and after my RfA - much appreciated. Ben  Mac  Dui  10:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

RFA of Cyclonenim 2
I have indented your RFA vote of Cyclonenim 2 in Neutral section as you moved to support. This will fix numbering. I hope you dont mind --  Tinu  Cherian  - 09:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. That's absolutely fine, though, and I'll try to remember to do that from now on. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No problems...Have fun --  Tinu  Cherian  - 09:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Edit War on Sigmund Freud
Cosmic Latte, an edit war seems to be developing between me and Commodore Sloat on the Sigmund Freud article. Your comments/intervention would be welcome. Skoojal (talk) 09:08, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I've just added my own two cents on the talk page. I think that the overall WP:CON there is in accordance with what you're doing, anyway. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Latest signs are that the edit war is raging again, and just so there is no doubt, I regard this as equally Commodore Sloat's fault and my fault. Further comments/intervention may be needed. Skoojal (talk) 02:56, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

"Mononymous persons"
Thank you for expressing your opinion about retention of the article on "Mononymous persons."

There is a parallel discussion going on concerning the category "Category:Mononymous persons," at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_July_12, if you would care to express your views there. It seems to me that it would be a shame if the article were kept but the category were deleted.

Thank you. Nihil novi (talk) 06:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for pointing that out. I left some input, and I hope that it's useful. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:45, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
 * It is, very much so. Very eloquent, indeed.  Thank you!  Nihil novi (talk) 11:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Pop Culture - "Cosmic Latte".... Who's Gary West...?
On July 21, Cosmic deleted a contribution which sourced Gary West and Mr Pop History. Cosmic opinioned - who's Gary West? and "what was the buying power of a 13-year-old in 1959?" If Cosmic only looked at the site sourced. It would have taken about one minute.

I'm the author of the site, now over 14,000 pages of Pop culture week-by-week content from the 1950's through the 2000's. I've also answered about 1400 questions in a weekly print column, which is also available on the site. And, I'm published and heard on national radio. The research has taken about 10 years and about 54,000 hours (1800 weeks x 3 hours each). All off-line. By the time its done - I'm looking at close to 2400 weeks. That's a lot of content from one person. I love doing it. But, hey - you asked!

On the sourced site, Mr. Pop History, Cosmic would have learned pop culture evolved from the buying power of baby boomer teens. That buying power was approaching around $1 billion in 1959. And, wouldn't it be nice to know that Dick Clark was the first, true - modern pop culture icon? The wiki-definition of pop culture is a little abstract for the average student to just source. It needs points in pop culture history - names and trends. God-forbid someone who knows this stuff take the time to contribute.

Unlike 99.9999% of Wiki entries, I put my name and source place up there (Wiki won't let you put a link - god forbid - so I sourced myself in name only in the paragraph). The idea - so the reader could see where it came from! If I'm wrong, I'll gladly take the responsibility. But, Wiki doesn't work that way. If my factoids are wrong, I get e-mails from readers. And believe me, I've gotten it wrong sometimes.

I also made a slight contribution - on the Rolling Stones page. That their first U.S. concert was in San Bernardino, CA. (Swing auditorium). And, it got deleted. What in the world is wrong with you guys??? Same thing - my name and source name. No links.

What I do not understand about Wiki and editors like Cosmic, who know very little about what they edit out from those who work hard. I was reluctant to add this fact, because Wiki has a terrible time - and seems to be confused about the real deal. I know several authors and experts who dare not post on Wiki for this very reason. Now I see, first hand - why!

What's amazing is - The Pop Culture Wiki page, says, "Please help improve the article." How in the world can you ask this when you've got "editors" deleting decent contributions from those who do and give-a-hoot.

And, so much of what's considered pop culture on WIKI can be added to. A ton of factoids.

Here's my real name. You can hold me accountable for anything on these sites.

Gary West - www.mrpopculture.com www.mrpophistory.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.110.155.16 (talk) 00:09, 24 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You're more than welcome to contribute, and I highly encourage you to do so. But I also encourage you to read WP:RS and WP:V. Reliability and, therefore, verifiability are difficult to achieve without the use of (relatively) independent publications. You may sometimes cite yourself as an author, but only in extraordinarily rare circumstances may you also cite yourself as a publisher. See WP:SPS, a section of WP:V, for details. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:04, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

RFA thankspam
Thanks for your support in my RFA, which passed with 140 supporting, 11 opposing, and 4 neutral. I will do my best to live up to the trust that you have given to me. If I can ever assist you with anything, just ask.

Cheers!

J.delanoy gabs adds 20:05, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly
Hello there! New: Episode 58: Wikimania 2008, Jimbo and Reflections. Have a listen. Also, if you haven't heard, all of the other Wikimania episodes are up and accessible through the homepage at http://wikipediaweekly.org. Peace. W ODU P bot  09:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

You're receiving this because you're listed on WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

RFA thank-you
Thank-you for your support of me at my recent RFA, which was successful. I have appreciated everyone's comments and encouragement there. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Freud Talk Page
Cosmic Latte, I have removed your unnecessary addition of the Freud bibliography to the Freud talk page - please do not restore it, since it serves no purpose, and talk page bloat is already a serious problem, thanks to my arguments with csloat. Skoojal (talk) 02:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)


 * While I'm on the subject, the talk page seems to need archiving. I'd do it, but I'm not sure how. Skoojal (talk) 07:44, 1 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The instructions are at WP:AATP--not too hard to follow, but it might take a few minutes to apply. Cosmic Latte (talk) 07:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks
—CycloneNimrod Talk? 15:36, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

thankspam
Wow, thanks for the investment of good faith there; I really appreciated that. It looks like the admin thing didn't come together for me, but in the end it might be for the best &mdash; after all, I can find a million other ways to pitch in, and we can't all be admins. Looking forward to working w/ you in the future!  Mr. IP  《 Defender of Open Editing 》 14:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You're very welcome! At the very least, your RfA certainly got people thinking. I highly admire your approach to Wikipedia. Keep up the good work! Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

In case you wish to comment...
There is a movement afoot to delete "Category:Mononymous entertainers," at Categories for discussion/Log/2008 July 31 — item 1.13. (There is also, slightly below that — item 1.16 — an analogous effort with regard to Category:Mononymous porn actors.) Nihil novi (talk) 08:32, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * By the time I got around to looking at them, both discussions had closed. Thanks for pointing them out, though--and feel free to let me know if anything else comes up! Cosmic Latte (talk) 13:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I stumbled upon the two discussions late, myself. Thanks!  Nihil novi (talk) 16:58, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The game's afoot again!
Current venue: Categories for discussion/Log/2008 August 6, item 1.3:  Category:Mononymous persons. Nihil novi (talk) 04:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I put in my own two cents' worth, and I hope it helps. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
 * A very eloquent contribution to the discourse. Thank you for taking the time and thought!  Whatever the outcome, I think the "Keep" side is showing more intellectual rigor and creativity than the opposition.  Nihil novi (talk) 09:29, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a question...
Just out of curiosity, if you don't mind my asking, what exactly is'' your academic and/or professional background? You seem to have extensive knowledge in about a zillion different areas, and I must say I'm quite impressed. Excellent work throughout the MDD article, by the way. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:18, 7 August 2008 (UTC)''


 * I am a psychiatrist, and..erm...had interest in birds, fungi, dinosaurs, astronomy, folklore, rpgs (games of all sorts), film/tv, geology, gardening, etc. since childhood - though my technical expertise in any of the other areas are highly variable (and luckily there are some others around better qualified). Most importantly though, I have a rather good memory :) Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 59
Hey there! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 59: An Interview with Sue Gardner at Wikimania 2008 has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode's page (at least one listener thought this could be the best interview ever), and as always, listen to all of the past episodes at wikipediaweekly.org. Peace. W ODU P bot  01:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

You're receiving this because you're listed on WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

Comedian about opinion polls
Saw your comment on an RFA, I'm not sure, but it sounds like you're thinking of Doug Stanhope's bit about CNN polls. "Do you think there will be a terrorist attack at the Olympics? 74% thought there would not be, 23% thought highly likely, 3% say don't know. YOU ALL DON'T FUCKING KNOW!!! There should be a big old pizza pie of no fucking clue whatsoever." If that sounds about right that's him. -Optigan13 (talk) 08:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes! That sounds like it. Thanks! Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:39, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou
Just a little note to say thankyou for participating in my successful RFA candidacy, which passed with 96 supports, 0 opposes, and 1 neutral. I am pleasantly taken aback by the amount of support for me to contribute in an administrative role and look forward to demonstrating that such faith is well placed. Regards, WilliamH (talk) 10:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

The mononymous person deletions
I thought the previous discussions (entertainer/porn actor) were closed in error by a biased admin. I feel this even more at this junction. How do you assess this process? (I'm querying Nihil novi similarly.) __meco (talk) 14:27, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Deletion review requested. __meco (talk) 16:50, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for alerting me to the deletion review. I've commented, and I hope that my input is helpful. I also find it extremely...interesting, to say the least, that the same admin closed all three mononym-related CFD's, deleting all three--even though I fail to discern consensus to delete in any of them, especially in the latest one (i.e., Mononymous persons). Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:04, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The entire deletion process appears to me to be reduced to somewhat of a sham if a small group of administrators are granted the privilege to overturn consensuses developed in the discussions, based on their "expert understanding" of the rules and their interpretation. __meco (talk) 06:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I have seen similarly conducted proceedings referred to as "railroads." Nihil novi (talk) 07:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 60
Hello! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 60: Diplopedia has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode's page, and as always, listen to all of the past episodes at wikipediaweekly.org. W ODU P bot  05:09, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

You're receiving this because you're listed on WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

My RfA
CL, thank you for your contribution to the discussion at my recent RfA. I like the equation. :) If ever you have any concerns about my actions, adminly or otherwise, don't hesitate to let me know. Best wishes, Paul Erik  (talk) (contribs) 21:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

DRV and lack of consensus
Deletion guidelines for administrators don't seem to be directly relevant because DRV is a procedural review and not yet another deletion discussion. Insofar as they are relevant, then just as no consensus in a deletion discussion leaves things the way they were, and so too at DRV. That which was kept stays kept, that which was deleted stays deleted. Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Just wondering because, as of yet, DRV doesn't say what to do in the event that consensus isn't reached. So I defaulted to WP:DGFA, which I've interpreted as fairly inclusionistic. Your interpretation also makes sense, so it'll be good if one or the other is reflected someday in DRV. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes, it would make sense if it was mentioned there. I know I've seen other people closing DRVs the same way - Jerry for sure and others whose names I forget. All the best, Angus McLellan (Talk) 14:29, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've always read "no consensus" to mean there is no consensus to do what is being requested. At XFD, the request would be to delete, so "no consensus" means no consensus to delete.  At DRV, the request would be to overturn, so "no consensus" would mean no consensus to overturn.  In both situations, "no consensus" equates to "do nothing".  It might be clearer if the closer in both situations explained that better, closing as "no consensus to delete/overturn/etc" rather than just "no consensus".  --Kbdank71 15:37, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Yep, good point. I'm a bit surprised that pages like WP:DRV even leave this much open to interpretation, though--might be good to work towards clarifying on those pages what to do in no-consensus cases. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:18, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, CL. Thank you for supporting Category:Mononymous persons. You tried your best. Regards, Masterpiece2000   ( talk ) 12:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your support, as well. I found your Bellucci/Durkheim example to be especially compelling. Cosmic Latte (talk) 13:32, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your kind reply. You did your best. And I'm interested in abnormal psychology. I know that you also interested in abnormal psychology. I've seen your contributions. I hope we can work together in future. { Regards, Masterpiece2000   ( talk ) 14:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

RfA thank you
, I wish to say thanks for your support in my successful request for adminship, which ended with 82 supports, 3 opposes, and 1 neutral. I will do my best to live up to your expectations. I would especially like to thank Rlevse  for nominating me and  Wizardman  for co-nominating me. &mdash;  JGHowes talk  -  19 August 2008

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 61
Hello! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 61: Corpus_Linguistics has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode's page and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes at wikipediaweekly.org. <font color="#0000CC">W ODU P bot  06:12, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

You're receiving this because you're listed on WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

never mind....
Once major depressive disorder is FA, then we can do borderline personality disorder and really go to town on therapies...I was planning to do that, but when there was a sponateous surge at mdd, I figured striking while the iron was hot was prudent....Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 14:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. All the recent interest in the MDD article has kept me pretty focused on that one for a while, so it'll certainly feel good once/if it reaches FA! Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:35, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


 * CL, I really appreciate your work on psychology-related articles. What about abnormal psychology? We can make that article better. Regards, Masterpiece2000   ( talk ) 03:43, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Gawd...where to begin.....that'll be a huge task :(( Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:12, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed...I just made a few tweaks to it, and I'll help out in more substantial ways when I can. Haven't had a lot of spare time lately, but hopefully that'll change in the not-too-distant future. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I've just created this to help get the ball rolling. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

My RfA
Thanks for the kind words! I'm thinking I'll give it another go sometime between this and this. :-) The whole experience was informative, but nerve-wracking. Cheers!  TN ‑ X - Man  14:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

My RfA
Thank you for your support in my recent RfA, which was successful with 58 support, 4 oppose and 1 neutral. Kind regards. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:45, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks
--Smashville<sup style="color:#03F">BONK! 23:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

My RFA
Thank you for your support on my RFA! It was unsuccessful, but I appreciate your feedback. And thanks for the stated agreement that it was a good thing that I took a wikibreak – I concur ;). I hope to see you around Wikipedia, and I wish you the best,-- daniel folsom  03:10, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Freud article - disagreement with Esterson
Cosmic Latte: there is a serious disagreement between myself and other editor (Esterson) over the Freud article; it's discussed on the talk page. I would strongly urge you to take an interest in this matter. Skoojal (talk) 08:48, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 62
Hey! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 62 has been released. It's the first episode since Wikimania and it packs a lot of content! You can listen and comment at the episode's page and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes at wikipediaweekly.org.  W ODU P bot  05:05, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

You're receiving this because you're listed on WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

Thank you
Hi Cosmic Latte. I would like to thank you for your support in my RfA and the confidence expressed thereby. It is very much appreciated. :) The RfA was closed as successful with 73 supports, 3 opposes and 4 neutral. I would especially like to thank WBOSITG for nominating me. Best wishes and thanks again, —αἰτίας •'discussion'• 23:18, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Treatment for depression
Are we at a point where the treatment section of Major depressive disorder can be trimmed down to a summary with links to Treatment for depression, Psychotherapy, Antidepressant, and Electroconvulsive therapy? --Ronz (talk) 18:40, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Tricky subject Ronz. I am working on the main article and haven't looked at the daughter article for a bit. I will try and compare and get back to you. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, I'll leave it up to Cas, although I'm not too worried unless article size becomes an issue at FAC. If it does, then this could certainly be a reasonable route to take. Cosmic Latte (talk) 08:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 63
Hello! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 63, an interview with Florence Devouard, has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode's page and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes at wikipediaweekly.org.  W ODU P bot  06:57, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

You're receiving this because you're listed on WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

Foxy Loxy's RfA
Hello, this message is to inform you that User:Foxy Loxy has restarted their RfA. The new discussion is located at Requests for adminship/Foxy Loxy 2. Glass  Cobra  09:45, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Apologies, you've already participated in the new one. Sorry. :( Glass  Cobra  10:14, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

RFA Thanks
Cosmic Latte, I'd like to thank you for voting in my RFA. Thanks also for expressing your trust in me, and I hope that I live up to your expectations. Don't forget, if you have any questions (or bits of advice), please leave a message on my talk page. Thanks again,  Spencer T♦C 02:30, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

All is for the best, in this, the best of all possible worlds
One of the advantages of not having many supporters at your RFA is that there are fewer people to thank at the end. Thanks for your support and your willingness to look at my complete record. I'm going to try to interpret this resounding defeat as a statement that I should choose my words more carefully in the future, and remember that every statement I make gets recorded forever, just waiting to get carefully transcribed onto my next RFA. I would go insane if I believed that it was repudiation of what I truly meant: that no editor should consciously and willfully ignore guidelines and policies, and editors that repeatedly do so should not be rewarded for or supported in doing so.

I'm sure I'll get back to full speed editing soon, because, after all,, every day, and in every way, I am getting better and better.&mdash;Kww(talk) 05:25, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks
I much appreciate your vote of support in my recent RfA. Thank you for the trust. Lazulilasher (talk) 23:44, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

My RFA
Hey there! Just a note thanking you for supporting my RFA which successfully passed with 60 supports, 0 opposes and 2 neutrals. I hope I'll be able to live up to everyone's expectations, and thank you for trusting me! All the best, A le_Jrb <sup style="color:blue;">talk  20:31, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Xymmax RfA
I'd like to take a minute to let you know that I appreciate your support in my recently-closed RfA, which passed with a count of 56 in support, 7 in opposition, and 2 neutrals. I'll certainly try to justify your faith by using the tools wisely. Happy editing, and thanks again! Xymmax So let it be written   So let it be done  22:03, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Rfa Spam
Thank you so much for your support on my RFA, which today passed unanimously. I will do my best to make sure that I don't let any of you down. If you ever need any help with anything, feel free to ask me, i'll be happy to. Thanks again--Jac16888 (talk) 17:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

major depressive disorder
I was thinking of a double or triple nom, as you me and Paul Gene had been the most active at a collective push to get this one to FA. I think we are just about there. You around much? Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 22:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * If you have a specific source in mind you can lay your hands for Image:Synapse Illustration2 tweaked.svg on that would be great. I thought I had it at home but I don't, and tomorrow is shaping up to be an arse of a day at work (i.e. may be tricky to chisel out some time to check medical library). If you find it and update it, great, if not I will try to find...Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:45, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Ghost
Hi, Thanks for your edit there. You comments on the issue of relevance (see recent history) would be appreciated. Katzmik (talk) 09:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

1994
Hey wat was wrong with them adding the death of kurt cobain....? he did die on april 5th 1994.... so shudnt he be recognized just like every other famous person....?

Relyt420 (talk) 18:04, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Cobain is already mentioned in 1994. Deaths generally don't go in the events section unless they're political assassinations or major disasters in which a lot of people are killed. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:10, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:ED
Please consider pitching in here Slrubenstein  |  Talk 15:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 64
Hello! Good news, Wikipedia Weekly Episode 64 has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode's page and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes at wikipediaweekly.org.  W ODU P bot  05:29, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

You're receiving this because you're listed on WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

FYI
"Instalment" is the standard British spelling. See. No biggie, just letting you know. (For what it's worth,, among others, made the same mistake.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:53, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, thanks for letting me know. I figured it was a typo, but, as an American who never was fond of Noah Webster's crusade to simplify (de-beautify?) English spelling, I'll be sure to remember that it's not. Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:00, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/John Bigelow, IV
Thanks for your comment on the AFD. I was busy cleaning up the bad writing when you dragged up those sources, making my job to clean things up just that little bit easier. Have a bunch of "thank you"-flowers for the trouble. - Mgm|(talk) 12:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem! Cosmic Latte (talk) 12:27, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

 * Thank you! Very much appreciated. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:40, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 65
Hey! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 65: Censorship while you sleep has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode's page and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes at wikipediaweekly.org. WODUPbot 05:26, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You're receiving this because you're listed on WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

Re: Editor review
I'll try to take a look, but I've been rather busy lately. It might be a few days, though. –Juliancolton <sup style="color:#666660;">Tropical <sup style="color:#666660;">Cyclone  02:33, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

MDD
Please try to help avoid restarting problematic issues on the FAC: I'm aware of the notifications and I know what WP:CANVASS says. If you've been unjustly accused of canvassing, that can be addressed directly with that editor. Regards, Sandy Georgia (Talk) 03:09, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, sorry about that. My intention is certainly not to create any drama this time around! Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:12, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!


I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, A NobodyMy talk 02:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you! Happy Thanksgiving to you, too! :-) Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:37, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome and thanks! --Happy Thanksgiving!  Sincerely, A NobodyMy talk 03:06, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

MDD/Review
Brave of you to put yourself up for it! Don't let yourself be put off from carrying on with MDD. Fainites barley 08:22, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Primate at FAC
Hello! As a previous reviewer of Primate at FAC it would be great if you could have another look at the article. The FAC has been restarted, and any comments would be greatly appreciated. Cheers, Jack (talk) 17:33, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Done! Thanks for letting me know. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 66
Hey! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 66: Searching High and Low has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode's page and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes at wikipediaweekly.org. WODUPbot 07:52, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

You're receiving this because you're listed on WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

Page size
There is a special tool which shows you page sizes? Would you like to know how to use it? Snowman (talk) 18:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'd appreciate that. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:49, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * See here for details. Snowman (talk) 18:51, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'll have a look at it. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:09, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

hi
Could you drop me an email if you get a chance? You can use the link at my user page. Katzmik (talk) 07:42, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure thing. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Congrats! Fainites barley scribs 08:37, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! :-) Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Did you get my reply? Katzmik (talk) 12:16, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

TalkPag Christmas
Hey why did you revert my new section there??? i didn't delete any other messages!--62.158.69.232 (talk) 13:47, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Because your new section had nothing whatsoever to do with improving the article. Wikipedia isn't a forum for discussing your personal beliefs. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

WP:DE
You made what I thought were some constructive comments on the talk page ... can I convince you to look over the project page and consider making appropriate edits? I think that the community would support making it a policy when certain issues are worked through - specifically: I hope you will give it some thought and see what improvements you can make, Slrubenstein  |  Talk 19:54, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
 * clearer explanation of what is the difference between DE and the average (and tolerable and even sometimes desirable) cranky or impassioned editor
 * clearer explanation of how this policy fills a gap not covered by other policies such as CIV, OWN, SPA
 * clearer ideas about enforcement

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 67
Hey! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 67: Fundraising Interview has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode's page and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes at wikipediaweekly.org. <b style="color:#3366BB">W ODU P</b><b style="color:#CC3333">bot</b> 07:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

You're receiving this because you're listed on WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

RfAR
As a note, I've reduced the number of parties in your recent request to yourself, Guido and William M. Connolley. It's unusual to list all the participants in a debate and has led to confusion (also reducing the probability that the appeal will be heard). Please feel free to revert if you disagree with the rationale. Best, Mackensen (talk) 22:53, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * That's completely fine. This is my first experience with ArbCom, so I figured it'd be best to err on the side of thoroughness. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:29, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

New heading required
THANKS FOR BRINGING ME UP (YOU WRTE THAT IT HAD BEEN BROUGHT UP--NOT THAT YOU DID IT). I GUESS MY OBSERVATIONS ON *SOME* WIKIPEDIANS HIT HOME WITH YOU. LOVE HWO YOU SAID I HAD ATTACKE *ALL* WIKIPEDIANS. I WILL BE SURE TO INCLUDE YOU, HOWEVER. WORRY NOT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.166.221.159 (talk) 13:05, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

unitarian greetings

 * a fine Xmas message for all of us to be mindful of.... hehehe. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:01, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

A NobodyMy talk is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message. --A NobodyMy talk 02:52, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Fringe science
An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Fringe science/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Fringe science/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Daniel (talk) 01:00, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 68
W00t w00t! Wikipedia Weekly Episode 68: Wikipedia's Nicotine High has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode's page and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes and even subscribe to the RSS feed at wikipediaweekly.org. – wodupbot – 12:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

You're receiving this because you're listed on WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

Heather O'Rourke
It is not my intention to keep shooting you down, so I want to explain this—third—reversion. I long since checked all the available online reliable sources I could for the Heather O'Rourke article. Neither the IMDb nor TV.com meet the muster for a reliable source as they're both user-contributed resources, similar in nature to a wiki. I previously brought up "The Memorial Site" to the reliable sources noticeboard and it was consensus that it may be legitimate, but doesn't vet for the information available: too much of the information on the site can be found patently incorrect, and ergo cannot be used as a reliable secondary source for our Wikipedia biography.

As I cannot find either "Heather Michele O’Rourke" or "Heather Michelle O'Rourke" in a suitable Google News or Google Scholar search, I'm only left with web results. While the former has more hits (a plethora being copies of a previous version of the Wikipedia article), the latter is where all of our repeatedly accepted, published, reliable sources are found.

You're right, "Michelle" probably is her middle name, there's just no explicit references for this; The New York Times, Yahoo! Movies, and the Turner Classic Movies database all list this as "Alternate Name" or "Also Credited As" or "AKA" respectively. There's no listing at a suitably reliable source for her full name to include this.

Keep an eye out if you will, I'm not perfect by any means. But either bring it up at the talk page first, or don't get upset if I or somebody else removes/reverts it. —  pd_THOR  undefined | 17:11, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

About that James Horner edit
How do you do? I feel rather inferior when watching your own user page compared to mine. Anyway, in the James Horner article's last edit summary, you wrote: "again, rm unsourced, original commentary apparently intended to devalue the defense of this composer". Now considering the fact the article states this "Some believe it truly compromises the merits of Horner's music, while others feel it is a minor problem that has been exaggerated, and a common practice generally inclusive of other composers." Doesn't that sound as an unsourced original commentary as well? Of course, I'm a dummy for this kind of thing, so you may know much better about this than I do. Just a slight thought, nothing hostile. Thanks! --Surten (talk) 21:27, 18 January 2009 (UTC)Surten
 * The "some believe" language currently in the article is a bit weasel-wordy, but at least it suggests third-party opinions about Horner specifically. Of course these opinions should be sourced. The content you were adding differs from this in at least two ways. First, it's unclear as to how it relates to anyone's (apart from you own) views of Horner specifically. Even if you were to source the idea, if the source does not specifically mention Horner (in which case you might be able to add something like, "John Doe, however, argues that this defense of Horner's work is flawed because..."), and instead discusses only the general practice of musically "quoting" other composers, then you could be in violation of WP:SYNTH, which prohibits "synthesis of published material which advances a position." The second problem is that, in the spirit of WP:NPOV, we shouldn't be going to great lengths to emphasize criticism over defense (or vice versa, although in the case of living individuals, WP:BLP also comes into play, so we should be especially hesitant to give extra weight to the negative). I hope this helps. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:57, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. That does help. Poor Mr. Horner, I do like his stuff (except for Troy). Although I was thinking of including OGG files with samples from similar cues by Horner, though I don't know how to convert or upload OGG's. But still, thanks. --Surten (talk) 03:01, 23 January 2009 (UTC)Surten
 * I'm a fan of Horner's too, but I have to say I agree with you about Troy. In case you didn't hear the story, Gabriel Yared has composed a grand, rather masterful score for it, but a test audience rejected it as too "old-fashioned" (ironic that an epic score would be rejected as too old-fashioned for an ancient epic!), and Horner was brought in at the last minute. I much prefer The Perfect Storm, Horner's previous collaboration with the same director. Anyway, I don't know much about OGG files, but you might be able to find something useful on a cnet search such as this one. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Did I hear the story? An old teacher of mine has a CD from a German recording studio with an hour of Yared's original score, and burnt me a CD. It is quite superior to Horner's in several aspects. My personal favorite Horner score is Krull. Thanks again.--Surten (talk) 00:35, 25 January 2009 (UTC)Surten

Wikipedia Weekly Episodes 69 and 70
Wikipedia Weekly Episodes 69: Sixth Sense and 70: Under the Microscope have been released. You can listen and comment at their pages (69, 70) and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes and subscribe to the RSS feed at wikipediaweekly.org. – wodupbot – 06:22, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

You're receiving this because you're listed on WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

Smile!
<div style="border-style:solid; border-color:blue; background-color:AliceBlue; border-width:1px; text-align:left; padding:8px;" class="plainlinks">

A NobodyMy 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, Go on smile! Cheers, and Happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.
 * Thank you muchly! :-) Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:17, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

3rr
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

If you're already familiar with policy, please excuse the template. Tom Harrison Talk 23:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Template excused. What I am currently engaged in is a discussion on the talk page, which, at this point, appears to have demonstrated that information is being removed due to an inaccurate reading of policy. Feel free to refute. Cosmic Latte (talk) 23:10, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Refuted to your satisfaction or not, if you keep reverting someone will report it and request arbitration enforcement. Since you're otherwise doing some good work, as with the billions-of-dollars-worth phrasing, I'd rather not see you banned from the page. Tom Harrison Talk 23:15, 23 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your positive assessment of my phrasing-related work. While, I admit, you are not alone in regarding some of my other recent participation as "edit warring," I would like to suggest that, as with the person before you, your referral of me to WP:AN3 should have come only as a last resort, if less confrontational approaches (such as WP:RFC, WP:3, requests for input at a WikiProject, or good, old-fashioned talk-page engagement) failed to work, or if I was truly disregarding 3RR (bear in mind that, between your placement of this template--which made me groan--and your referral to AN3, my only contributions regarding the disputed article were on the talk page, and did not consist of any changes, reversions or otherwise, to the article itself). This is not to suggest that I have not acted hastily myself. Indeed, multiple contributors to my editor review pointed out, correctly, that I have done so, and I have subsequently worked very hard to keep my WP:COOL and, failing that, to correct myself promptly. On that note, I apologize for my initial brusque reply to the above template, and hope that my quick expansion of that reply helped to dull its bluntness. But I am a big fan of consensus and community, hence both 1) my willingness to seek WikiProject input on the article and 2) my advice that others, too, opt for the communal input available at such projects before seeking authoritative intervention at forums such as AN3. Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:35, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Chris Brown
Thanks for that. I was trying to figure out how to phrase it properly, but couldn't seem to place my finger on the right word. Its 1am, I'm sleepy. :) The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  08:56, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem! Glad I could help. Cosmic Latte (talk) 09:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Categorization
Hello,

when you do

The article appears at "category:xxy" listed under the name "abc"

See Categorization

If you had looked inside Category:Comets, you would have noticed that this is how comets are categorized. 76.66.193.90 (talk) 12:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right. Thanks for pointing that out. Cosmic Latte (talk) 12:34, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No problem. Now I guess you'll go about doing categorization cleanup for some more barnstars? :) It's really a problem in some list categories, where most lists start with the word "list"... usability is hurt since everything is under "L" instead of a more logical location in the alphabet. 76.66.193.90 (talk) 12:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Good point...hmm, good idea about the barnstars, too! :-) Cosmic Latte (talk) 12:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

2043, 2050, and others
The next time you consider removing well-sourced statements arbitrarily, discuss it first. Thank you! --bender235 (talk) 20:24, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I didn't remove anything "arbitrarily." I removed stuff that appears to have been added arbitrarily. Sourced trivia is still trivia. But if you can make a case for why the expected populations of the U.S. and Germany in 2050 should be mentioned, even though the populations of every other country in every other year are not, then go right ahead. Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Besides that it might be of interest how the populations of two of the worlds biggest economies might change over the next 50 years, no one said that we can't add other population growth prediction on China, India or whatever country. Why not? There are numerous "local events" in hundreds of year pages, from wildfires in California to disease outbreaks in Netherlands, so why no populations growth predictions? --bender235 (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Presumably the wildfires and disease outbreaks have a sufficiently rare, unique, or otherwise newsworthy quality to them. See WP:RY for the criteria used to demonstrate notability within these articles, and feel free to be WP:BOLD and remove entries if you think they violate these criteria. But there is nothing particularly astounding about the fact that a certain number of people are expected to live in a certain country in a certain year. Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No, actually I don't like removing that much. I'm more into adding, you know. ;-) Let's continue this here, so that other users might add their opinions. --bender235 (talk) 21:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Cardiology task force
-- Addbot (talk) 00:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC) Maen. K. A. (talk) 22:14, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Gill reference
Because it was about age, not race. I also have concerns about his notability. These were views expressed in a TV documentary, but have they met the standard of his academic peers? I am not sure whether he is jus expressing a wack form of social constructionism rather than criticizing it ... This is why i m also concened about whether is is an established significant view (have other anthropologoist considered and debated this view, is it shared by others)? that said I find the views interesting, I really do, although they seem to belong in the article on social construction as he is making a point about social constructionist views in general. Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:05, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want to put his view back in the article, I have two suggestions: first, paraphrase (or quote) what he says specifically about race. If the reasoning is important, and I would say it is, then it has to appear in a peer-reviewed journal or textbook if it is considered significant within his field.  Second, i think this material belongs in the section on forensic anthropology/race and crime.  I think the article makes plain that there are some specialists who consider the race concept valid.  The views of forensic anthropologists are valid, but they are making claims about race and biology that relate to their actual work and their views do not necessarily apply to other scientists' research, indeed, most scientists would say it does not.  This is not a criticism of foresnic anthropology, it is an acknowledgment that the concepts particular kinds of scientists find valid depends on the particular nature of their research.  So I think the issue here is not whether race is biological or socially constructed, but that general or pure researchers have one view, and applied scientists in diferent fields have other views. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 20:41, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia Weekly Episode 71
Wikipedia Weekly Episode 71: We have no shame has been released. You can listen and comment at the episode page, and, as always, listen to all of the past episodes and subscribe to the RSS feed at wikipediaweekly.org. WODUPbot 05:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

You're receiving this because you're listed on WikiProject WikipediaWeekly/delivery. If you'd like to stop receiving these messages, please remove yourself from that list.

Sockpuppets
User try to bias article, removing relevant and sourced facts, most probably also using sock puppet. No respect for guidlines. This user is editing the Komondor dog article under one name, User:Meoconne Probably also edits the article Komondor as User:Lynovella and IP adress 70.121.204.57. Provides third oppinion on Komondor issues and edit war, on talk page under name, User:Lynovella which he or she presents as  Thid Person Arbritation, misspelled. (Lynovella also claiming that average height has never been removed). Combined IP adress :70.121.204.57 and red link User:Meoconne repeatedly reverted edits at Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show‎ and Komondor dog breed, non-NPOV edits. Remove edits from the Komondor article such as : No upper height limit is given. and other relevant and sourced edits such as the dog breeds average height (most possible influenced by personal bias).

Both average height (sourced) has been removed, (several times),    ,     upper limit height (sourced) ,  mentioning other similar Hugarian sheepdogs , which all of them are  extremely relevant information for this encyclopaedia article on this dog breed,  and when we (and even ClueBot)     put them back he keeps removing them , and produce a lot of unhelpful edits isntead , removing reference title ,  without any consensus.

This qualifies as Edit war, disruptive editing,, copright violation, from the FCI Komondor Standards , poorly formulated edits added in upper case, bias, non-NPOV edits Neutral point of view and  most probably sockpuppetry by same editor, the above mentioned newly created new red link user accounts all editing the same articles, Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show‎ Komondor and Alpha Omega Epsilon.

They are all concentrated on the same issue at Westminster Kennel Club Dog Show‎ and Komondor dog breed, trying to adjust the article in a certain way. Namely that the breed is smaller than it acctually is and it is more like a certain dog the accounts and IP  might be related to, or like, which accounts  calls Ouincy, thoug they deny this. It is also possible that the account User:Goldie102 has been created to support this issue around this dog, see edit.

Which is a smaller Komondor dog with a longer body than the standard call for.

They were trying to ignore breed standard, and other sources and pictures presented in argumentation.

This breed beeing fairly unknown, not many people check that article, or try to defend it from bias.

I would like report them as sockpuppets but it looks like only administrators can do that.

Warrington (talk) 21:17, 7 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not an admin, and I'm honestly not quite sure how or why you found me, but I'm happy to help in any way I can. And probably the best thing I can do to help is to direct you to WP:SPI, where anyone can report suspected sockpuppetry. When individual editors appear to be engaged in edit wars, then you can also use WP:AN3, although WP:DR might be a better first choice. For outright vandalism, there's WP:AIV. And for issues that don't fit neatly into categories such as these, there's always WP:ANI. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:16, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I thougt you were an admin. (because of the Guido arbitration, I was really hopping that you would succed with that) Sorry to bother you. I made several try to report it at that SPI thing but it would’t work for me, and I never did that before.

Warrington (talk) 19:33, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Obama Inauguration
Greetings Cosmic

I was wondering about the revision that you made to my revision regarding the oath of office.

I hope that you do not believe me to be a vandal, by any means. I was pondering how my contribution was unnecessary or unclear.

Thanks Elgreggo11 (talk) 04:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)Elgreggo11


 * I don't consider you a vandal at all. If I did, I would have been inclined to use WP:ROLLBACK rather than to revert with an explanatory edit summary. Basically, the previous version just seemed to say essentially the same thing, but more succinctly. Your edit, about who was attempting to do what, just had a slightly more speculative tone than the prior version, which was rather more matter-of-fact. Also, "erred...incorrectly" was redundant. I hope this helps. Cosmic Latte (talk) 04:55, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit warring (of sorts)
I've probably been just as guilty of this as you, but going back and forth between versions of stem cell controversy doesn't do much good when the vandal is obviously enjoying it. Better to wait until an administrator shows up. :-) Natural Cut (talk) 05:12, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's true. I've got him on AIV now, so hopefully it won't be much longer. Cosmic Latte (talk) 05:14, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

What's wrong with you?
What do you mean my last warning? Warning for what? I am allowed to link the truth. What's wrong with libs? Liberalism in the USA is a sickness. You people are like adult children. When are you ever going to grow up? Don't you realize that you are the laugh of the nation? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.79.174.227 (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * This is not a forum or soapbox for enlightening the populace about The Truth (with two capital T's); this is an encyclopedia, here to relay encyclopedic information that can be verified in reliable sources. If, however, you insist upon educating us about The Truth and end up getting yourself blocked in the process, you might consider taking a different approach to the blocking admin than the approach you took to me. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:10, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

OK, facts. It is a fact that liberalism is a sickness. Just look at them. Obama, Barney Fwank, Hillary, Turbo Tax Cheat Geihtner, Puff Daschelle. All of them are sick and unstable. Normal adults don't think and behave like them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.79.174.227 (talk) 18:27, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Moved from your user page
By NuclearWarfare  ( Talk ) on 19:06, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I would appreciate it if you would stop harassing me, and stop trying to vandalize my page. none of your supposive violations you mentioned existed, it is a common left wing attempt to harass and intimidate conservative users. Further acts of harassment and vandalize will be reported, and if you are an admin a request for dyssop will be sent.Neophytesoftware (talk) 18:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Save yourself the trouble. I have reported my own "vandalism" and anxiously await whatever sanctions may be coming my way. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:39, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

The Motley Moose
Sir, I wanted to thank you for your assistance in helping to restore some civility to the debate in the AfD article. It has gotten very contentious; my Goodness, if I had known what this would wreak... anyway, I do sincerely appreciate it. Thank you. Ks64q2 (talk) 05:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You're very welcome. It's unfortunate that the AfD has gotten to be so contentious, but I'm glad that I could be of help. Cosmic Latte (talk) 05:25, 18 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Honestly, it's people like you that restore my faith in Wikipedia. The way that some of the users have been dogging me, going after other pages I've worked on, attacking me personally, etc... it's very unsettling. Heh, I would never have volunteered for WP:BLOG if I had known! Ks64q2 (talk) 05:31, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry
I thought you were asking if organization was spelt organization so I replied in edit summary saying UK english but realise now that you were not spell checking. I just thought that you might be wondering at my edit summary. No need to reply. :-) Good job on improving the major depressive disorder article by the way!-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  13:35, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much! And yeah, I figured that edit summary had something to do with the ambiguity of my question mark. I was just meaning to indicate that I wasn't entirely sure if my rearrangement of the text was ideal. Cosmic Latte (talk) 13:42, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Request
Cosmic, please stop reverting to misleading information in the Bernard Madoff article. He gave almost 90% of his donations to Democrats so its misleading to say he gave to both parties. He gave mostly to Democrats. If you don't like how I've phrased it please modify it, but this is an encyclopedia and providing accurate information is important regardless of your political bias. Thanks. ChildofMidnight (talk) 17:38, 27 March 2009 (UTC)
 * If a screwdriver happens to contain 90% orange juice and 10% vodka, it is not "misleading" to say that the screwdriver contains "both" orange juice and vodka. It is succinct, as it probably should be in an article's lead--especially if the article is not primarily about screwdrivers (just as Madoff's article is not primarily about Madoff-the-philanthropist) in the first place. And, while I confess to being fond of summary-style introductions, I adamently deny being a member of the infamous Succinctness Party of the USA, so I don't quite see how you infer that my "bias" is of a "political" nature. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:08, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your edits on Roman Polanski
Thanks for your edits on Roman Polanski. Touché, there is no need to get into salacious details! Even though Wikipedia is uncensored, sometimes you have to use common sense.

Thanks again. LA Movie Buff (talk) 16:39, 1 April 2009 (UTC)


 * You're very welcome. Glad I could help! Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:41, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

You are entirely correct.
1st - You are entirely correct, and my use of rollback for that was an error. I should have reverted in detail, there were not that many edits. 2nd - Thank you very much for your edits there at Polanski. 3rd - I hope you will accept my sincere apologies. I believe this is the 3rd time I have erred in using rollback, and I very much hope it will be the last. I can only assure you that I will do my best.

All the best in your continuing Wikipedia-ing endeavors. sinneed (talk) 13:58, 2 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Apology accepted, and thank you. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:01, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello - Cuba topics / Luis Napoles
Hello Cosmic Latte, I have noticed your productive editing recently from afar and thus it is nice to meet you. Additionally, through my watch pages I have noticed an ongoing disagreement between you and User:Luis Napoles on Cuba related topics (a subject matter which I heavily edit and deeply interests me as well). I have sent a message to Luis about many of the issues which I believe you may have also had disagreements with him on. I include it here so that you can possibly add to the discussion, or merely be aware that another editor shares some of your same concerns. It is my hope that a neutral solution can be met, which I believe/hope to be your goal as well. Thanks   Red thoreau  (talk)RT 04:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for informing me about the message on his talk page. I've added a fairly lengthy comment of my own, and I hope it helps. Cosmic Latte (talk) 13:49, 5 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello, this user - Luis Napoles - is bringing the same standards of simply deleting text he doesn't like from the Reporters Without Borders page. I've tried to discuss it with him on the talk page but he's merely responded with a derisory one sentence reply to justify deleting 6k of sourced content. If I was a carpenter (talk) 19:35, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Cosmic, as someone involved in editing the Fidel Castro article, your views on the "U.S. backed" question per the talk page, would be welcome. Thanks   Red thoreau  (talk)RT 17:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Just so you know, I have mentioned you ---> Here.   Red thoreau  (talk)RT 13:38, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Astrology
Please be more careful in your citation of scientific fact. Citing an article which quotes a scientific study is perfectly fine if the citation refers to the actual quotes. Using the conclusions drawn by the actual citation is not acceptable since the authors are not scientists and therefore do not constitute a reliable source. To avoid this problem, I suggest you restrict yourself to citing articles peer-reviewed journals. CapitalElll (talk) 00:54, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, you have a good point, and on closer examination I don't see how the source's author derived the title, "Astrology Given New Support By Scientists' Findings" from the study. However, while this author's interpretation of the studies might be suboptimal, he does observe an interesting connection between the studies and astrology. He states that astrologers have seized upon the findings as evidence for horoscopic astrology, but points out that the scientists don't mean to go this far (which is, in itself, a good reason to wonder where the affirmative title came from), and are suggesting rather that biological instead of astronomical mechanisms underlie the whole...chronistic (is that a word?) dimension of personality. You were right to remove the citation from the lead, although I think it might have a place--as long as it is well-paraphrased--in Astrology. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * You make a valid point regarding the characterization of myth. Thank you. CapitalElll (talk) 03:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

3RR
Links to articles which explain why the person was imprisoned are highly relevant in the article Black Spring (Cuba). If you don't like red links, you may change or remove them and them only. However, Red link says "Good red links help Wikipedia—they encourage new contributors in useful directions, and remind us that Wikipedia is far from finished".Luis Napoles (talk) 20:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I have removed the irrelevant template per WP:AGF and its corollary, WP:DTTR (not to mention WP:3RR, which I am nowhere even close to violating). I cannot give a more thorough response now, but will try to do so later. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:35, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

2012
I copy-edited to add some info, but you may disagree, or may partially agree. BTW: re "This user thinks that if you believe it is incorrect to use "you and me" as the object of a sentence, a little talk needs to be had by you and me...", ever read "Between You and I" by James Cochrane? Good book. <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim 62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149; dissera! 15:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Your edit certainly clarified things, although I wonder if sources tie things together as neatly and succinctly as that passage does (or seems to want to do). Negative statements such as "no one has seen such a planet and its existence cannot be confirmed" may sound simple enough, but could reflect original research if the apparent lack of sources is treated as though it were a source in its own right--the textual equivalent of trying to prove a null hypothesis, perhaps. Anyway, I haven't read that book yet, but I just looked it up and plan to check it out. Thanks for the recommendation! Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:18, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Feel free to change the edit. I understand your point about lack of proof, ... I suppose I take such statements for granted.
 * As for the book, I liked it more than I did "Eats, Shoots and Leaves" (although I liked that as well). Another good one, but with a slightly different focus is The Language Police: How Pressure Groups Restrict What Students Learn.  <font face="Times New Roman" color="FF2400">&#0149;Jim 62 <font face="Times New Roman" color="000000">sch&#0149; dissera! 16:34, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

you can help!
Yeah, this is random and stalkerish, but trust me when I have a reason for asking: where do you edit from? (City and country would be nice, but whatever you feel comfortable telling is fine.) You can just shoot me an email or reply here. It's for a project I have to do involving wikipedia articles and editing patterns, nothing special, but I'll let you see it when I'm finished :) -- Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ( talk ) 14:12, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

WP:NOR - Citing oneself- prohibited, discouraged
Hi, I didn't understand the reason for your recent edit at WP:NOR. It looks interesting and I would appreciate it if you'd give more details at WT:NOR. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 23:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've replied there; I hope it helps to clarify things. Cosmic Latte (talk) 00:35, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes it did, as you may have already noticed from my message there. Thanks. --Bob K31416 (talk) 13:53, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Psychology
Hello Cosmic Latte:

Your reversal of my additions and edits to the Psychology page appears to be unjustified. I believe I can comment on undergraduate education in psychology, having been a psychology professor for 15 years. Moreover, the fact that most psychology majors learn about Freud in history classes is widely known among academics. There is nothing contentious in that assertion, and most any undergraduate would agree. Your comment on my addition to the "Status as a Science" is interesting, but false. Probability testing is widely employed in the natural and social sciences, a fact that is widely known. Please reconsider your deletions. As a psychology professor and researcher I don't see any point in trying to contribute to this page if innocuous and uncontroversial additions are to be vetoed and deleted. Csears77 (talk) 15:02, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Further to my comment above, after reviewing a few more of your edits, my impression is that your editing is biased to present psychoanalysis in a very favourable light. Although you may be partial to this approach, I do not think it is in the best interests of readers to allow the article to adopt such a stance, given the unrepresentativeness of psychoanalytic theory to modern psychological teaching and research. Thank you for reconsidering your actions.

Csears77 (talk) 15:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your contributions, and please remember to assume good faith on the part of your fellow editors. Starting with the Freud edits, it is certainly true that, among psychology classes, history/systems classes generally provide more comprehensive coverage of Freud than do other courses. However this is not where "the only exposure to Freud's ideas" occurs, as one can quite readily cite passages about Freud in textbooks used in introductory, cognitive, abnormal, and other psychology classes. It is also true that most university researchers do not consider themselves psychoanalytic or psychodynamic in orientation, but it is an overstatement to say that they "have abandoned all Freudian influences". Some defense mechanisms, for example, are still taken with a degree of seriousness in abnormal psychology, and cognitive psychologists still discuss repression and "Freudian slips", even though they take issue with the underlying mechanisms Freud proposed. Even for one so skeptical of the notion of repression, Elizabeth Loftus sure cites Freud a lot. He hasn't exactly been "abandoned" if he still is being critiqued, inasmuch as the presence of critique indicates both that critics still take him seriously enough to address, and that the intended audience of these critics still is to some extent sympathetic to his ideas. Freud's diminished university presence is already indicated by a sentence in the passage ("Psychology departments in American universities today are scientifically oriented, and Freudian theory has been marginalized, being regarded instead as a 'desiccated and dead' historical artifact, according to a recent APA study"), which your addition seemed to exaggerate. Moreover, because the psychoanalysis subsection already is in the "history" section, a passage that states, essentially, "This is history!" could just belabour the point. On to the status-of-science edit: I am well aware that probability testing is used in many disciplines, and would not object to a statement of this fact in the context of explaining the nature and scope of probability testing. But if this statement is framed as a counterpoint to a criticism of psychology, then it looks like an original synthesis of independently verifiable information which, taken together, indicates a position--in this case, that the broad scope of probability testing has a refutational quality in light of these criticisms--that is not so easy to attribute. Having said all of that, the Psychology section might be able to benefit from elaboration on the scopes of various methods and methodologies (including both psychoanalytic and statistitcal), so long as the elaboration conforms to summary style. For what it's worth, my own academic background is in mainstream, APA-accredited psychology, so my "biases" (which I'd be happy to elaborate upon if you'd be interested) might not be exactly as you suspect, and I would advise against quick judgement. I hope that you continue to contribute and to realize that edits appearing to "veto and delete" content on unsolid grounds might actually be rooted in the intricacies of policy and argument, and could blossom into compromises and discussions. Cosmic Latte (talk) 13:23, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your detailed response to my concerns. I appreciate your perspective. Please realize that many of my issues and concerns with this page may have nothing to do with you personally.

With respect to Freud, I don't know what else I can say to reinforce the fact that Freudian psychology is merely a historical curiosity in modern university psychology departments (at least in North America). For psychology, Freud is somewhat akin to who Tycho Brahe is for astronomy -- a person who had a great impact on the discipline but whose ideas were ultimately superseded by others. Although Freud's ideas will of course be mentioned occasionally outside of courses on the history of psychology (for example, in a clinical psychology course), such references (critiques) are almost always designed to illustrate how far the field has advanced from 19th century theorizing. Even in the history classes one will learn that Freud had surprisingly little impact in academic psychology from the 1920's and beyond, once behaviorism came on to the scene (surprising given the popular conception today that psychology is dominated by Freudians). Part of the reason Freud's ideas were largely abandoned is because they are unfalsifiable, a fact recognized long ago by philosophers of science such as Karl Popper and others (Popper actually used Freud's theories as an example of an unfalsifiable theory). With the advent of positivism, behaviorism, and experimental psychology, psychoanalysis was left behind, transformed into a niche therapeutic technique for those with the necessary money and time.

With respect to Freud's ideas on consciousness, I can tell you that Freud is treated the same way in cognitive psychology courses (as a history lesson), having taught such courses for 15 years using standard cognition textbooks. Again, this is largely because his ideas were either untestable or unfalsifiable, or both. Modern research on consciousness has virtually nothing to do with Freud, and a casual glance through a few standard cognition textbooks will demonstrate this. And I have never encountered a reference to "depth psychology" in any published journal article on consciousness or in any undergraduate text, junior or advanced.

With these facts in mind, my read of the article is that it is biased to present psychoanalysis in a very favorable light. Again, I do not think it is in the best interests of Wikipedia to allow the article to adopt such a stance, given the unrepresentativeness of psychoanalytic theory to modern psychological teaching and research. It seems to me that Wikipedia articles should strive to correct misconceptions and stereotypes, not reinforce them.

With respect to statistical inference in psychology, my point was really rather simple. The wording of that section criticized psychology research for using probability tests, as if psychology was unique in this respect. My addition was simply meant to point out that such techniques are widespread in the social and natural sciences and not unique to psychology. Thus, one cannot fault psychology research on this account. I interpreted the former text in that section as an erroneous criticism of psychological research, no doubt by someone who did not realize how common these statistical techniques are in all research settings. My changes simply corrected this misunderstanding.

I am not sure how I could go about documenting any of these facts to the satisfaction of those who watch this page, and I am not so sure I am willing to commit the time and debating energy necessary to do so either (I certainly won't get any publication credit for it!). From my perspective, these points are completely obvious. My larger concern, again, is that the article does not provide a novice reader with an accurate portrayal of modern psychology. I am at a loss for how to correct this situation if even the relatively minor contributions of psychology professors are vetoed and deleted. My academic appointment, research, and teaching in psychology is publically documented and can be quickly verified. I am not trying to make an argument from authority here, but on the other hand, it does seem ironic that the information provided by psychologists is rather quickly dismissed in the Wikipedia Psychology article (I wonder if this is also true of the astronomers' contributions to the Astronomy article?). It seems that this Psychology article largely reflects the viewpoints of those who are willing to put a great deal of time and energy into preserving their views in the article. If true, this would be a shame and would fly in the face of Wikipedia's educational objectives. But given the nature of the editing process here I am not sure what the solution is. --Csears77 (talk) 17:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Zicam
I have concerns about some of your edits to Zicam and have asked that other editors contribute to maintaining the article, e.g., here. I trust you do not mind wider visibility of the article but wanted to make you aware of this. Regards - Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 15:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for informing me. Due to all the commotion lately (and to the fact that I don't have much else to do right now), I noticed the post to MastCell and responded on his page. I hope the post helps to clarify things. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:42, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Chris_Brown_(entertainer)
Hello, neutrality concerns over the criminal conviction of Chris Brown have been raised on the talk page. Since you have been previously involved in the discussion, will you answer the request for comment? Thankyou. The Bookkeeper  (of the Occult)  21:28, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I've left a comment and suggestion. Cosmic Latte (talk) 00:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick response. I had been looking for the link to WP:MORALIZE because of the Hitler reference, but completely forgot what policy it was under. It is an excellent point to make on BLPs. Thanks. :) The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  01:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

2009
Ironically, perhaps only Billy (himself) could've convinced anyone to include his name at that article's death section. GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup, maybe so. IMO, he was a pretty ironic fellow overall--something of an "anti-celebrity-endorser", who somehow managed to promote his name and his products to the public at the same time, even without a preexisting connection between him and the products or between him and the public. It's weird how I miss him, but don't quite understand why I do. Ah well... Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Religious folks, might say (right now) he's trying to pitch things in Heaven. GoodDay (talk) 20:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson
I actually didn't notice the source change under voice classification. I was trying to reestablish the non-WP:OVERLINKED lead and remove the overempahsis on his death in the last paragraph. The Bookkeeper  (of the Occult)  00:46, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand; I actually caused some similar confusion yesterday, when I edited the voice-type segment but somehow affected stuff below it (evidently I'd edited a slightly older version of the article). But I trust your judgment. Through our encounters on the Brown article and now on Jackson's, I've seen only top-notch stuff from you. BLPs (and bios in general) are lucky to have you. (Wait, isn't it an anthropomorphism to call an article "lucky"? Well, at least these articles are about people who are lucky enough to be viewed in light of your edits...Anyway, good work.) Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I appreciate the thought. We have User:Realist2 to thank for Michael Jackson. My personal triumph was getting Janet Jackson to FA. Realist and I are kinda like the Sun and the Moon when it comes to the Jacksons. The Bookkeeper   (of the Occult)  05:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Michael Jackson
Just saw your recent edits to the above. If you check the documentation for Infobox Musical artist you will see that there is no parameter for "vocal register". – ukexpat (talk) 03:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yup, thanks for pointing that out. Although I think it could be a reasonable parameter to add, if not always an ideal one to use. Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Some of the parameters of that template have been hotly debated on the talk page and its archives, but may be worth a try. – ukexpat (talk) 03:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Cosmic, i also respect and appreciate your work and i agree with some your suggests. According to me, would be written that MJ won also the Grammy Legend Award, the Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award and that he holds the record of most AMAs won. Furthermore, i don't sure for "he had 13 number-one singles in the United States in his solo career". Yes, United States is the most important market, but i'm not sure to include it. I think that the introduction would be more focused on his global success than on his United States success. SJ (talk) 23:48, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Category:The Jackson 5 Members
I think you overlooked the part of WP:OC that says "unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme." Category:Musicians by band is a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme with numberous subcategories, so Category:The Jackson 5 members is an acceptable category despite its lack of size. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:23, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Good point. In terms of utility, it seemed like something of a sore thumb amidst the other categories on the Michael Jackson page, but obviously it has sufficient precedent to stay. Cosmic Latte (talk) 22:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Zara Larsson
Oh.. When I first found the page, I saw "she is crap". I thought it was you but it must have been someone else. Very sorry.
 * That's fine, just a misunderstanding. I'm guessing you had this in mind. If so, that's pure vandalism and most certainly didn't come from me... Cosmic Latte (talk) 10:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Nancy Wilson
Did you know that it is often a good idea to discuss such moves BEFORE making them? Pdfpdf (talk) 00:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hello. Yes, I did know that it's often a good idea to discuss page moves beforehand. I also knew that it's often unnecessary--particularly when the four criteria linked from the first "often" do not seem to apply. I wasn't unable to move the pages, so the first two criteria are out. As for the second half, I didn't think the move would be the least bit controversial, and I had no doubts as to what to call the pages. After all, Talk:Nancy Wilson, Talk:Nancy Wilson (rock musician), and Talk:Nancy Wilson (jazz singer) contain no page-name debates (and contain little of much else, for that matter). If you have a specific issue with the page moves, then please feel free to point it out. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Nah. Nothing specific. Pdfpdf (talk) 16:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Green Bloggers
It was actually who deleted it, so you might want to check in with him. – Juliancolton  &#124; Talk 14:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Talkback
SarekOfVulcan (talk) 14:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

is this weird and if so what should I do about it?
I dont understand what this is about User:Kevin Wahlberg User:Chace Watson User:Omoak Fendia and these edits  and. Are you able to offer any advice or insight for me  Earlypsychosis (talk) 20:17, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That is weird indeed, and I'm having a hard time figuring out what it's all about. I see that an early version of one of these pages is littered with such nonsense as, "Afandi was first discovered at age eight at a talent show in the Raleigh, North Carolina suburb of actor in The Good Son (1993), where he was cast as Tiny Tim in a local production of actor", and I'm having a hard time verifying the existence of the subjects of some of these writings--so, whatever this stuff is, it doesn't seem encyclopedic. Could be a WP:HOAX or some sort of exercise (of the WP:VAN, WP:SOCK, or WP:MEAT variety) in absurdism. Or it might just be a misguided WP:NOOB. In any case, it looks like a violation of at least two core policies (WP:V and WP:NOR), as well as WP:UP (especially WP:UP, #5) and quite possibly WP:BLP. I'd suggest taking it to WP:ANI. If you make a post about it there, and if it would make things more convenient for you, feel free to link the post to this section of my talk page, or to paste this section into the post. I hope I've been of at least a little bit of help... Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:26, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
 * cheers Earlypsychosis (talk) 21:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Biology of obsessive–compulsive disorder
A tag has been placed on Biology of obsessive–compulsive disorder requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a blatant copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. RadioFan (talk) 20:09, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * And you're basing this on...what, exactly? It's not a copyvio (let alone a blatant one) to paste material from one WP article into another. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Propofol
Hi there : )

Thanks very much for the constructive and well-thought out arguments you presented in the Talk:Propofol page. I was getting worn out trying to counter the incessant arguments in favour of the word abuse. Nice work! InternetMeme (talk) 12:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I'm glad you found my comment helpful. And I agree with you that "illicit use" would be much better. Great username, by the way! Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey, thanks for the compliment! Heh, this is some debate we've gotten involved in over at the Propofil page, huh? Also, after looking at your user page, I now know the average colour of the universe. Good stuff : ) InternetMeme (talk) 20:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Propofol
Hey, I've noticed that a member of the propofol discussion (User:Bevinbell) has recently edited MEDMOS to include the word "abuse". The edit was subsequent to our discussion regarding propofil. Is this good practice?
 * Sorry that I'm so late replying. But no, that was not good practice, as I've pointed out in this belated response on the talk page. Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:11, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Hayley Westenra
I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns with the referencing which you can see at Talk:Hayley Westenra/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 20:24, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Muhammad of Ghor
Hi, the person keeps reverting to the wrong version and that deletes all the information I've gathered and add to it. I wasted many hours by adding information and there is no way anyone can say the sources are unreliable. This Tajik guy is a racist and he's doing everything possible to destroy Pashtun articles. This is his personal way to settle scores with Pashtuns, people he hates. Every article I fix is right away visited by him or other Shias like him, it's like invasion of Shias attacking Pashtuns in Wikipedia and this very frustrating, and is being ignored by everyone. I wish there was some kind of rule here to stop people from one race or ethnicity going around editting articles of another "specific ethnicity" whom they are rival to, unless they agree. This will reduce such disputes and edit-wars. For example, if an article is relating to Hindus and there is a Hindu and a Chinese editors but they can't agree on something then the Chinese should follow a rule to stop editing the Hindu article. I explained in great detail my proofs and evidences at Talk:Muhammad of Ghor and Talk:Ghurids but he and his Shia buddies do not accept a single piece of my argument. He also removed lots of my hard work from Amir Kror Suri. I realized that I have not a single problem with anyone, from any other country on earth, or any other religions, it's just these Iranian (Tajik) Shias who are not leaving me alone. They don't accept any source which doesn't go with their POV.--119.73.6.24 (talk) 23:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Tajik keeps referring to "banned users" ; if you actually have been banned (e.g., under a different account) from editing these articles or these types of articles, then you risk getting blocked by pursuing the matter any further. If you haven't been banned, then I would suggest that you bring the matter to administrative attention, but not at AIV. Probably the most general and highest-traffic forum is WP:ANI. If you feel that Tajik might have a conflict of interest due to his own background, you might prefer WP:COIN. Other possible avenues include WP:DRR and, less formally, WP:RFCC. You have several options other than AIV, but I would advise against pursuing any of them if you have, in fact, been banned. Cosmic Latte (talk) 00:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems like Tedder took care of it. WP:RFP is always another option, too. Cosmic Latte (talk) 00:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Balloon Boy
You're being very WP:BOLD but making a bunch of changes which will be difficult to REPAIR

eg, you removed the line about 'unverified' with this comment: rm obvious; of course the reports were "unverified", hence all of the suspense

Which fundamentally misreads or misunderstands the point - which is that the media were NOT regarding the question as uncertain, until it was retrospective. However, this does need a cite to not be WP:OR.

I am about to put back the txt that you claim is a synthesis - it's not, its basic calculations which are premitted - if anything the site howthingswork cite should have been excluded is all.--Jaymax (talk) 19:10, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Reverted
Hi, I reverted your edit because it selectively removed a lot of relevant content. The article is not a featured article candidate. I feel the reference is a good quality reference as it was conducted by the Australian government. The other reason that I reverted was because I believe that you were trying to accomodate one of several sockpuppets of The Sceptical Chymist. I have filed a sockpuppet investigation here regarding this behaviour.Sockpuppet investigations/The Sceptical Chymist If you are opposed to my revert, I am sure that we can reach some sort of a compromise.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  21:43, 18 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no idea who's a sockpuppet of whom, but in any case, I reverted Skrewler's text-removal on MDD, then out of curiosity checked his contribs and found another text-removal on the benzo article. I reverted this as well, but after he reminded me that the whole section relied on a single primary source, I realized he was (mostly) correct. I certainly agree with you that the Australian government is a reliable source, and that's why I retained a truncated version of the passage; however, the issue is not one of reliability, but rather one of due weight for a given type of source (regardless of the...er, source of the source). No matter who researches the primary material, it's only one study. Because secondary sources (e.g., meta-analyses) account for multiple primary sources, they're considerably more representative and generalizable, and thus can be granted much greater weight (i.e., article space), than primary sources. This is the standard both for Wikipedia in general (see WP:PSTS) and for medicine-related articles in particular (see WP:MOSMED). Again, I don't know who's whose sockpuppet. I don't know who Skrewler is. But even if he were a sockpuppet of the Devil himself, he has a valid point on the benzo article--although I remain unconvinced about his suggestion for MDD. Cosmic Latte (talk) 22:36, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your reply. I certainly agree with you that secondary sources should be given more due weight. Unfortunately the subject matter eg the stats assessed in the Australian study are not commonly researched with benzodiazepines. As Skrewler pointed out drug facilitated rape is secondary sourced but most of the studies on property related crime, contribution to other drug use etc etc etc has not been widely researched and is restricted to either very old papers and primary sources. Not every aspect of a topic has been subjected to meta-analysis's. I guess if we do agree to shorten the section, the decision will require consensus on which bits we "leave out" and which we "include" which will require some good editorial judgement on our part. I have reverted twice now so I can't reinsert the text unfortunately.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  22:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)


 * You're right. If primary sources are all we've got, then it makes sense to cite the good ones. I'll have to think about what (if anything) I'd still trim. But for now, just as long as it's worded so that the reader doesn't forget that the information comes from a single study, I have no problem with keeping the material in there. However, if decent secondary sources do turn up, then I'd recommend adjusting things so that the secondary material is clearly given greater weight. Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:28, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Certainly, if a decent secondary source is available which covers what is covered in the Oz gov paper then we should cite it with significantly more weight than the Oz gov report. Feel free to contact me anytime in the near or distant future about the article, if you have any ideas or opinions etc. :)-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  21:19, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Will do! Thanks, Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:24, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi again, looks like this drama is not over yet. If you do not mind can I ask you to read this section,Editor_assistance/Requests and comment. This guy is threatening me now with arbcom over this issue. Another disruptive editor, ugh.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  22:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

October 2009
My contribution has several sources. I believe I have a valid point, and should not be censored. H1N1 is a serious viral infection, and should not be taken lightly. Just because you think that the news is a hoax, does not changed the fact that there is serious public concern over the spread of this virus. The child vomiting is indicative of the H1N1 virus. My edits are not vandalism. There are several possible explanations for the child vomiting, he may have been upset, or seriously ill. I believe all opinions should be fairly expressed. Just because you disagree, does not mean my contribution is vandalism. Sadman64 (talk) 02:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry; I misconstrued your edits as vandalism, mostly because you reverted multiple times without an edit summary, and because the edits looked to me like an obvious joke. But no, the H1N1 epidemic most certainly is no joke, and I can see how you might have had serious intent. But there still are at least two big problems with your contribution. First, the incident is not prominently associated with H1N1. I also "believe all opinions should be fairly expressed", but the key word is "fairly", and it might not be very fair to frame a minor viewpoint as if it were a major theme. The second problem concerns your sources. Twitter and "igossip.com" are not reliable sources, and the Huffington Post piece says nothing about H1N1. To draw your own conclusion from various sources, none of which make that conclusion explicit, is to create an original synthesis of the material. In and of itself, that's fine; to be able to make new connections is what I'd call a sign of intelligence. However, these new connections cannot be published in Wikipedia articles unless they first are published in an external and reliable source, because those connections constitute original research, which enclycopedias do not publish as such. Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Colorado balloon incident ‎
→Hoax allegations and criminal investigation: and this one fails WP:SELFPUB in a flash) 
 * The Robert Thomas material you removed is integral to the case, is sourced in practically every reliable source on the subject, and was linked to a BBC news report that you removed. I've added it back. Just because it includes the Gawker site, doesn't mean that the material relies upon it.  It's a bit strange to see you remove something that is widely sourced in the literature. Viriditas (talk) 01:42, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Viriditas (talk) 01:43, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Fair point about the BBC, but the first two sentences carry far too much WP:WEIGHT for an unreliable WP:SELFPUB. And I'm not quite sure that Mr. Thomas should be mentioned/implicated by name on here (regardless of how the news media decide to treat him). Perhaps one of us could have a go at tightening the paragraph so that the BBC piece carries the weight? Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:47, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, please, do some research on the topic before removing material. I cannot think of any justification for deleting it as you did.  I see nothing wrong with mentioning Thomas by name, and this is not a BLP issue.  You are assuming that the reference to Gawker is being used to support the material, when in fact, the statement is supported by most reliable sources on the topic (the BBC in this case) and the Gawker site is merely used as as a note.  Please take this up further on the article talk page if it concerns you.  Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 01:53, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Two questions re:2012 phenomenon
Your edits to the lead left me wondering on two counts. First, shouldn't the 2012 film be listed in the lead, as it has its own section in the article and second, why are you watering down the counterclaims to the pseudoscience? As of right now, the article essentially reads as follows. "Some people claim the sky is green. Others assert, however, that it is blue."  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  17:58, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't mean to sound brusque, but I take this article particularly seriously; it gets 40,000 hits a day, many, I'm sure, from people who are genuinely scared. People have contemplated suicide over 2012. I feel that any hint of equivocation on our part will cause people to assume that this idea has some validity, when it does not. Wikipedia, whether it wants to be or not, is the first line of defence in this battle, so it should state the issue the plainest terms possible; there is no apocalypse in 2012.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  23:54, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * On the basic question, I quite agree: I see no reason to believe that anything extraordinary is cosmically destined to occur in 2012. If any prophecy is most likely to come true, it'll be of the self-fulfilling kind; e.g., as you said, people think they'll die in 2012, so in preparation, they make themselves die in 2012. But I came to this conclusion by weighing the arguments on each side of the debate, starting with a level scale--i.e., "A says X, but B says not-X. Let's see whose statement is stronger." If I start out by seeing something more to the effect of, "A says X, but B brilliantly demonstrates that A is a total idiot by pointing out non-X", then, depending on my personality and mood, I'm going to be prejudiced in one way or another from the very beginning. If I'm feeling agreeable, I'll be biased towards non-X; if disagreeable, towards X, and in either case I'll have been denied a fair chance to digest the arguments, think about them, and decide which one is better. Of course, WP should not give equal weight to a declaration that the sky is green and to an assertion that it's blue. First of all, those saying it's green would constitute an incredibly small minority (whereas, as you know, a lot of people, both published and not, think something interesting will happen in two years). Second, the green group would be making the same type of claim about the same type of world as the blue group; they're talking about an objective phenomenon that is to be evaluated empirically. If you say apples are red and I say apples are blue, we're still comparing apples to apples. But a lot of this 2012 stuff is more apples-and-oranges. Just as Karl Popper is not going to head into the lab and try to demonstrate the non-existence of the Freudian superego, science cannot refute the assertion that a spiritual transformation will occur, as this assertion cannot be falsified at least until 2012, and even then it may be subjected to ad hoc defenses. It may be easier to falsify assertions regarding how the cosmos may be lining up in preparation for something. But there is no reason--especially in an encyclopedia--that this cannot be indicated unaffectedly: "A says X, while B says that X is falsified by observation Y." There is no need to frame it in terms that ultimately amount to something like, "Loony-pseudoscientific-quack A says X, while well-respected super-genius B easily falsifies X." I don't know about other folks, but if I were really scared for my life, I'd rather hear a calm voice ("A says X, B says non-X [so what do you think?]") than an equally panicked one ("A is crazy, B is sane [so forget A; you should agree with B, if you know what's good for you!]"). So if WP is to be "the first line of defence", it might do well to start by taking on the calmly cerebral tone of an encyclopedia. Indeed, my intent is not to water anything down or to promote a view that I don't even share, but rather to promote WP-as-encyclopedia--which is to say, to promote WP-as-WP. Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Problem is, statements such as we're about to fall into a black hole 30,000 light years away, or that we're about to collide with a planet that would be visible to the naked eye by now, or that the Earth is about to stop rotating and then restart, are very much of the "sky is green" mould. They are flatly contradicted by the simplest observations. The easiest way to disprove Nibiru is simply to look up. It isn't there. And all you have to do to show we're not going to fall into a black hole 30,000 light years away is point out that, hey, it's 30,000 light years away. That's 177 quadrillion miles. How likely are we to fall into anything 30,000 light years away? And all you have to do to show that the Earth can't stop spinning and then restart is ask, hey, when you stop a ball spinning, does it automatically restart when you let it go? No. Ergo what you are arguing is impossible. If this isn't "sky is green" talk, I don't know what is.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  09:15, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with any of this. That is "sky is green" talk. And I'm not suggesting that the article should say, in effect, "A says the sky is blue, and B says the sky is green", as though there were no differences to be noted between A and B. But if it's clear that A is a scientist and B is the general public, then the notable difference between A and B should be quite obvious; A relies on established, empirical methods, whereas B relies on...well, something else. But if the tone of the article conveys something like, "Scientists say the sky is blue, and the general public says the sky is green--and, psst, the scientists win", then that's simply overkill. The biggest "bee in my bonnet", so to speak, is with regard to article tone, and this is an emphasis that often seems to be diminished by the science-pseudoscience polarization that has so captivated many editors. (Indeed, I'm not directly obsessed with the definition of "science"; but, IMHO, "science" has turned out to be a word that many people would rather assert than analyze. And this is especially true, I would say, among so-called "creation scientists", who misappropriate the term in order to sneak creationism into biology classrooms.) Oh, and as for the movie: I agree that it should be mentioned in the lead. My problem was with the way in which it was framed; it sort of amounted to, "Roland Emmerich has directed a film about this phenomenon. Just don't forget that Roland Emmerich is an evil meme machine who wants to take advantage of your fear." Again, the problem was with tone. I have no problem with mentioning the marketing strategies in the article. But I don't quite think that the 2009 marketing of a movie about 2012 is so closely pertinent to 2012 as to warrant mention in the lead. Then again, perhaps the "phenomenon" has been going on for quite some time, and perhaps the marketing maneuvers are a notable feature of the "phenomenon". But if it's mentioned, it shouldn't read as an editorial attempt to discredit...erm, I'm not exactly sure what it would discredit (Emmerich's personality? The public's interest in the movie?)...but in any case, the article shouldn't try to diminish interest in its very own subject. Perhaps it would be fine to have a line like, "This film received additional attention because of its marketing campaign, which involved X and was criticized for Y." The diminutive tone of the prior wording just seemed a little too transparent. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that "this film is notable because..." is a good idea, since it is the film's marketing campaign, not the film itself, that is important. By all accounts, it has played a significant role in jacking up 2012 hysteria. Perhaps something along the line of "The marketing campaign for the film 2012, directed by Roland Emmerich, has been criticised for adding to the panic due to X". Oh, and "elide" means to blur together by omitting a syllable, like saying "airplane" instead of "aeroplane". But you're right, that was a metaphor too far.  Serendi <sup style="color:#bb0000;">pod ous  16:52, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Lost article?
Hi Cosmic. The rather troublesome Canto 2009 has deleted the social psychology (sociology) article and replaced it with a web of redirects, presumably in order to lose the information. Can you find this article anywhere? He's clearly tried to wipe it under the carpet completely. --Tomsega (talk) 10:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. But it seems that User:IronGargoyle already fixed the problem before I saw your message (although there was an oddly long amount of time between the messing-up and the fixing of the article). At this point I regard Canto2009's edits as mostly disruption, along with some outright vandalism; if he isn't deliberately acting in bad faith, then he's quite misguided, but in either case he's likely to earn himself a block if he keeps doing what he's been doing. Anyway, for future reference, to fix that type of disruption/vandalism, you could try simply reverting it, or otherwise go to the new-name article and use the "move" tab (top of the page, third from the right). Again, thanks for letting me know. Cosmic Latte (talk) 10:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Anthony Hopkins
Per MOS:BIO: Nationality - the country of which the person was a citizen when the person became notable. Hopkins became a U.S. citizen in 2000, as is already noted in the lead section. Unless he didn't become notable until after 2000, the proper descriptor is Welsh. He passed criteria for notability in the 1960s. Wildhartlivie (talk) 13:59, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That is a reasonable application of the second half of the nationality sentence. The second half concerns people who were (but no longer are) citizens of a given country. If a person is no longer a citizen of X but became notable in X, notability takes precedence. The first half of that sentence says that nationality usually is "the country of which the person is a citizen or national" (isn't it?). And it is an "or", not an "and", that seperates the sentence's halves. Anthony Hopkins is "a citizen or national" of the United States. Only if this were not the case could the timing of his notability come into play. Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:30, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Statue of Responsibility
Actually shortly before his death in 1997 Viktor Frankl was involved in trying to get his proposed Statue of Responsibility built, but as of today they don't have much of any funding, haven't picked a location, and are basically going nowhere fast.

I personally don't think that a 'proposed' statue, and one Austrian man's personal opinion of the symbolism of an existing statue, are notable enough to be listed in the Statue of Liberty article itself. It's got it's own article as it is. OptimumPx (talk) 00:08, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I had no idea that he was serious about it (in fact, I'd taken it as a sort of serious humour). But I'd think that the existence of this foundation, along with the fact that (much to my surprise, admittedly) the Statue of Responsibility idea apparently is notable enough to have its own article, only strengthens the case for mentioning it. As for lack of funding, Ludwig II faced the same problem with his castles, but that doesn't really seem to detract from their notability. If you really think it detracts from the article, then I suppose I probably won't mind if you revert. But, even apart from the practical issues with this "Statue of Responsibility", the mere mention of it (especially with a relatively coherent phrasing, such as this) seems, IMHO, to enrich the symbolism section, allowing Viktor Frankl to complement the also-notable Ken Burns. Cosmic Latte (talk) 00:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Your poll
You might want to consider deleting "and wherever the band clearly is being referred to as a single entity rather than as a plurality of members" from your list of exceptions. Look again at each case in your own edit that got revertedd, I think you may agree that this becomes rather nebulous. Wouldn't it be better to allow common sense and WP practice to prevail rather than trying to define the exception. 87.114.175.74 (talk) 15:19, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
 * You're probably right. I'll strike that out. Cosmic Latte (talk) 15:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

2010
It makes more sense to say common year starting on Friday instead of common year that started on Friday.

Homerjay90 (talk) 19:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * To be frank, I don't know which makes more sense, but your refusal to seek/respect consensus on just about anything is (in the opinions of apparently quite a few editors) getting to be a tad disruptive. Perhaps you might try WP:BRD. What you've been doing has come across more as WP:OWN. While I've probably disagreed with 3/4 of your edits to the year pages, what bothers me most is not the content of your edits, but rather your editing behaviour. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and it ought to be treated as such. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:38, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * P.S. I'm too tired to check at the moment, but I'm reasonably certain that, if you haven't already violated WP:3RR, you are remarkably close to doing so on one or more of these articles. Cosmic Latte (talk) 19:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Say it either way (starting on, that started on, or began on).

However, in the 2008 and 2009 articles, please omit 2008th 2009th year of AD/CE, 8th 9th year of 3rd millennium and 21st century. Many of the previous year articles on Wikipedia don't have that information. Usually, this info is almost only for the ongoing year. 71.33.56.252 (talk) 19:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The above IP and User:Homerjay90 are under investigation as a sock puppet. Mkdw talk 20:58, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year
I just wanted to take the time to wish you and your family a Happy New Year!-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  01:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

thank you
thank you for this information:. i am thinking you are maybe right but i am not understanding this one all. that is okay with me. thank you for explaineing. 74.234.47.199 (talk) 02:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Reg removal of my edit on Avatar
Can you pls let me know the reason for deleting my edit on the article for the movie Avatar? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Avatar_(2009_film)&action=history I had just added links to the reviews of a movie discussion board which has professional reviewers as well and there is a separate score for them.

dd Movie Buff (talk) 15:55, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Where is the separate score for professional reviewers? If there is a distinct contribution from verifiably established critics, then that could potentially be cited in the article. Otherwise, the problem with the page you cited, with its "write your review" button, is that it can be edited as freely as Wikipedia. This would give you and I the ability to edit the source, and then cite ourselves in the WP article. This would also allow trolls to write nonsensical reviews, and then cite their own rubbish as fact. The WP:SPS rule is in place to prevent this Pandora's box (no pun intended) from opening. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:09, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand your concern. Let me try to clear the air on this. There are two scores to every movie - a "loudmouth score" and a "popular score" - you can see them to the left of every movie. The website has hired a set of professional critics and the "loudmouth score" is a weighted average for that. All reviews in the system have been published only after moderation after evaluating the content against a set of guidelines. Hence, no abusive, biased or nonsensical reviews would be let in and the ""popular score" is a weighted average of all common users. Furthermore, to write a review one has to login using the "Open Id" method and the website moderators team penalize the nonsense writers by banning them for good. Please let me know if you have any concerns. Movie Buff (talk) 16:21, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This certainly reduces (not quite eliminates, but still diminishes) my self-publishing concern. My only other issue would be that, especially insofar as non-professional reviews are concerned, the site seems to provide "raw data" that might not yet have been picked up and interpreted by outside observers. This problem is explained more in WP:PSTS, but in this case it's not enough of a problem for me that I'd revert again. I personally don't mind if you go ahead and re-add the information, but I'm willing to bet that others--especially those aiming for WP:GA--might be more conservative. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Appreciate your time in explaining things to me. I'll re-add that information. Thanks!Movie Buff (talk) 16:42, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

2010 debacle
Hi CL. That editor is rather persistent with his pronunciation stuff. I've given him a formal template warning regarding 3RR on top of the more conciliatory one you've given him, but nothing seems to work. Should we proceed through formal channels? Favonian (talk) 20:11, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Favonian -- He's getting quite disruptive indeed, and I agree: WP:AN3 seems appropriate at this point. Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I've reported the editor in question at WP:AN3.  Favonian (talk) 20:24, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * As you can see, I've expanded the entry a bit. (I hate having to take things this far, but IMO, 14+ reverts in such a short period of time crosses the line from annoyingly obstinate to downright disrespectful.) Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're an example to us all :) Thanks for making that extra effort.  Hope this brings him a vacation.  Favonian (talk) 20:47, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You're welcome, and thank you as well. :-) Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:00, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

shame
you are mising the idea so i will try to explain beter to you. i am wondering first by what you say in second edit sumary if maybee you are young. what is happning IS very very new and is very clear to us who are more than fifties years old.

in past persons yes are cawt doing things not suposed to be doing. when this happens in past these peoples disapear and are no more in public. if are elected persons they resign from office they are holding. if are movie stars they are geting no more movies to make. this beginned to change before 2000s but idea is still part of thinking of most persons before 2000. when President clinton scandal first happen in winter 1998 the talker heads on tv (both democrats and replubicans) say he is finished. most predict he will resign in only a week or two because of shame. he survive of course. but now in 2000s more then this is hapening. some people are becomeing famous BECAUSE they are doing such things. NO BODY knows who is paris hilton until she has sex tapeing on internet. in past times her family would be saying to her to hide away and not be in public at all and hope someday she can have quiet normal life. but in 2000s it is not this like. in sted she becomes POPLAR for this thing that before would destroy her repetaton. this is a BIG diferent than before 2000s and is biger change in culture than many things in aritcle now.

one other thing you say: my refrences dont mention 2000s decade. i am looking at refrences for other facts in aritcle and MOST do not menton this decade. the refrences only show the informaton is true. it is not being needed for refrenceing to menton the decade (let me know if i am misundrestands you).

thank you for takeing time to gived your reasons in edit sumrarays and also for reading my words here. 70.153.230.93 (talk) 02:48, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * As far as the passage's own content went, my only major problem was with the first sentence, which had reduced the source to, "In the 2000s people changed from being ashamed of doing things that are against the rules to becoming proud and even famous for doing such things." That sounds as if nobody before the year 2000 ever thought that it was "good" to be "bad"--as if nobody ever had become well-known, let alone admired, for being an outlaw. No Jesse James, no Billy the Kid, no Bonnie and Clyde, no Patty Hearst, no Hell's Angels. Heck, not even Robin Hood! What these sources are doing is, they are revealing the personal frustration that their authors have directed towards some salient aspects of the world in which they live. These sources are not trying to pose as logical or scientific demonstrations that shame ceased to exist on the 1st of January, 2000 (perhaps as a result of having fallen victim to the Y2K bug or of having turned back into a pumpkin at the stroke of midnight). In a nutshell, the opening line was too simplistic. Now, about all of these sources that do not address the 2000s decade, I must ask: What on earth are they doing in the 2000s (decade) article? If they are being used to characterize a decade that they do not, in fact, characterize, then they are being misappropriated, or at least misused. If the sources are about, say, the 21st century or modernity in general, then perhaps these sources have their niche in articles other than 2000s (decade). Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Rephrasing WP:LQ
User Flyer22 has suggested on WT:MoS that WP:LQ may need to be rephrased to avoid misinterpretations such as occurred on the Avatar film article. I'm not confident that this is necessary, but if you have any input on the way WP:LQ is interpreted or could be improved, please take a look at WT:MoS. Also, I think you were absolutely right to bring the matter up on the Av talk page. It was about the article, not about Flyer22 and putting the discussion there gave other editors a chance to see and contribute. Darkfrog24 (talk) 19:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I've responded to the WT:MOS discussion. (I'm also glad that someone agrees that I wasn't overdoing things by bringing the issue to article talk.) Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

New type of decade article proposed
I have proposed on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Years that we have two kinds of decade articles - one in which the events of a decade are listed ("List of events of the 1940s"), and another shorter decade that takes a top-down approach and explain the main themes and character of the decade ("1940s"). Please share with the community your views or suggestions.Kransky (talk) 10:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Transcend
I'm curious cosmic what other word would you prefer beside "transcended"? Do you have an alternative? Cheers A Star Is Here (talk) 02:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My proposed alternative was the version that you reverted. I read the line as an indication of MJ's ability to stand out (i.e., to be "distinctive") in the eyes and ears of a diverse population. In other words, his distinctive style was recognized across various demographic boundaries. Was that interpretation incorrect? "Transcend" could mean all sorts of things that probably were not intended. A rather mundane reading would suggest that, like it or not, all sorts of people became acquainted with MJ's work, i.e., it was played enough that it was to be found wherever there were eyes or ears to find it. Certainly the article is not aiming for cynicism--so I don't suppose that that's what the line was meant to mean. A more interesting possibility would be that there was something in MJ's singing or dancing that actualized a vision of his that could be stated in somewhat transcendental terms--i.e., that Jackson's technical abilities somehow swelled amidst and beyond--and thereby mended--the human alienation that MJ described in, say, the poem on pp. 14-15 of his book. I suppose that the word "transcended" could, in fact, be used quite eloquently in reference to MJ. But he wasn't trying to achieve this vision through his "musical style, vocal style and choreography", and I don't suppose that the word "transcended" was meant to suggest otherwise. Transcendence is a highly abstract idea with many possible meanings, and it doesn't, IMHO, say a whole lot about what Jackson's distinctive performance techniques actually did. So, something more concrete would be preferable, would it not? Cosmic Latte (talk) 02:28, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

You make a valid point but "were recognized across generational, racial and cultural boundaries" sound like its not happening anymore and MJ even in death countinues to break records and boundaries. How about an alternative perhaps? Maybe " His distinctive musical style, vocal style, and choreography continues to be recognized across generational, racial, and cultural boundaries." What do you think? A Star Is Here (talk) 02:48, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me! Cosmic Latte (talk) 03:04, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Nothings better then compromise Cosmic. Thanks! A Star Is Here (talk) 03:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

2010, HCR
Thank you for your level-headed input. What a breath of fresh air. GnarlyLikeWhoa (talk) 05:54, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Parapsychological vs. scientific
From the edit summary you left in your edits to Reincarnation, it looks like you think that legitimate academic research by psychiatrists and psychologists cannot be called "parapsychology". If that is the case, perhaps parapsychology would be worth reading. ScienceApologist (talk) 19:25, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * You're absolutely right. I should have known that, considering that I have a psychology degree and have edited the parapsychology article before... but anyway, thanks for catching that. Cosmic Latte (talk) 13:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Old reply
I seem to have found a message on my talk page that slipped under the radar. I don't really remember the specific article content issues that precipitated it, but you had asked a question about some material on my user page I found interesting to rant about. Just so I am not talking to myself I thought I would let you know I replied, 6 months later. Tmtoulouse (talk) 08:25, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Gender and suicide in Major Depression
First, good job in eliminating unsourced speculation (I nailed one of those this AM too).

Second, the unsourced text you deleted re: gender differentials in suicide rates made an essentially correct assertion. It just wasn't sourced. Ouch! I'll see if I can grab an appropriate source - but first, need to determine that the statement is even needed in the overall narrative.

update - OK. That suicide statement, while correct, was not as accurate as it could have been. Much more importantly, it was a non sequitor - merely tacked onto a statement about gender and depression. Gender and suicide is addressed adequately, with sourcing, in the last paragraph of "Prognosis". Good edit.

Tom Cloyd (talk) 17:39, 21 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you. :-) And thanks for paying such good attention to the article overall. It's much appreciated! Cosmic Latte (talk) 17:52, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

I NEED HELP!
User:TheLittleBlackBear (talk) 16:21, 24 April 2010 (EST) Hi I need a group of people to help me write an article which I want to ensure does not get deleted. I guess the more people you have, the less likely it can be erased! I was wondering if you could help me write an article about a certain controversial figure in US and UK history?? Contact me back and I'll tell you more ;)

User:TheLittleBlackBear (talk) 8 oclock, 25 April 2010 (EST) Hey check out my user page I replied to your message there... Thank you for your quick response! I am looking forward to working with you. This will be funn,,, :)

RAWR! Hello? I want to write this article by Monday

OCD
I argree with your decision. Greggydude (talk) 15:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks... I wasn't sure if I'd explained it very well, but I'm glad I made some sense there. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

RE: Michael Jackson Grammy Awards
No problem and i agree with everything you said :) SJ (talk) 11:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks...
For all the fish, and edits. [deleted edits, wrong user page] Casimirpo (talk) 16:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Your question on Holocaust, denying nazis existed?
I quote your edit summary "almost certainly the ref is being _obscenely_ oversimplified. e.g., the explanation for the Holocaust is just... "race"?! and...what race would this be, anyway?" This made me cringe. How soon people forget. How can they forget?

The megalomania, pure insanity. "Volk - a Master Race whose roots lie in the sacred soil fertilized for centuries by the richness of their blood" - Sound familiar? (from The specter of genocide: mass murder in historical perspective By Robert Gellately, Ben Kiernan)

What race? Good grief: Aryan_race! Note that there is no "only" in the claim. Rationalization is also not the same as "movivation" or "basis". Casimirpo (talk) 16:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course the Nazis had some peculiar ideas about race. But the roots of Nazism and the Holocaust are deeper than abstract ideas, are they not? Just as with, say, American slavery, economic and other material factors cannot be ignored, and it's often difficult to tell whether (or when) racism is a cause or an effect of oppression. But even if, for the sake of argument, we say that racism was primarily a cause, or even the primary cause, of Nazi genocide, we still have said nothing whatsoever regarding what role race might have played. I admit that the word "Aryan" did not even pop into my mind when I was writing that edit summary. But I was editing the race article, and "Aryan race" is not an idea that scholars of race take seriously nowadays. It is, rather, an idea that racists (and scholars of racism) emphasize, and thus would have come more easily to mind had I been editing the racism article. I acknowledge that misguided beliefs about race have played highly destructive roles in society. Perhaps, what the article was trying to say was that its subject matter has been distorted, abused, and co-opted for malicious purposes. What it actually was saying, however, is that race has been validly defined vis-a-vis such purposes. It is a fallacy--albeit a common one--to let racism define race. Cosmic Latte (talk) 21:54, 18 May 2010 (UTC)


 * However you want to play it - the Holocaust was based on racist ideas. Above you offer your arguments, which are irrelevant in Wikipedia-articles. Deleting historical, verifiable facts about racist ideologies that led to genocide was the result of this kind of ideation in the article on Race. Whether the nazis views were valid or not is irrelevant in light of the verifiable facts. --Casimirpo (talk) 16:26, 20 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I assure you that "my" arguments are in fact quite verifiable. Take, for instance, this sourced line from the Mein Kampf article: "Taken together with other sources, historians such as Professor Gunnar Heinsohn demonstrate that Hitler's plan for the Jews and Aryans alike was not confined to a racial conception but rather an ideological one" (emphasis mine). But even if we ignore the sources and decide that it was all "based on racist ideas", we still don't have a reason to mention any of this in the lead section of the race article. Racism has its own (equally substantial) page. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Types of psychological depression
Hi. On 5 January 2010 you substantially edited this page. I have suggested on its Talk page that it be deleted or merged with Mood disorder. Anthony (talk) 12:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC).
 * Thanks for letting me know, and sorry for the delayed response. I've left a comment at Talk:Mood disorder, and I do support a merge. Cosmic Latte (talk) 01:45, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

WOW
Cool !!! Whatever you have edited is simply a great stuff. I like your ideas about MJ. Aryan song (talk) 13:07, 9 June 2010 (UTC)Thanks
 * Thank you! :-) Cosmic Latte (talk) 14:31, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I have marked you as a reviewer
I have added the "reviewers" property to your user account. This property is related to the Pending changes system that is currently being tried. This system loosens page protection by allowing anonymous users to make "pending" changes which don't become "live" until they're "reviewed". However, logged-in users always see the very latest version of each page with no delay. A good explanation of the system is given in this image. The system is only being used for pages that would otherwise be protected from editing.

If there are "pending" (unreviewed) edits for a page, they will be apparent in a page's history screen; you do not have to go looking for them. There is, however, a list of all articles with changes awaiting review at Special:OldReviewedPages. Because there are so few pages in the trial so far, the latter list is almost always empty. The list of all pages in the pending review system is at Special:StablePages.

To use the system, you can simply edit the page as you normally would, but you should also mark the latest revision as "reviewed" if you have looked at it to ensure it isn't problematic. Edits should generally be accepted if you wouldn't undo them in normal editing: they don't have obvious vandalism, personal attacks, etc. If an edit is problematic, you can fix it by editing or undoing it, just like normal. You are permitted to mark your own changes as reviewed.

The "reviewers" property does not obligate you to do any additional work, and if you like you can simply ignore it. The expectation is that many users will have this property, so that they can review pending revisions in the course of normal editing. However, if you explicitly want to decline the "reviewer" property, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 12:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC) &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 13:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Merging
I thought I would have a go at this now. I plan on importing a few paragraphs from article A into article B, and making A a redirect to B. Do I only need to mention the origin of the content (article A) in the edit summary when I insert it into B, or is there more to it? Anthony (talk) 02:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Cnilep beat me to it Anthony (talk) 20:30, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

List of legally mononymous people
You may be interested in List of legally mononymous people, and helping to expand it. Thanks, Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 19:21, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

please do not deleate anything like the Manila Hostage crisis. Have you even noticed their are no picture and hardy anything for 2010. Put back Combat troups leave Iraq! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spb10 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

I just posted here: [Talk:Major_depressive_disorder#in_response_to_the_.22who.22_tag_.2F_weasel_word_comments] in response to your edit. I'd be grateful if you'd respond there. Thanks! Cazort (talk) 16:09, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Race
Hi, I just read the lead to Race - it has improved a lot by your participation. Thanks! I think it does a particularly good job of explaining in what sense race is socially constructed and what that means - if the rest of the article is as clear then my recent comments about the article not overstarting the point are obsolete. You've done really good work here.·Maunus· ƛ · 18:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you! :-) I appreciate the compliment, as well as your well-reasoned input to that discussion. Cosmic Latte (talk) 18:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I haven't been giving all your edits the line-by-line reading they deserve, but I can tell you are doing good work on that article and I look forward to your continued involvement on that article and related articles. I'm gathering up sources that I hope to discuss with you in relation to editing this or that article as the editing work continues. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 19:51, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Response from Tijana P
Hi Cosmic Latte, not sure how the wiki messaging system works but I have a message (response) to you here (Talk) 2:31PM, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Soul
Hi Cosmic Latte, I considered putting something on the talk page because I was afraid the edsum might seem a little terse and I wanted to make sure you knew that I thought the part you added was great (and even better all by itself). The part you fixed did imply philosophers “commonly” find anyone and everyone's concepts of soul “incoherent”, tout court. For such a diverse theological concept with such a short lead, personally, I'd shy away from tackling anything too specific but here are my thoughts...

You're correct that dualism (philosophy of mind) has a long history in connection to (european) concepts of soul. And as I recall, something to the effect of eliminative materialism was introduced in the 19th century (maybe?) but in so far as the more popular debates amongst physicalists regarding reductionism/non-reductionism are much more contemporary, and not really intended to further historical monism/dualism dialogs, (which wouldn't be considered chic for a physicalist), it seemed too anachronistic to frame the “soul” (mind) in terms of dualist and monist camps. I took it you'd agree that harboring spirits in one's ontology isn't so much at issue, but grouping non-reductionism with Cartesian substance dualism is hardly less scandalous (joke). The original poster's claim about the very idea of a soul, incorporeal entity or essence being “incoherent” reminded me of eliminative materialism (reductionism in the extreme) because they call any suggestion of a mental state incoherent, (like feeling pain or having a desire, even having an idea... so they have bigger fish to fry). Anyway, Descartes' concept of the soul/mind seems quite abstract compared to the garden variety. I think Aristotle's concepts of soul (psyche), essence, and substance were too... curiously, he was a pluralist btw, but not due to his particular(ist?) stance regarding to the question of universals lol. (At least I think that's where Aquinas pulls a rabbit out of the hat).

Analytic philosophy seems like it might overwhelm such a modest lead, but I've no objection if you'd like to include philosophy of mind with an eye to its history. It's just that Dualism can't easily serve as the other camp in order to balance a Monist “philosophical position of physicalist reductionism”. Of course, it all depends on what one means by “soul” but metaphysically, even ghosts needn't be incompatible with the starkest 19th century materialism, a priori. If something like a jar of ectoplasm were to turn up at the proverbial science fair, it should win a prise. Who would have thought thunderstorms produce antimatter... there's nothing too exotic to be forced into that peculiar brand of monism, except perhaps that of non-dualism (joke).—<span style="text-shadow:#00FADE 0.05em 0.05em 0.07em;white-space: nowrap;font-family: Fraktur, Mathematica6, Georgia, sans-serif">Machine Elf <sup style="font-size:75%;font-family: Georgia, sans-serif">1735  09:43, 19 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your thoughtful input! I think I'm in complete agreement with you. I'm rather undecided as to which of two general possibilities--a few sentences or a few paragraphs--would ultimately create the best kind of lead, but I definitely like the way it reads now. I basically tried to fix the phrases that appeared to be the "weakest links" of the passage, but I admit that the entire passage seems to have been a weak spot in the lead; and I certainly wouldn't want to see philosophy of mind glossed over, especially when its relevance to the page's topic hasn't been explained yet in the article. Anyway, once again, I have no problem whatsoever with your edit, and I appreciate the thoughtful explanation and reflection that you've given. Cosmic Latte (talk) 16:36, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

About your User Page
Hey there, I just wanted to let you know that your User Page is among the more interesting and edifying that I've had the pleasure of perusing. (I placed my own page in dormancy a while back on account of extended periods of absence from Wiki. But I did leave one very special graphic that you may enjoy... )

Btw, I think we are largely in agreement on grammatical issues -- which, of course, made a very favorable impression on me! :) -//- I really appreciate your highlighting the proper use of Latin plurals; I find the rampant misuse of "the media" as a singular term hugely irksome -- especially when it comes out of the mouth of a journalist! (A few years back I completely rewrote the headnote paragraphs for Category:Mass media in order to address that issue in the clearest possible terms; hopefully it has been left intact.) However, I have to say that I am perplexed by the term "agendum", as I have NEVER (to the best of my recollection) seen or heard it used in any context (literary, journalistic, academic, bureaucratic, etc.) Are you actually saying that it is flatly wrong to refer to the "agenda" for a meeting, or am I misconstruing things? Regards, Cgingold (talk) 09:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Gaddafi
Your accusation of obnoxious and disruptive editing is an outright affront to Wikipedia's policy of assuming good faith. Furthermore, considering the topic was under discussion, I would like to know your rationale for reverting.-- Sc r ew ba ll 23 talk 21:36, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Man, I got your response and I would expect better from you. I've been at this long enough to know you reverted my edits without a rationale, and if you could spend the time writing me a msg saying that, you definitely didn't have a rationale. I'm not trying to be mean, I am telling you that you can set a higher standard for yourself. If you revert an edit, you have to have some reason for it. It's very common among wikipedian editors to just have an axe to grind, and it shows. Often times, when time comes to explain why they made a change, they just scurry for policies, or make accusations to cover themselves. Don't be one of those people. I've seen it time and time again that people who have no idea what theyre talking about will state something had "no consensus" or was "biased" or was "unsourced", but they never took the time to actually look at the sources, understand what consensus even means, and their view of what is biased is completely out there. I've seen wikipedians wasting their editing careers on just censoring wikipedia, but that's another story for another time...long story short, I appreciate your response to me, and I look forward to any resulting discussions we can have on that. Also, because I just saw your edits to the Gadafi page, I would like you to know that I agree with the section title change but I advise you to read the references in the paragraph before you remove lines stated as "unsourced". It is well-sourced that these assassinations were performed by Libyan hit squads with Gaddafi's orders. It is incoherent to simply talk about the assassinations without mentioning their relevance to Gaddafi, as it is his page. In any case, I'll talk to you soon. :-) -- Sc r ew ba ll 23 talk 06:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

ELs and related issues
Please take note of a discussion ("Wikipedia and its relationship to the outside world") about medical ELs and related issues. You may want to follow the links provided to learn more if you are so inclined. Thank you in advance. I'm not looking for more comments, as there have been many already, but you're welcome to add yours if you want to. Presto54 (talk) 04:09, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Grammar
Hi, i'd like to ask your help to review the grammar situation in this article while i review the sources; thanks.Rodrigo18 (talk) 21:39, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Psychology
Hi, Some of your edits on the Psychology page, while clearly well-intentioned and thoughtful, are changing the phrasing to make elements of psychology seem more monolithic and undisputed than they really are. It's important to leave the hedges and qualifiers, as in "some psychologists think" compared to "psychology is", because there is not consensus in the academic or practicing communities on many of these issues. For example, some psychologists believe that the purpose of psychology is to understand human mental life, regardless of whether this endeavor helps or harms people. Other psychologists think psychology is ultimately about helping people. It's misleading to remove the qualifiers. I appreciate your good intent in editing, but request that you refrain from changing the meaning while tidying up the language. (Also, thank you for the heads-up about WP policy on not marking reverts as minor... it seems like that option could be helpfully disabled for reverts). jj1236


 * Hi jj1236. Thank you for your thoughtful (and prompt!) response. You have a good point, and I've restored the earlier "for many" phrasing. Also, I hope that "objections" is a suitable synonym for "criticisms" in the critical psychology section. I certainly don't mean to introduce any weasel words to the section/article; I'm just trying to find a way around word repetition, especially given the unlikelihood of a reader coming to doubt that a "critical psychology" does, indeed, mean to criticize. Please let me know if you have any other/further questions or comments or concerns. Thanks again! Cosmic Latte (talk) 20:59, 30 January 2012 (UTC)


 * All good, thanks! Yes, "objections" is quite suitable as an alternative to "criticisms".  I had previously reverted "indictments" as an alternative, and was behind on noticing your quick work fixing this.  Thanks! Jj1236 (talk) 21:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Jackie Evancho
Hi. I appreciate your input at the JE article. I hope you are satisfied with the compromises that I have suggested between our preferred versions. I think you have made some very good suggestions, although I don't really agree with your interpretation of "easter egg" - I think the article has lost some value by your removing links to articles that explain, for example, the song titles named. In any case, it is always good to have another pair of eyes. Feel free to use the talk page to bat around ideas about the article. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:49, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi again. I have received a notice that the fair use image of Evancho with President Obama at the National Christmas Tree lighting is proposed for deletion. I am arguing that it is a unique, historic image, because (1) Evancho was one of the youngest people (probably the youngest) ever to sing a solo at the event; and (2) the event was important to Evancho's career, since Evancho just began her career recently. I believe that the image clearly and substantially adds to the understanding of a reader of the article. Near the image, the article says "On December 9, 2010, Evancho performed at the National Christmas Tree lighting event in Washington, D.C., singing "O Holy Night", with President Obama and his family present.[78] If you wish to add to the discussion, either way, it is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2012_March_23#File:EvanchoPresSanta.jpg  -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:39, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Lede image Major depressive disorder
Hi.

I see you are a frequent editor at Major depressive disorder and I would like to draw your attention to a discussion I have initiated on its Talk page in the light of the banned user RobvanderWaal's neutral post that this image is matter of fact one of mortality and sanctity, and not of sorrow, on van Gogh's own say so. I'm suggesting the editors should perhaps be rather using an image.

A physician Bailisk has replied to some medical issues that I have re-raised as well. I frankly worry about the quality of his contributions and would be grateful if a member of the community building this article might contribute.

Finally I intend to re-raise the question originally raised about this image as to whether it's really appropiate as the lede image. Granting that it apparently evokes the idea sorrow today in the viewer, why is it a lede image when in fact sorrow, anguish etc. feature only fleetingly in the article's description of symptoms.

Hope this isn't socking or something. Feel free to oppose me vigorously if that's your position!

Thank you LHirsig (talk) 09:33, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The Beatles poll
Hello &mdash; this message is to inform you that there is currently a public poll to determine whether to capitalize the definite article ("the") when mentioning the band " THE BEATLES " mid-sentence. As you've previously participated either here, here, or here, your input would be appreciated. Thank you for your time. Jburlinson (talk) 21:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

New medical organization
Hi I'm contacting you because, as a participant at Wikiproject Medicine, you may be interested in a new multinational non-profit organization we're forming at m:Wikimedia Medicine. Even if you don't want to be actively involved, any ideas you may have about our structure and aims would be very welcome on the project's talk page. Our purpose is to help improve the range and quality of free online medical content, and we'll be working with like-minded organizations, such as the World Health Organization, professional and scholarly societies, medical schools, governments and NGOs - including Translators Without Borders. Hope to see you there!

GAR
Speed Demon (song), an article that you may be interested in, has been nominated for an individual good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article.--Tomcat (7) 16:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Main page appearance: 2012 phenomenon
This is a note to let the main editors of 2012 phenomenon know that the article will be appearing as today's featured article on December 20, 2012. You can view the TFA blurb at Today's featured article/December 20, 2012. If you prefer that the article appear as TFA on a different date, or not at all, please ask featured article director or his delegates, , and , or start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Today's featured article/requests. If the previous blurb needs tweaking, you might change it—following the instructions at Today's featured article/requests/instructions. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. The blurb as it stands now is below:

The 2012 phenomenon comprises a range of eschatological beliefs according to which cataclysmic or transformative events will occur on 21 December 2012. This date is regarded as the end-date of a 5,125-year cycle in the Mesoamerican Long Count calendar. Various astronomical alignments and numerological formulae have been proposed as pertaining to this date, though none have been accepted by mainstream scholarship. A New Age interpretation of this transition is that this date marks the start of a time in which Earth and its inhabitants may undergo a positive physical or spiritual transformation, and that 2012 may mark the beginning of a new era. Others suggest that the date marks the end of the world or a similar catastrophe. Scenarios suggested for the end of the world include the arrival of the next solar maximum, an interaction between Earth and the black hole at the centre of the galaxy, or Earth's collision with a planet called "Nibiru". Scholars from various disciplines have dismissed the idea of such cataclysmic events occurring in 2012. Mayanist scholars state that predictions of impending doom are not found in any of the extant classic Maya accounts, and that the idea that the Long Count calendar "ends" in 2012 misrepresents Maya history and culture. (Full article...) UcuchaBot (talk) 23:02, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library now offering accounts from Cochrane Collaboration (sign up!)
The Wikipedia Library gets Wikipedia editors free access to reliable sources that are behind paywalls. Because you are signed on as a medical editor, I thought you'd want to know about our most recent donation from Cochrane Collaboration. Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 20:19, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Cochrane Collaboration is an independent medical nonprofit organization that conducts systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health-care interventions, which it then publishes in the Cochrane Library.
 * Cochrane has generously agreed to give free, full-access accounts to 100 medical editors. Individual access would otherwise cost between $300 and $800 per account.
 * If you are still active as a medical editor, come and sign up :)

Million Award
The Million Award is a new initiative to recognize the editors of Wikipedia's most-read content; you can read more about the award and its possible tiers (Quarter Million Award, Half Million Award, and Million Award) at Million Award. You're also welcome to display this userbox:

If I've made any error in this listing, please don't hesitate to correct it; if for any reason you don't feel you deserve it, please don't hesitate to remove it; if you know of any other editor who merits one of these awards, please don't hesitate to give it; if you yourself deserve another award from any of the three tiers, please don't hesitate to take it! Cheers, -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:09, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Requesting some topic expansion help
Greetings,

Requesting you to visit lately initiated Draft:Irrational beliefs, If you find topic interested in, please do support topic expansion. Thanks and warm regards

Bookku (talk) 09:16, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Psychology
Hi there, Cosmic Latte. I'm part of a group of psychologists, psychoanalysts, psychiatrists, and neuroscientists who are interested in re-activating Wikiproject Psychology and improving the psychology pages, particularly those pertaining to psychodynamic psychology, which as you know does not always get balanced treatment on Wikipedia. We are interested in a multi-disciplinary, integrative approach to psychology, not in trying to whitewash controversies or engage in hagiography of Freud, but we would like to see a clearer, more accurate representation of his important contributions, including pioneering insight-oriented psychotherapy and describing defense mechanisms like denial (which has become a real problem in the domain of public health, interfering with vaccination, etc., and should be talked about openly on Wikipedia!). We would also be able to contribute to creating a fairer, more nuanced, but also clear-eyed account of the field's long history of methodological failings and its marginalized status, which are more complex than the misleading and activist accusation of "pseudoscience." Perhaps you could help us navigate some of the anti-Freudian activism on pages like "Freud" and "Psychoanalysis," where gross violations like sockpuppetry have been an issue. For example, this user Polisher of Cobwebs, who has communicated with you above under one of his/her alleged sockpuppets, Skoojal, has written a great deal of the Freud page, engaged in edit wars to defend his/her idea that only a negative picture of Freud is balanced, and appears to still be active there. You have made important, intelligent contributions to these debates in the past and we'd value your participation. Would you like to join us or explore the possibility of working together? Hypoplectrus (talk) 01:18, 17 October 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:31, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
<div class="ivmbox " style="margin-bottom: 1em; border: 1px solid #AAA; background-color: ivory; padding: 0.5em; display: flex; align-items: center; "> Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:26, 28 November 2023 (UTC)