User talk:Deconstructhis/Archive1

Re: Your Comments On My Editing of the Article " The Dragon Academy"
I'm not sure if this is the appropriate place to talk about your irrepressible editing of the page on The Dragon Academy. If it is I would like you to please stop your frequent reversion of the article. Your version is not in line with the Wikipedia Neutral Point of View. It is an add. Silencing the students right to complain about the school also goes against the school's beliefs. Rudkis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rudkis (talk • contribs) 02:20, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Deconstructhis 08:52, 3 October 2007 (UTC) I'm not certain either, regarding what the proper protocol is for dealing with issues like these, but I'd like to suggest that it might be more appropriate if it was taking place on the discussion page of the article in question. By doing that, I believe that it's much more likely to perhaps draw the attention of the school itself so that some other voices might be heard on the matter. I'll try to be as concise as possible regarding the reason behind my "reversions" of the article. Let's look at the part of the text that I find to be most undesireable in terms of it being 'unencyclopedic' in nature and the section you seem most concerned about:
 * Actually I'm in agreement with your point that even my abbreviated edit of the article still reads a lot like an ad, but that doesn't address what I'm taking about below pertaining to your version.I have few objections with the idea of someone affixing the appropriate 'need for a rewrite' template to this article in it's original form.

[...]

"Students in the upper forms of the school, however, find this to be an unnecessary impediment to their overall academic success. One such disgruntled student, has hopes for attending university in the United Kingdom, but is worried that because of his lower grades in the seemingly vestigial art and music classes, he may not be able to achieve the required overall average. Another student feels that he would be more successful if his efforts were they more heavily focused on the academic classes in which he struggles and will be required for university application."

First of all, none of this is substantiated in any way, there is no referencing involved at all. If my interpretation of Wikipedia policy is correct, that means, at least in theory, that any editor may remove it at any time based on that alone. Actually, my main concern with this part of the article isn't the fact that it's not sourced, it's that it appears to consist mostly of an airing of the personal grievances of two (former?) students of the place and not much else. Again, my interpretation of the encyclopedia's policy is that Wikipedia should not be used as a "soapbox". The posting of an entire paragraph of the unsubstantiated personal grievances on Wikipedia of two people, appears to me to be exactly that, an encyclopedia article is being utilized to publically complain about something they don't like on a personal level. In my opinion, none of it belongs in a Wikipedia article for the reasons I've stated. Rather than simply wonder about this, I' going to post a 'helpme' request regarding the matter on my own talk page and we'll see if we can get a third opinion on the issue. Deconstructhis 08:40, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Help
Hello, you've requested for help. What's your problem? Martial BACQUET 11:09, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * I edited out the contested paragraph for reasons I laid out here. I hope this is going to help resolve the issue. — aldebaer⁠ 10:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you "AldeBaer" for your speedy response in this situation, it's greatly appreciated. Unless "Rudkis" is prepared to substantiate these claims in a reliable way that conforms to Wiki standards, I'm of the opinion that they're battling for a lost cause. Deconstructhis 19:41, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Helicopter banner pix
Hi,

I am listing 3 of the 4 pictures at Helicopter banner for deletion. You might wish to chime in on the IFD discussion. I would list the fourth because it has the same problem as the Adidas picture, but lack obvious evidence that it's a copyvio. Thanks - Tempshill 03:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Walter Martin
Please forgive my terse complaint in reverting your reversion to the Walter Martin article. It was later that I found, with embarrassment, that in editing ==Controversies== I had accidentally saved only that section. I'm glad you discovered and fixed the problem. Sincerest apologies. Afaprof01 02:50, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


 * errare humanum est. cheers Deconstructhis 04:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
 * gratia mihi amicus Afaprof01 05:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Message from 83.40.189.186
Hi, I would like to send you a message could you provide me your email? Regards, Juan. - (message moved from user page by Onorem♠Dil 15:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC))
 * Please simply post your message here. Thanks.Deconstructhis 20:35, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

About the cuckoo clock article in where I removed one manufacturer because I read is not a good one, this way customers won´t be dissappointed; http://www.cuckooclockologist.com/inouropinion.htm Regards, Juan. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.57.159.61 (talk) 08:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello Juan, although you probably have good intentions when you removed the link, I'm afraid that I have to disagree with what you're saying and I once again replaced it in the article. As Wikipedia editors, our job isn't to decide whether or not a product is "good" or not, based on a review that we happen to see online. The links section at the end of that article is simply entitled "Cuckoo clock manufacturers", it dosen't necessarily mean that *any* of them are any good, that isn't for us as editors to decide, as long as the company meets the criteria of being a "Cuckoo clock manufacturers", which it does, it belongs on the list. Besides, for all you know, perhaps the review is simply *wrong*. RegardsDeconstructhis 09:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, okey let us people decide. Regards, Juan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.57.159.61 (talk) 21:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

October 2007
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute 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. nat Alo! Salut! Sunt eu, un haiduc?!?! 03:13, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Mentoring
I see on your user page that you are feeling the steep part of the curve. If you ever need some help navigating or need a reality check, please call on me. I don't sugar coat it but I hope that I can help. --Kevin Murray 22:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the kind offer, it's good to see people taking the intiative to extend those here on Wiki.Deconstructhis 20:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Links
You're very welcome! :) Dreamy   §  00:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Appreciate the thumbs up! I was worried I might be stepping on some toes... Blotto adrift 16:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks again...looks like I stepped on some toes after all. I understand that some of these things are contentious, but putting the townships in alpha order gets reverted?  That was just baffling.   Blotto adrift 21:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC) (aka Dips**t from Toronto)


 * In my opinion, it's exactly that approach that's undermining their position in the first place. NPOV. Wikipedia isn't personal, or personal opinion, it's only what we as editors can spout and *more* importantly, back up what we're spouting, with actual citations from reliable sources. I'd like to thank you once again for at least making the attempt at improving the encyclopedia. Deconstructhis 22:09, 15 November 2007 (UTC)


 * And I GAVE you people sources, and that still wasn't good enough. How can some moron who lives nowhere near Chatham-Kent be allowed to edit entries about a city they know NOTHING about?  Stop this nonsense.  It's getting old.


 * An admin deleted some of her/his comments from the talk page here- if you check the history, it gives you a sense of what we're dealing with. I don't think rational appeals are going to have any effect.  There's now a 10-day block on that IP.  Blotto adrift (talk) 16:36, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * "Cat and Mouse"? Seems more like 'Whack-A-Mole' to me. Deconstructhis (talk) 21:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You dealt with some recent changes to C-K just as I was looking at it, thanks for that. One question though - the reference to Mexican & Mexican-Mennonite workers refers to Leamington in Essex.  I wonder if there's a more local reference available - it's likely an issue in Elgin and Lambton as well.  Or, some mention that there are lots of Mexican workers and there have been labour issues in nearby communities or something like that.  Blotto adrift 20:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Because of the huge agricultural base, without question, the entire region has similar problems. Personally, I have no issues with including these in an article, provided that they're supported by proper referencing and obviously biased rhetorical stances are left out. Wikipedia should not be used as a soapbox enabling individual editors to grind their own personal political axes. Deconstructhis 20:59, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: E85 gas in Chatham-Kent
I know I added that without referencing it, but it is verifiable factual information, rather than opinion, speculation or interpretation, and I just didn't have the time earlier to track down a good online citation. Sometimes I add citations to other material, so for once I left it open for someone else to contribute if I didn't get back to it first. 24.57.184.8 (talk) 01:03, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Miigwech on Teiaiagon
Thanks. The only reason I first visited the Teiaiagon article was because through WP:IPNA/Nish I got notified of edits to the Mississaugas, which after checking up on an editor of extremely biased edits, the trail took me to Teiaiagon article. I tried to do a clean-up but that effort was quickly squelched. Again, thanks for keeping on top of things there. I have gone and reversed the latest edits, but have kept the tag at the head, and added in extra categories. Hopefully, this will trigger additional eyes to look over and better develop that article. CJLippert (talk) 03:23, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

annoying behavior
I have publicly asked you to stop the behavior towards me and I feel I should also ask you to stop in your talk page. You have publicly called me a spammer, quoted half-truths about my views, and continue to question me about the same issue over and over. I appreciate you helping to teach me about Wikipedia rules, but I feel uncomfortable with your behavior and I am asking you to stop. (Mayormcgeez (talk) 03:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC))


 * Hmmm....I have to admit that you've confused me a little by your responses to this situation, both on the discussion page of the article itself St. Thomas, Ontario and now on my talk page. Our initial disagreement seems to me to have began when a link to a 'want ad' type site was removed from the external links section of the article by myself and a couple of other editors, which you then proceeded to replace. You then stated on the discussion page of the article, that after further consideration you had subsequently come to the conclusion that a link to that particular site, in fact *did* constitute "spam" and believed that it didn't belong in the external links section after all. Subsequent to that, you removed the external link to the only daily newspaper in St. Thomas (The Times Journal) site from the links section of the article and began to make the claim that *that* link constituted "spam" according to Wikipedia policy and guidelines, but so far you haven't told us why you believe that is the case. I was genuinely hoping that you might explain your reasoning behind that position, but it now appears that for some reason you are unwilling to do that. In my personal opinion, this is a 'no brainer', an external link to the only newspaper in a community of 35,000 that has a daily circulation approaching 7,000 and which takes a 'mainstream' editorial approach covering general news in the community, can only be viewed as a potential asset to the average reader of a Wikipedia article who is looking for fast access to current information regarding a city. Inclusion of this type of external link to a local media site is common practice on Wikipedia, something which I'm assuming you already know. Without further explanation as to why you feel that an external link in this situation is not appropriate, I believe that you are acting arbitrarily in excluding it. I'm prepared to wait a day or so once again to provide you with a further opportunity to explain your position, after that, I support replacing the link to the paper once again and I'm prepared to defend that position through regular 'third party' review processes here on Wiki. By way of compromise, would you support placing an external link to the Times Journal in some sort of 'subsection' for media? Deconstructhis (talk) 04:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


 * by continuing this behavior that i have asked you to stop, does that mean you refuse to stop?(Mayormcgeez (talk) 05:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC))

I think I've stated my position as clearly as I can, in terms of attempting to encourage you to provide some insight into why you support removing the link in question. In my opinion, it's now up to you. Deconstructhis (talk) 05:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup templates
Just to let you know that most cleanup templates, like "Unreferenced", "Fact" and etc., are best not "subst"ed. See WP:SUBST for more details. Regards,

St thomas
Thanks for being attentive to the st thomas article. I just dont see any reason why it shouldnt be there, take care Ottawa4ever (talk) 04:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * It seems this editor has decided that the opinion of other people in the matter is irrelevant and that their interpretation of the situation alone should be the end of it, even though it's obvious that others are trying to disagree with them in a reasonable fashion. The posting that they made earlier where they mentioned that the link shouldn't be included in the article until "the controversy is settled", seems somewhat disingenuous to me. It appears this editor feels the "controversy" is *already* settled, simply by them removing the link and ignoring other editors who question that removal. So much for a spirit of collaboration.....

cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 09:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

For your efforts to keep the peace and resisting the temptations to engage in an edit war on st thomas I award each yourself, Reaper X and jgale061 a barnstar of peace. May you continue to contribute to wikipedia in the dignified fashion you always do

Ottawa4ever (talk) 22:28, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words and Barnstar Ottawa4ever! Happy holidays to you. Deconstructhis (talk) 21:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I added my comments in support of keeping the link on the St. Thomas talk page. Any idea where things are now?  Looks like there is broad support for keeping it.  Blotto adrift (talk) 14:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Church of the SubGenius
Just a quick note about your change to this article. In general, Masters theses and Doctoral dissertations are not considered reliable sources unless they've been published in a peer-reviewed journal or book. Alabaster Crow (talk) 14:20, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Hoping you can help me
Hi, you recently commented on a page about the Canadian group The Revols. Sadly, all of the Images I've uploaded have now been disputed, a second time, I can't seem to keep them uploaded, as I'm a wikipedia Newbie, and the 2 articles I've created, are the 1st, of what I hope to be many in the future, about the history of Canadian music origins in Perth County. I attempted this time to upload the newspaper clippings, as "Owner of the copyright" as my original "Fair Use rationale" was disputed, and the images were removed a first time. This was an obvious mistake I won't make again, as now ALL of the images, even the original prints that were uploaded, are being disputed. ALL of these images, are hard copy items, OWNED BY the late Ken Kalmusky, inherited by his son, David Kalmusky, and were lent to me, with complete permission to scan, and release the copyright of the images, to the public, for the task of documenting this history on Wikipedia. I've written several people, hoping someone can mentor me, through properly verifying the copyright permission, to leave these images on Wikipedia permanently.

thanks for your time Qwepasdl (talk)

Re: Spazchow
Curious why you undid changes to the Barnes and Barnes album Spazchow. The information on "And Other Things Too" were from an interview I did with Art (Billy) shortly before the release of "Sicks". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vbartilucci (talk • contribs) 22:46, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Citing your own personal interview as a source for a subject is only acceptable if it was subsequently published in a source regarded as "reliable" for the purposes of Wikipedia. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 00:18, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Westside page change
Just curious why you reverted the change on adding Neenach to the Westside Union School District page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westside_Union_School_District). Neenach is a small community served by this community. I do consulting there. --Kfasimpaur 21:58, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Corrected with apologies. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 00:09, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

For the record
Your edit summary of 03:59, 20 June 2008, at Clumsy Smurf is inconsistent with the following:


 * 1 — From Wikipedia’s (unsourced) meteoroid article: A meteoroid is a small sand to boulder-sized particle of debris in the Solar system.  The visible path of a meteoroid that enters Earth’s (or another body’s) atmosphere is a meteor....  A meteorite is a portion of a meteoroid or asteroid that survives its passage through the atmosphere and impact with the ground without being destroyed.


 * 2 — From the American Heritage Science Dictionary 2002, per dictionary.com: A [meteoroid is a] small, rocky or metallic body revolving in interplanetary space around the Sun. ... Meteoroids that survive their passage through the Earth’s atmosphere and land as meteorites [etc.].


 * 3 — From American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, 2000, per bartleby.com: A [meteor is a] bright trail or streak that appears in the sky when a meteoroid is heated to incandescence by friction with the earth’s atmosphere.


 * 4 — Dictionary.com definition based on Random House Unabridged Dictionary, 2006: [A meteor is] a transient fiery streak in the sky produced by a meteoroid passing through the earth’s atmosphere.

As you see, each of those definitions refers to meteoroids that are moving through the Earth’s atmosphere. That is not to say there is no support for your view that the term "meteoroid" applies only to the object before it enters the atmosphere. For example:


 * 1 — From American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, 2000, per bartleby.com: A [meteoroid is a] solid body, moving in space, that is smaller than an asteroid and at least as large as a speck of dust.


 * 2 — From Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary, 1996, per dictionary.com: A [meteoroid is a] small body moving through space, or revolving about the sun, which on entering the earth’s atmosphere would be deflagrated and appear as a meteor. – "These bodies [small, solid bodies] before they come into the air, I call meteoroids." – H.A. Newton


 * 3 — From Wikipedia's (unsourced) meteorite article: A meteorite is a natural object originating in outer space that survives an impact with the Earth's surface. While in space it is called a meteoroid.


 * 4 — Dictionary.com definition based on Random House Unabridged Dictionary, 2006: [A meteoroid is] any of the small bodies, often remnants of comets, traveling through space: when such a body enters the earth's atmosphere it is heated to luminosity and becomes a meteor.

With all of that on the record here, I accept your reversion to the original term — meteor — the use of which is justified by the last-cited definition and by this:


 * 1 — Dictionary.com definition based on Random House Unabridged Dictionary, 2006: [A meteor is] a meteoroid that has entered the earth’s atmosphere.

At the moment, although it's a moot point, I wouldn't accept "meteorite," whose every definition I've so far encountered indicates, as I said in an edit summary, that the term applies to the object once it has survived impact. Clumsy's house could be destroyed by a meteorite, but only if, say, someone were to pick the meteorite off the ground and throw it at the house.71.242.178.25 (talk) 05:19, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It's good to see that there are actually editors out there that are as obsessed as I am at trying to keep Wikipedia on the 'up and up', in terms of definitions! lol It is my sincere belief, after reviewing online sources, that the best fit for this is in fact not what I actually placed in the article which was "meteor", but "meteorite". In the sources that I've examined, "meteor" is in reference to the visual phenomena itself (the "streak of light") created by a "meteoroid" entering and interacting with the atmosphere in the form of friction. A "meteorite" is a meteoroid which manages to survive the plunge through the atmosphere and actually strike the ground, or in this case a Smurf dwelling. A meteoroid becomes a meteorite at the instant it impacts the surface, if for instance it plunged all the way through the atmosphere and in the last few inches above Clumsy's roof the final small vestiges of the meteoroid vaporized into thin air without actually striking the dwelling, it would have been a "meteoroid" by definition because of its origin in space, a "meteor", if it emitted visible light on the way down, but it becomes a "meteorite" at the instant it contacts the roof tiles. And people say we're all just a bunch of picky nerds here on Wikipedia, I don't get it. lol cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 06:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

By the way, I discovered in researching this that, if that hypothetical body aimed at Clumsy's house managed to vaporize down to the point of microscopic bits that actually strike the roof in those last few inches, the resulting dust particles are referred to as "micro-meteorites".Deconstructhis (talk) 06:21, 20 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I know what you mean about "meteor" as the visual phenomenon. That’s supported, as you see, by some of the definitions I cited above; in fact, those definitions are what originally made me change "meteor" — although you see that the last two of the cited definitions support it.  You probably won’t be surprised to hear that I engaged in some thinking similar to yours re the moment at which the object becomes a meteorite.  I kept asking myself, "Is it a meteorite as it strikes the house — or only after it has struck the house?"  I’m willing to regard that as debatable.  Nobody can say we’re not trying to keep Wikipedia on the up and up, as you say.  Cheers to you, too.71.242.178.25 (talk) 06:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Tank truck
I didn’t add that information to the tank truck article an anonymous ip address did i just fixed the spelling of the sentience that the ip address added.--Apollonius 1236 (talk) 18:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC) evidence


 * Removed with apologies. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 00:57, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you.--Apollonius 1236 (talk) 01:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Mac OS X vandal
User_talk:202.124.103.235 should be blocked anyway per WP:3RR. MFNickster (talk) 02:45, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Remember anyone can apply the Uw-3rr warning template in situations where it's appropriate. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 00:59, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Peter Jones
Regard this edit. The usual convention of WP:LEAD is that facts cited in the body of the text don't need to be cited in the lead section. Cheers, Wily D 18:18, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip on policy WilyD, I'm still learning lots regarding that side of things on Wikipedia. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 00:52, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Patrick Cloutier
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Patrick Cloutier, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Double Blue (Talk) 18:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

London
Neither of these names result in any hits on JSTOR or the University of Toronto's library. I'm not sure what else I can do ... there're probably good books on the history of London in quality libraries. Wily D 14:23, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for trying WilyD. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 23:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Pahkatequayang
Sago CJLippert, First of all thank you for your ongoing contributions to native North American history and cultural articles, it is appreciated. I am currently in the process of attempting to improve the "History" section of the London, Ontario article and I am experiencing some difficulty. As it now exists, the section attributes the name "Kotequogong" to an early community on the site of the present city, however thus far, I am only able to trace that name to a paper dealing with flood control issues from a few years back and it is not attributed in that context. I have been able to find another name applied to the area now in the centre of present day London, "Pahkatequayang", in a 19th century source found here and I wonder if it is possible if you could check with your own language sources for any information on what it, or a close variant, might actually mean? I am going to make this request of at least one other editor who might be able to help as well, but feel free to consult anyone who you think might be able to offer advice. Once again, thank you. regards Deconstructhis (talk) 21:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
 * When I get back in town in a few days, I will look into this a bit deeper, but for now, my initial guess is baagwaatigweyaaang "At the Shallow Stream", but the problem with this initial guess is that this would have most likely been romanized as "pahq u atequayang" and the my guess contains an extra -w- that should have either appeared or the -waa- would have been most likely romanized instead to either -o- or -oo-, but not -a-. CJLippert (talk) 00:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Oh, another possibility: Baketigweyaang "At the River Fork" (lit: at where the by-stream is). CJLippert (talk) 00:14, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * And another possibility: Bakwetigweyaang "At the stream that tears [away at the banks]". CJLippert (talk) 14:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Again many thanks for your advice. I was already monitoring your talk page for a response, but thank you for answering me personally. You've told me enough to warrant making the name change in the London article I think, of course I will reference the 19th century material found on line. Linguistically, what do you make of "Kotequogong"? cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 22:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The "...tequ..." part means "stream" and the "...(o)ng" part is the locative suffix, but I have no idea what the "...uogo..." part is, and I don't know if the "Ko..." is supposed to be a "Gaa-..." (a relativising prefix, generally to say "The place where...") or a basterdised "Bake..." ("side...", "by-...") or some totally different longer preverb where only the last syllable survived in the English transcription. I'll look into it, though. CJLippert (talk) 00:46, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Excellent. I look forward to reading anything that you might care to offer on this. What about the notion that "Kotequogong" might be influenced by an Iroquoian root? Back in a couple of days. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 07:49, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Folks in Minnesota and Wisconsin don't know their Ontario geography well enough to know the answer right away. But to me "Kotequogong" looks like it ought to be Ojibwe, and so I was thinking maybe that this is a misreading of handwritten script (such as the Suetterlin "e" as Roman "n" or long s as "f", etc.). Maybe it is supposed to be "Pcatequayong" (Baketigweyaang "At the River Fork" ), where the "Pca" (bke, syncope form of bake) got misread as "Ko", the second "a" again as "o" and the "y" as "g". This would also be harmonious with the "Pahkatequayang" version of the name. Just a thought. CJLippert (talk) 07:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Iroqouan Languges
I removed the questionable Sanson map, although, there are others of the late 17th and early 18th centuries using variations of spelling. The advice about restricting to source after than, say, 1950-1960; The Mingo language or dialect, depending on which current expert one references, is as close to orginal as it gets, handed down by pure Mingo here. The latest linguist, the one on the subject of Mingo, who I was referencing. This doctorate does Native American languages work for a living. As for the map, that doesn't matter. It's just another old map with original phonetic spelling that the white man from Europe tried his best to record. Ofcoarse, the geography is odd. It would be back in those days. But, just the same, I removed it as a primary source. I also removed those who were there back then to record the nature of things, back then, the best they could another gropu of European. So now, there is no debate about Canadian Jesuits nor European concept of maps of the earlier in the frame of the article now. The only other issue would be concerning the Mingo language would be in how WIKIpedians would or would not include it. It really doesn't matter, for there are other authoritative websites by these "experts" you suggest for readers to "google." Some latest "experts" declare the Minquas or rather I mean earliest Mingo discovered come from Susuquehanna and later Cayuga mix in the 18th century. The historian (also local state paid anthropologists) understand that there are several subgroups that modern Mingo derive and how they mixed the past several hundred years. The WIKI artcles are so brief, they do not detail these understood facts by the "experts". These scientists in these several states are using DNA more and more in their research. As you suggest, it is these very people I communicate with regularly, I have to-- to a point. However, It's a question if the Mingo should be considerd under another group or not. Perhaps, it's not a matter of how much history about the subject of a people that matters here. It's just a matter of rather Mingo should be listed or not. Perhaps these two WIKI articles will help explain why Mingo may or may not be included in the Iroquois Language[[ article. Please see [[Mingo and Susquehanna articles and then maybe you will better understand my frustrations as some duplicates of primary documents is in my collection. All of which are hundreds of years prior to 1950.  I've seen a lot of variations of phonetic selling for certain Iroquan phrases.  Some are harder for me to accurately translate, having to call upon an living expert person in the field, as you point out in advice to me.  That I already understood many decades ago. As far as the Susquehannock article goes... it's a good introductive kind of article. Please, see the WIKI versions of Mingo and Susquehannock (another variation of spelling) articles please. These are an OK synopsis kind of articles and maybe that's what you mean for the Iroquan Languages article, a brief.  The one of several maps simply shewed other was that these phrases were spelt back then by Europeans.  Anybody, I'd think from high school world history, should have been taught that geography in those old maps were not very accurate.  But, now it's not an issue as a reference by your suggestion. It doesn't matter, afterall. Thankyou for your kind considerations, cheers Conaughy (talk) 19:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Hello again Conaughy! Please don't misunderstand me concerning the use of "dated" reference material. I believe we literally stand on the shoulders of giants and that it would not only be extremely difficult to put together a well referenced article about these subjects without citing material from before the mid 20th century, it would be undesirable from the perspective of wanting to write 'good' history and archeology. My opinion is that it's at the stage of synthesizing the material, when we're attempting to distill the information down for placement in a mainstream historical theoretical framework (after all that's what Wikipedia is supposed to be about) that we should play close attention to more recent developments in the field of study. For instance, the Sanson map isn't rejected particularly here in southern Ontario because of its choices of names when it labeled cultural features, or its reconstruction of landforms for that matter; it's dismissed by mainstream archeology because of its erroneous geographic placement of Neutral Jesuit mission sites. There has been simply no actual archaeological evidence discovered over the past fifty years to support the locations that Sanson chose. It is believed that he based his conclusions on a misinterpretation of Jesuit written and oral reports, he displayed their locations as more or less evenly spread out over the southern part of the southern Ontario peninsula. In fact, the evidence indicates that in actuality the sites were located on and around the Niagara peninsula southwest of modern day Toronto. We have 100 year old articles in the literature up here that take for granted that Sanson's placement is correct and extrapolate from there. What it lead to in the early 20th century was a number of people running themselves ragged trying to pinpoint the exact locations of those missions based on Sanson's data and finding virtually nothing of any use. Although a number of "lost mission" stories continue to embellish our regional history partly as a result, by providing physical evidence (or a lack thereof) the archaeological community has provided a modern methodological context that pretty much puts the whole thing to rest. This doesn't mean that "unconventional" interpretations have no place (see lol ), but it does mean that if we're attempting to put articles together that reflect the strands of current research, we should choose carefully what model we use to contextualize the articles we're editing. Incidentally the Bressani map of 1657  and the Hack map of 1684  from that period seem to nicely reflect the found Neutral archaeological evidence of the era, of course that may not be the same when it comes to other regions. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 22:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou so very much kind Sir for taking the time to clarify. I clearly see what you mean now. I did here speak of "running around ragged" by the field scholars. But, I could not remember how that came about. Thankyou--Thankyou. No Sir, I know not so much about the area you speak about. Only generalities as far as Archaeological sites are concern in your area. North of Lakes Erie and Ontario Archaeological sites are of interest to me, albeit, There's so much to be down in the Ohio Valley, yet. I wish I could find some of you good peoples on-line abstracts to read over. Our area in the Northern Panhandle of the state has occurances of the Brewerton Point that I understand that has to do with a "phase" of your Larentian archaic culture. In time, I wish to read the your latest field doctorite's findings. So, from this archaeological enlightenment in in context here, I indeed understand you. You Sir have lifted thespirits up of an old fellow here. I have caught myself over at the museum having similar thoughts as you have explained. Although, these concerned a few matters a bit south of your location. But, I see we are more or less on the same "game field" afterall. Ay any rate, I can confidently tell you that our Mingo as far as the proper name goes is from the "French and Indian War" era (Seven Years War proper as you certain will know, forgive my US mind set about the term, Sir). Col Croghan and Sir William Johnson as well as a few other colonial officials coined the term "Mingoe", about mid-18th century and it stuck to this day. Or, Dutch "Mincquuas" more often "Mincqua" as seen on early Dutch maps and text of the period or what? That's the problem, is it a dialect or a distinct lqnguage of the "Iroqouan". Your "Wendat" language up your way is most difficult for me. I would not attempt an article about your region in any time soon because these sources you suggest is the very kind of source I study here. I have gone to your Montreal Museum for certain clarifications out of necessity for my ignorance in lack of qualified doctorite in my library for your area. So kind Sir, I see now-- and agree you. In a broad sense, we here consider Mingo as a language of the Iroqouis, closer to perhaps Seneca, lessr to Caughnawaga (spelling varies to document) "Mohawk." But, I'm digressing and apologize to you, Sir. I'm just trying to help you decide if it should be included or not and if so, how? That, I'll leave to you. At least you now know there is and has been a language variant on the upper Ohio Valley here, but, it seems to have come here from the mid-Susquehanna Valley and there is where the mixing begins. Clearly, it is not Algonquan. The dialect is from the mountainous area of West Virginia and these families have been here for so long away from the main route Valleys that is going to take Bob's group of university scientist using DNA to get a clearer picture as to how long this set has been here in the state. Like I say, it seems to be closer to Seneca. Have an excellent week, Sir. I appreciatively thankyou Conaughy (talk) 22:58, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that Tuscarora is closer still. (I removed the unnecessary "talk beyond public's need to know.) Again, I thankyou & best wishes. Conaughy (talk) 03:09, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The Brotherhood 2
umm that wasnt a joke, that movie really is homoerotic.

98.194.41.153 (talk) 22:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Okay, so find a citation that backs that up and you're all set. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 22:24, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Robert Pattinson
Hello--I just received a message (?) from you implying that I wrote something inappropriate about Robert Pattinson. First off, I had no idea there was a message system on Wikipedia, so forgive me for not knowing how to reply to you on my talk page (I'm not even sure what that is). I did not write anything rude about Robert Pattinson. About a month ago, I had been led to his page from another link, saw that there were some inappropriate things written there, and edited it to be more appropriate because what was written there was clearly some kind of a joke. I'm not sure why you think that I was the one who wrote whatever silly things were there (maybe only my IP address showed up?), but I would like to set the record straight that I had nothing to do with whatever was there, save for an attempt to clean the page up a bit. (Cjp117 (talk) 08:58, 10 July 2008 (UTC))
 * If only an IP number was visible when I edited the material, in all likelihood it was someone else that shares it with you that posted the "inappropriate" comments, that's one of the biggest reasons why it's advisable to obtain your own Wiki 'identity' and always use it when editing. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 20:38, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Neutral Nation - a question
BTW, I noticed the Neutral Nation article starts off by saying they were Iroquoian. Is this something that we know, or that's covered in the sources? Just wondering.... AllGloryToTheHypnotoad (talk) 16:37, 18 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It's definitely a given and prominent in the sources that I provided for the article from The Archeology Of Southern Ontario To A.D. 1650, if you click on the Iroquoian article link you'll see that their language is included in the grouping as well. Contextually, the "Neutral" article still needs a significant amount of work AllGloryToTheHypnotoad. Your point is well taken though, there's a definite need for an article/category that more broadly addresses this whole subject area, something analogous to what the Anishinaabe article does for that closely related group of cultures, bridging the entire Iroquoian cultural complex, explaining how they are all related yet distinct as social entities, both now and in the past. At the moment, it's little wonder that people are confused. Iroquoian cultures seem, in many cases, either to be treated as all being synonymous with the Six Nations or simply lumped in with groups to which they're only relatively distantly related culturally. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Potawatomi: removed copypaste and text; replaced with an ugly table
I went and cut out the entire text as it does appear to be a copypaste. Though Sultzman at tolatsga had a good summary, tracking his sources is difficult. For now I have replaced the contents of that section with a table. It looks ugly. You know of anywhere else I can check for population figures? Laura Buszard-Welcher was pretty thourough, so I trust the 25,000 figure of 1997 more than the 28,000 figure given by Sultzman in 1998. Based on pure exponential growth projection, I estimate that the Potawatomi population will be reaching 28,000 right around 2010, not 1998... another reason to look for a source other than Sultzman. CJLippert (talk) 14:12, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Better "ugly" than inaccurate! :) I'm afraid I'm in the same boat as you in terms of tracking down accurate sources for native population figures, in fact I try to avoid dealing with the issue simply because of that. I agree with your assessment of Sultzman in general for the most part, but I try not to utilize him as a source because of what I regard as the serious problem of not knowing exactly where he's getting his data from. Please don't hesitate to let me know if you do happen to come across a reliable alternative for population figures! cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 03:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Kelly DeVries' Wikipedia page
Please don't change my wikipedia page. My daughter was doing something cute -- both her siblings found it funny. She would like her grandparents to see it, too. I will change it back tomorrow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.17.204.42 (talk) 02:28, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
 * As you can already see, even if I do leave the article in its current state until tomorrow, other editors are unlikely to do likewise. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 03:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Chippawa - Aftermath
Please don't think that I am either criticising you or taking umbrage at your actions, but it seems that the section under question poses one or two problems. The first paragraph is easily-sourced factual information; the second is POV and the third is OR. I could for example replace the cite for the first paragraph with an equally valid cite from Graves, or Hitsman making it appear that they rather than Elting were responsible for the remaining tendentious paragraphs.

One possible solution might be to move some of the paragraphs dealing with casualties from the Battle section into the Aftermath section, move the second paragraph (dealing with the improved standards of the US Army) from Aftermath into Legacy, and discarding the third paragraph entirely, perhaps moving some of its arguments in passing into Prelude to the battle. However, I am naturally reluctant to perform such drastic surgery myself when you are already giving the article your consideration. HLGallon (talk) 04:29, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your considerate response. I believe our take on the section in question is similar, but I would like to provide the relevant editor(s) involved an appropriately timed opportunity to "plug" something in there if it's possible; I know how much work sometimes that editors put into thinking about these contributions before posting them and I'd like to exhibit a modicum of respect and restraint for their efforts because of that. thanks again cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 04:58, 2 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I should perhaps have let you know in advance. I grew tired of looking at the various tags on this article, and went for it. The events of the battle could perhaps do with a few more details and cites, but I trust there are no major gaps or obvious OR or POV. Both the major drum-beating contributors to this article seem to have retired from Wikipedia some months ago, so hopefully it will no longer be so contentious. HLGallon (talk) 05:41, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Style on Wiki linking
You might want to take a quick look at WP:CONTEXT. Might save you some work. 24.130.12.36 (talk) 12:02, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid that without a little more context, I'm really not sure what you're suggesting. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 16:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, it was really more or less whatever amused you in the WP:CONTEXT reference. But specifically, a link is most useful to the first use of a word/phrase a reader might want know about. So, you'd save some editing time not adding links to the dups. cheers —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.130.12.36 (talk) 12:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Rock music WikiProject
I'd like to invite you to join the newly-formed Rock music WikiProject. There's alot of Rock-related articles on Wikipedia that could use a little attention, and I hope this project can help organize an effort to improve them. So please, take a look and if you like what you see, help us get this project off the ground and a few Rock music pages into the front ranks of Wikipedia articles. Thanks! --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 18:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Hiawatha
Hi, there. I noticed you removed my contribution to the Hiawatha page; thanks for recognizing them as good faith. But I wasn't clear on why you did that. It is, after all, a statue of the person. I don't know anything about the song of Hiawatha, but it seems valid to me to mention that the person (whether the stories, etc are accurate or not) has inspired many artistic contributions. Or perhaps there should be a page of images etc of Hiawatha if you want to keep the main page clean. Maybe a gallery at the bottom. Obviously, we will never have a photo of the actual Hiawatha. Your thoughts? :)-Cbradshaw (talk) 15:52, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No hurt feelings are intended here Cbradshaw, I know folks place these images with a certain amount of pride in their work, but the two figures (the character in Longfellow's poem and the Iroquois culture hero) are completely separate. Longfellow lifted the name from some 19th century anthropological material he was reading and simply liked the sound of it, the subject in his work is not Hiawatha the semi-historical figure, it's a fictionalized character who is very loosely placed within the places, names and cultural practices associated with the Ojibwa people, or a group closely related to them. Hiawatha is from an entirely different cultural context, the Iroquoian peoples. It's comparable to a poet simply liking the sound of say, the name "Angus MacDonald" and then using it as the name of a character in one of his works centred in Ireland, despite the fact there already existed a historical figure with the same name in Scotland. Even if the poet's character's name by far became the more famous of the two, it doesn't alter the fact of the separate historical existence of the "real" "Angus MacDonald". cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 16:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation. I reread the talk page also and missed the ref you made earlier; sorry about that. I would suggest expanding the disamb message at the top to include a specific reference (such as "including fictionalized accounts of Hiawatha and the Song of Hiawatha") so people stop adding information on the page.  As I said earlier, I am not aware of "Song of Hiawatha" so it wouldn't even occur to me to go there if I wanted to know about the statue, etc rather than the historical figure.  Thanks-Cbradshaw (talk) 18:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The disambiguation section on the Hiawatha article has now been changed to help alleviate this sort of thing. Thanks for your suggestion. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 01:45, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks good! Thanks again--Cbradshaw (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

talk page
How is that edit by Vandalismdestroyer33 constructive? It is just random rambling and complaining about American's being racist and not allowing unsourced videos into the article  C t j f 8 3 Talk 21:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Be assured that in my opinion, the comments were both badly written, highly biased toward a scientifically unsupported fringe position, unsigned and inappropriately off topic. That being said, they are also the views of another editor that do not violate "Behavior that is unacceptable" as per WP:TALK and thus good practice indicates that they should not simply be removed. I placed two templates on that editors own talk pages, advising them that they should both sign their posts, which they failed to do, and to remember that talk pages are for the improvement of the article in question only. In my mind, that is sufficient for now. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 21:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, we'll just see what s/he does in the near future.  C t j f 8 3 Talk 21:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm a firm believer that people who table these sorts of arguments are their own worst enemies, all you have to do is give them enough rope and they'll demonstrate that they're willing to hang themselves with it almost every time. I found it more than passing interesting that the closing text that appears at the very end of the "documentary" that they attempted to link, contains exactly the same grammatical errors that appear in Vandalismdestroyer33's diatribe on the article's talk page. I believe that it's possible that we may have a sockpuppet amateur 'film maker' here, who believes they should be allowed to use the encyclopedia to promote their personal political agenda. It's not going to happen. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 02:32, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Spelling
Hello, please don't "fix" words that are already spelled correctly, as in this edit, where you changed "backstory" to "back story" -- but this was a direct quote that had "backstory." Thanks, Badagnani (talk) 04:23, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I'll never "trust" my spellcheck again. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 04:27, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Ha, the rest of the edits were good, though :) Badagnani (talk) 04:35, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Battle of Lundy's Lane
Ugh, I understand what you mean, but I have been arguing with this guy for 4 months. He is User:Trip Johnson. Here is the overwhelming evidence against him.

Incivility
,, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Egregious personal attacks
,, , , , , ,

Quotes on Wikipedians
"To be honest i'm not bothered. Delete my account. I can't stand the dickheads on this site any longer."

Quotes on me
"I've read it asshole."

"Shut up Red."

You may also wish to look at this long argument not only with me, but with others. Red4tribe (talk) 13:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Has this case been looked at by WT:SUSPSOCK yet? regards Deconstructhis (talk) 15:31, 13 August 2008 (UTC)


 * No, but would that be sockpuppetry? I don't believe there is anything against using your IP to edit. Anyways, he responds on that account to messages for trip johnson, and nearly everything he does is the same so I am 99,9% sure that he is the same. Just an example here. It is clearly addressed to Trip Johnson and he responds on his IP. Red4tribe (talk) 19:24, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

WTH
That edit on Clifton Hill (Niagra Falls) wasnt a joke, it really isnt $-D, I just tok a vacation there, it is not 4-d!!!! --Harvey &quot;Two-Face&quot; Dent (talk) 20:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned in the edit summary, the business name is "Ripley's Believe It or Not 4D Moving Theatre", it's irrelevant whether or not it's "4D", it's a title not a descriptor. If the name of a restaurant is "World's Best Hamburgers" and it appears in Wikipedia, it doesn't really matter if in actual fact their products truly are the "world's best hamburgers" or not, it's the name of the restaurant, not a comment on how good their food is. regards Deconstructhis (talk) 21:28, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Mohawk River
You quickly restored the template to this article after I removed it. This was my first edit to the article, which I have added to my watchlist. I am not opposed to leaving the template in place. I do think such templates are more helpful when there is some guidance on the talk page, however brief, concerning what should be sourced in the article. (The claim that the Erie Canal "cut shipping costs to Lake Erie by 95%" certainly jumps out. I'll put a "fact" flag on it.) -- ℜob C. alias ⒶⓁⒶⓇⓄⒷ 18:50, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There are varying opinions on the appropriate application of some of the templates utilized here on Wikipedia and which ones should actually be 'backed up' on the discussion page of the article with further comments or observations for other editors to consider before making changes. I've never considered the "unreferenced" template to be anything but completely self explanatory in terms of what it's trying to convey. It's only used when literally there are no references whatsoever appearing in or around the article substantiating the information appearing in it. When that template is properly applied, it's not an indication that particular parts of the article need further support, it's to point out that the entire article as it's presented at that time has no support for what it's saying at all. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 19:07, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

That's fine. I was more interested in discussing Mohawk River specifically. I have made more changes to the article, mainly deleting the military history and using to ask for more historical background. There's also an article on Mohawk Valley, which suggests the scope of this one should be entirely on the river. Your thoughts? -- ℜob C. alias ⒶⓁⒶⓇⓄⒷ 19:47, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * In my opinion before you make too many changes you should carefully consider what criteria you are using to categorize and separate the history of the "valley" from the history of the "river" itself. In many people's minds the two are actually inseparable, which is reflected in the way the history section was originally worded in my opinion. A lot of the time in my experience, you're better off doing some preliminary "consultations" on an articles talk page before enthusiastically editing material, especially if it involves removing relatively large amounts of material from the article that have been in place for an extended period of time. It's definitely okay to start chopping out sections of material if it's a clear violation of policy, say, when it's obviously libelous or something. Otherwise, in the long run, you'll probably save yourself a lot of potential annoyance by simply (and patiently) making inquiries first on the articles talk page. good luck Deconstructhis (talk) 20:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Your point occurred to me, but in this case we already have articles for both the river and the valley. I posed the question on the talk page as to how to link the two. One of the Wikipedia guidelines is to be bold, so I was. Should the deleted material be needed, it can be easily recovered from the diffs. -- ℜob C. alias ⒶⓁⒶⓇⓄⒷ 22:28, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

thank for help with JW page
There is some recent POV edits to the [Jehovah's Witnesses]] article. Thanks for your help in finding the errors and making corrections. More help is appriciated. :) —  f c s u p e r ( How's That?, That's How! ) (Exclusionistic Immediatist ) — 15:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

South America
I issued the anon editor with a longer block. Please let me know if he continues with the edit wars once the block expires. I also enabled your rollback rights so you can spend slightly less time dealing with him and others like him. :) Owen&times; &#9742;  19:38, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for dealing with that problem OwenX and thank you for the new "tool" as well! cheersDeconstructhis (talk) 19:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello again OwenX, it appears that despite the previous blocks you've imposed on this individual and all the warnings, they've decided to resume 'business as usual' against the South America article. Some people never learn. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 19:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Deconstructhis, while I agree that this anon's latest edits are harmful to the article, they can no longer be considered "vandalism". The edits are a good-faith, albeit misguided attempt to beautify the article. Please try to engage the editor in discussion. In any case, let me know if he breaches WP:3RR, and be mindful not to hit the 3RR limit yourself. Owen&times; &#9742;  22:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Meherrin Page
Your correct in your assumption that their are two leadership groups. I was present at the meeting when the new Chief and Council were elected so I changed the link to that website. I do apologize for not adding it to the discussion but in all seriousness I didn't think this page was being followed or updated by any one. I would appreciate any information you have on the situation as my last understanding was that it was currently in the court systems. I'm also trying to develop a full history of the tribe without influence from either group and if you don't have a relationship with either camp I would certainly welcome some help. Thanks in Advance. Ligurian66 (talk) 01:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Re Thanks regarding the Iroquois articl
Greetings FayssalF, thank you very much for extending a form of protection to the Iroquois article, as a regular editor to that article, it is a constant struggle to even try and keep it intact from anonymous vandals, your help is very much appreciated. I'm contacting you regarding another (somewhat related) native North American article titled French and Indian War. If you review its history, you'll see that it is under attack by anonymous vandals posting nonsense on an almost daily basis. I wonder if perhaps you might consider offering even short term protection to that article as well. It is quite a daunting task sometimes to even attempt to keep up with the damage. Thank you for your current help regardless. cheersDeconstructhis (talk) 19:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. That should give the vandals a rest for 2 weeks. If massive vandalism is resumed after the automatic unprotection, and if I am not around, please feel free to make a request at wp:RFPP. Happy editing. --  fayssal   -  wiki  up®  23:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Criticism of Muhammad linkspam
This is more a case of reverting linkspam than edit warring. That user has made nearly no constructive edits, especially not to that article; most of his or her edits consist of adding those apologetics sites to that one article. I've responded to you on the talk page, but the links need to stay out until Peacekeeper has justified their inclusion.--Cúchullain t/ c 01:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

why did you delete what I wrote?
"Please do not add content without citing reliable sources"

The sources are there, they are real with eyewitness accounts. If you would actually read the sites you will understand. Alot of other articles are cited like this so I don't see why you have to delete the whole thing when this event clearly happened, there footage to support the dream concert slience happened. Take note that most of this articule is infact UNCITED yet you do not undo those. So is this bias treatment or is this hypocritcal treatment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.246.210.88 (talk) 03:53, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all I'd like to remind you that it is a violation of the policy of the encyclopedia not to assume "good faith" when questioning the activities of another editor, in the long run I think you'll find that personally attacking individual editors for simply trying to apply Wikipedia policies, as they interpret them, will seldom produce the results you're hoping for. Now to the core of your criticism. Quite frankly I had a difficult time deciding exactly which was the most appropriate warning template to apply in this case, but in the end decided that "failing to cite a reliable source" was at least justifiable under the circumstances. The operative word here is "reliable". Simply 'cherry picking' citations from entertainment blogs (and in this case, at least in one instance a self admitted "rumour" site) that happen to coincide with one's own personal bias are not considered a "reliable" sourcing method according to Wikipedia policy. Pointing out that other articles are already sourced in this fashion, is also not a justification for inclusion according to policy. As an editor I have to make decisions based on the article in front of me, believe me, if I encountered any other article containing the material and sourcing that existed in this one before I edited it, it would receive exactly the same treatment. In my opinion, a dozen paragraphs or more, added all at the same time, of what I considered to be highly subjective material supposedly "supported" by citations from what appeared to me to consist of quotes from 'publicity' material, does not constitute a proper inclusion in the encyclopedia. I also objected to the inclusion in the material of comments directly addressed to "those who have been reading this", an obvious violation of the policy against including "talk" in the body of an article. I know that it's easy to lose one's objectivity when dealing with a subject like favourite musical performers, but please try and understand that ideally Wikipedia is intended to be a neutral and reliable source of objective information on a given subject, not a platform, either for or against, particular personal opinions regarding conduct in the entertainment industry. I apologise for any misunderstanding. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 13:29, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Great Lakes article discussion - "Geological history" suggestion
Deconstructhis, please review and respond to my latest comments and questions regarding the geological history section of the Great Lakes article. Thank you. -- Beleg Strongbow (talk) 13:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * First of all, I hope I've made myself clear in terms of laying out the reasoning behind why I made the specific alterations that I did to the article we're discussing. As I mentioned on the articles talk page, I'm quite open to another editor disagreeing with my interpretation of the citations that were provided in support of the material and provided that a well referenced rebuttal is supplied, I'm content to live with the outcome. Now to the matter at hand. Before we engage in this, I think I should provide you with a better idea of the assumptions that I'm operating under. After examining your user page, thus far I've concluded that your own personal "theoretical bias" is inclined toward regarding the Christian Bible as literally "inerrant" in its contents, if I'm mistaken in this assumption, please feel free to correct me, because my position is dependent on that being the case and any further comments that I make would likely appear foolish if that in fact is not true. I have one other thing that I'd like to have clarified. If in fact you do hold the position that I've outlined above, I think it's only fair to ask the following: under what evidential conditions are you prepared to acknowledge that in fact the Bible does contain incorrect information? It seems to me that a debate centred from the onset around the notion that by definition only one of the parties can be "wrong", is an exercise in futility and a complete waste of time for both individuals. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 19:48, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

sean plott
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8198559878970672169&hl=en high five? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.183.146.19 (talk) 07:19, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The funniest thing is that you think that material proves he's a comedian. Deconstructhis (talk) 14:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Hi....
Hey.... so a few things wrong about your thing on my page.....

1st: How do you wish me to cite a source that was an interview that I was at. 2nd: I am not a new member....

Stealth (talk)


 * Hello Stealth, if you haven't already taken the opportunity to sit down and read WP:VERIFY you should do so, I think you'll find some tips there that will make editing and adding to the encyclopedia a little easier. As I'm sure you understand, without the potential ability to verify the information that an individual editor adds to an article, Wikipedia becomes a much less useful tool for a reader who must have some way of knowing that the information that they're reading just simply isn't invented by an editor on the spot and has no basis in fact at all. In Wikipedia, that basis is established by an editor adding a reliable source to the material when they post it to an article. In your case, if you're citing an "interview" that was made available through a media outlet, it's definitely possible to simply include information in your citation regarding the details of when and where the material was made publicly available, you might want to use a template to help give you an idea of the sorts of details that are usually included in this type of citation, they can be found here WP:CITET. If the interview you're referring to took place in the context of a private conversation or a public event that can not be verified by a reliable third party source, I'm afraid it becomes very difficult to use material from it as a reference in Wikipedia. Even if you were there personally and heard the material spoken that you're referring to, without the ability to reference an independent source for that material, what you're doing by quoting it is called "original research" WP:OR and is not permitted in the encyclopedia. Please get back to me if you want to discuss this further, have fun editing. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 17:46, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Oneida Nation of the Thames
I just wanted to let you know that the article is pretty pointed. I moved a section to the Oneida tribe, but it seems more could be migrated to there. The sections not pertaining specifically to the Thames Oneida have been commented out for now. Would you take a look at it please. Thanks. CJLippert (talk) 23:49, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Your changes look appropriate to me, I've been meaning to try and clean up that article by at least removing the "blank" sections that someone inserted for a while, but never got around to it. Thanks for your help once again. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 00:34, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thanks for taking a look back at my edits. I'll try not to do it again. Know a dictonory that utilizes scientif terms? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Irunongames (talk • contribs) 19:55, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Philippine Science Main Campus
http://upcat.up.edu.ph/cgi-bin/results.cgi?n=&s=&b=1&i=&p=&o=20#notes http://www.up.edu.ph/upnewsletter.php?issue=43&i=682 these sites indicate that Jesselyn Rochelle Malimata is indeed an oblation scholar. The second link shows her rank. Simply searching her name could give you references. For my comment on the swimming pool and volleyball court how do you suggest I prove it is more than a personal analysis? would pictures do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Havehumor (talk • contribs) 09:39, 28 October 2008 (UTC) -

Please read
Hello

you showed interest in the article Anne of Świdnica. Please look at it closer and especially at the discussions on Talk:Anne of Świdnica. The historical name used in literature for centuries is Anna von Schweidnitz or Anna of Schweidnitz with a google book result of more than 500. (See book search results:

There are some repeat reverters who keep insisting on Anne of Świdnica. I even input the Polish google search, which does not result in any books with the Anne Świdnica name.

But despite that, one particular person posts attacks and false information.

Please let me know your thoughts. Thank you. An Observer (70.133.79.167 (talk) 23:19, 2 November 2008 (UTC))


 * I am the person the anon is refering to. His activity on Wikipedia is mostly concerned on puting antypolish info in the articles (under different IP numbers!)


 * If you look at the talk page here you will see that he gives links to some info and writes that it shows something compleatly differnt than it actually does. (He gave links to Google books and wrote that it shows nothing while actually it showed 92 and 56 !!!)


 * He also does not take part in a discussion which I understand as an exchange of arguments (see for yourself!!!) So if you please could do something about it I would be most grateful. Best Wishes Opole.pl (talk) 07:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for helping
Thanks. There are now two people on the Dudtin Pedroia that are vandilizing. I am dealing with this 69.???.??.?? person Syntheticalconnections (talk) 02:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. One of them was already temporarily banned and the other is on "his" last warning. Deconstructhis (talk) 03:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

ICAC citing...
I was in the process of figuring how to cite when the other user took my edit. Then you decide to take it off.

My cites are:

Shang, Ying, "Curbing Corruption: A Comparative Analysis of Corruption Control in Singapore, Hong Kong, and Taiwan," Cambridge: Harvard University, 2002, pp. 98-99.

ICAC Annual Report, 1976, pp. 17-18

ICAC Annual Report, 1977, pp. 9

South China Morning Post, October 28, 1977

Be my guess in adding them in. I was also in the process of editing out my grammar errors before I started on my cites. I was given no warning on why my edits were erased. Also, what is considered as an "attack". Is it acceptable if you threaten to block me prematurely before you understood the situation? I consider that to be an attack. I was only being sarcastic in a friendly manner, maybe I should have ended it off with "LOL" Either way, I think this is an example of how wikipedia has become dominated by experienced editors -obsessed with formalities- bullying other editors. I should be have been judged on the quality of the information provided on the subject. Block me if you find it necessary, I've lost the desire to continue this fight. Thank you and good night.--74.14.18.102 (talk) 09:00, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
 * It sounds like a series of misunderstandings occurred while you were editing that article, which is unfortunate when it happens to someone like yourself who is apparently attempting to help the encyclopedia rather than harm it. My first piece of advice to you, is to never assume that other editors can guess that you are in the process of editing an article and intend to make further changes. Most editors who are attempting to track and correct vandalism judge someone's contribution by what is currently appearing in an article, not by what another editor *may* choose to contribute in the future. Keep in mind that it is never a good idea to experiment with actual articles in order to practise learning new editing skills, if another editor encounters these 'trial runs', there's a good chance that they will be viewed as vandalism and will be treated accordingly. If you wish to practise your new skills the "sandbox" is the proper forum. Once again, I apologize for any misunderstanding that may have occurred, but please understand that vandalism continues as a serious problem in the encyclopedia and that combating it sometimes produces problems as well. happy editing Deconstructhis (talk) 17:04, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Re:
That would be a problem with Huggle, I couldn't revert just that edit. My bad. &mdash; Ceran (sing / see) 19:09, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh my head
You are simply not going to believe this.

sigh...--Yachtsman1 (talk) 06:39, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Don't let it get to you. I'm having a hard time not believing that this editor isn't engaging in a wee bit of "trolling", it all seems a little over the top in my opinion. There is no doubt whatsoever in my opinion that the material being posted by the editor in question was completely unacceptable according to policy, subsequently I've added the article to my watch list (as I'm sure a few others have as well) and I'll continue to monitor it. Keep in mind that when material is posted as far removed as this stuff was from the policy of the encyclopedia, you can contact an administrator directly at . I can't imagine that there are many administrators that would see the continual reposting of this material (after warnings) as anything more than an act of straight vandalism. And of course always remember, try not to feed the trolls! lol cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 15:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Inclusionism for photos
Can you explain for me why you would delete a photo of Chrissie Hynde's restaurant as "advertising" when the narrative text remains? Part of my objective for Wikipedia is to help make it more visual with the addition of photographs. I think photographs help convey the information more meaningfully and memorably. My intent is not to engage in commercial promotion (I have no affiliation with Chrissie Hynde or her restaurant). I only want to help in Wikipedia's goal of getting more photographs of items described in the text. In this case, the restaurant itself is not in a prominent location, and I think the visual image helps with the understanding.r3 (talk) 01:04, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Miss Six Nations

 * Hi, I'm at a bit of a loss to understand why you removed the PROD on this article and replaced it with an unref tag when I had stated in the PROD that it was a non notable competition and that I could find no refs to it! I must say that I very nearly speedied it. Perhaps you could let me know. Thanks. Paste Talk 18:00, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Sure, see the talk page of the article. I'm, of course, open to discussion on this one, but I personally know that there is in fact ample and interesting history available to substantiate its inclusion. Also, please keep in mind that Miss Six Nations is a national competition, albeit a small one, but ask yourself if you would be as quick to apply a "prod" tag if we were discussing an article pertaining to another smaller sized national competition such as, say, "Miss Luxembourg"? cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 18:13, 28 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I've read you piece on the talk page and must say that you got plenty of hits, I only got the annual rugby tournament held in the UK! Well done, Thanks. Paste Talk 18:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Native Canadian article vandalism
Yeah, this is a perennial problem, and this particular vandal has a long history: Long_term_abuse/Page_2. Just dumb luck that I happened to find this edit. Stay vigilant. —Michael Z. 2008-12-04 01:50 z 

About Spiritism and Spiritualism
I have followed your changes, and noticed, not without a surpise, that either English speaking people does not know XXI century spiritism, or just ignore it. Repeatedly I state, that Allan Kardec, does not propose a "French spiritualism", since he created spiritism, due to the lack of ethics and scientific knowledge (there were plenty of mediums dedicated to phenomenology, as he aimed to get a scientist approach of such discipline). His approach, as in his latest writings is stated, did not exclude the word "Christ", fearing to be pursued by witch-hunters (That's why he used an alias). Therefore, his work does not propose a religion. Kardec followers, also seem to ignore XXI century spiritism, from Joaquín Trincado Mateo, who based on Allan Kardec, and philosophical contrasts, founded a new spiritist doctrine "Spiritism, Light and Truth", he was based in Latin America, so it was only distributed along Hipanic-talking people. He did not allow his work to be translated into another language, fearing what happened to Kardec's work. Nonetheless, it IS Spiritism, as a philosophical doctrine, rejecting religion, and based on research and continuous formation, not defined by phenomena (that is, spiritism not explained by ouija, dead people talking spirits, and so on), since as philosophy asserts, everyone has a spirit, that's why we are all spiritists. Trincado's doctrine has it's drawback when he died, since his family did not worry on taking it into public domain. However, there were almost two hundred schools on latin america that continued his task. We represent such task, and we have the ownership of his command. To make it public at absolute no profit. Keep it in mind, before undoing my changes, and rather to improve them, since they are not randomly made. These changes to the definition respond to an obligation, We will not stop to achieve. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Emecu178 (talk • contribs) 20:37, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Beaver Dams - thank you
Thanks for correcting my mistaken edit and cite to the Battle of Beaver Dam. The cite I provided (Elting) confirms Indian murders of American wounded but not scalping. I think it was I who put in the original claim of scalping; having re-checked my sources, I now realise that I mis-read a chapter, "The Indians in the War of 1812" (1950) by George F. G. Stanley in The Defended Border (1964) by Morris Zaslow (ed). (I relied on this and other articles in this book for the verbatim cites of Fitzgibbon and Norton.) Some Americans were indeed scalped following the later ambush at Ball's Farm, but not at Beaver Dam. Regards. HLGallon (talk) 01:37, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Whipped E Dog
Can I ask why you're giving this user an escalating series of vandalism warnings, when I'd already warned them and they haven't vandalised since? Franamax (talk) 23:44, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * To be quite frank with you, for good or ill it was because in my experience when someone creates an account and the only thing they do with it is spend twenty minutes vandalizing four separate articles six times with obscenities and things like altered dates, I anticipate that they are someone who is likely going to be making an appearance on WP:AIV fairly shortly. In the past, I've noted that some administrators are reticent to utilize even short term blocking against someone who they deem has not been "adequately warned" in the past, such as in instances where a lone warning has been issued to a vandal whose wording resembles a single level one or two warming template, which was true in the type of warning that you issued to "Whipped E Dog". I deliberately issued the full series of warnings in order to amply demonstrate that Mr. or Ms. "Dog" had been completely and fully warned for their six previous separate acts of vandalism, should they decide to "strike" again and be reported to AIV. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 05:10, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, we have different approaches, for sure. I've often found that a quiet statement that is obviously from a human being works wonders, on the lines of "hi, I know what you're doing and I'm watching now". Most new vandalizers know they're doing something wrong, but they have absolutely no idea that someone can check their contribs. IMO the formulaic templates look like a computer is doing the warning, but the human words freak them out a bit and they pretty much almost always stop immediately. I back that up by keeping a window going for their contribs and refresh it every 5 mimutes or so for however long I'm online. Fortunately, as a much wiser 'pedian told me at a meetup, the average attention span of a vandal is 15 minutes.
 * I can understand your approach too, but it seems to me like stacking the deck. The spirit of WP:VANDAL is to warn the user for what they have already done, then give them a chance to reform. Then another chance, etc. We should only block with regret, we shouldn't anticipate the need and create the conditions for it (imo). I would hope that a smart admin would check the timeline anyway, and deny you with "nope, user was only warned once".
 * That said, I also think that when I go to the effort of making a personalized message, if the offence continues, the escalation should be swifter - so I would be happy if you skipped a level or two. I also realize now that I should have dropped a welcome template before my warning. IMO if there's a welcome and a warning, they get one chance (with enough time to be sure they've read it), a final warning if they do it again, then kablammo.
 * Consider the chance, unlikely as it may be, that the user reads my warning and decides maybe they want to contribute nicely after all. They then go and make an article edit that they think is helpful but someone else thinks is not. It's reported, someone sees your uw-4 warning, and blocks. Possibly productive editor maybe lost forever. I'm not saying that applies in this case, but it's why we offer 2nd, 3rd and 4th chances. (sorry for post length!) Franamax (talk) 06:07, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

No problem.I think your summation of us as simply "differing in approach" nailed it. In terms of a "smart admin" reviewing the timeline of the case we're discussing, my hope would be that they would simply look at either your single relatively "low level" warning *or* my 1-4 approach and then proceed to look at both the context and content of the acts of vandalism in this case and once they determined it was a brand new contributor doing the deeds, would label it a "vandalism only" account and simply indefinitely suspend them. After that, if the reformed vandal decided that they wanted to contribute in a more constructive way, they would have to do so as an ip or through another new account. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 06:37, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. I think you've reduced the editor to just one chance at reform, rather than the 2-4 chances they should get. In the context of "squirrel pee" edits though, I can't really disagree with you. :) At least I can claim (since the vandalism had stopped before either of us got there, and I got there first) that it was me that stopped the vandalism. :)lol Anyway, job's well done, we've cleaned it up, we can both get on with our own approaches and do what we do. Thanks and regards! Franamax (talk) 09:01, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Great Lakes
The only reason I removed Great Lakes Storm of 1913 from the second "See also" is because it appears under the first "See also." Maybe they should be consolidated? Happy New Year and happy editing. 7&amp;6=thirteen (talk) 17:30, 5 January 2009 (UTC) Stan
 * You're right. After looking more closely at the article, the link to the 1913 storm that is already in place in another section is adequate under the circumstances and I've reverted my previous edit. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 20:41, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Port Colborne, Ontario
I notice you deleted a reference from the article on Port Colborne, Ontario. Shouldn't you also remove the offending information, whatever it is? Verne Equinox (talk) 21:24, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. In this case, the claim being made in the article wasn't supported by the information in the citation that was originally attached to it, and to compound matters, the source itself (the 1910 Catholic Encyclopedia) is totally outdated when it comes to this subject matter. The claim in the Port Colborne article, that the Five Nations were supported by the British, has some merit, but the Catholic Encyclopedia article presents information that is so misleading on the overall topic that it shouldn't be used as a citation for an article in Wikipedia. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 16:20, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Your question on the Media Copyright Questions page
Regarding the question you asked: from the style of the image, the chances are high that it's a portrait from around the period that the subject was alive. If not, it can't have been painted much after he died. So yes, the claim that it is now in the public domain is very likely to be correct. Note, though, that sites routinely claim copyright over images that are in the public domain when they have no right to do so. The copyright claims of the Canadian Encyclopedia are irrelevant here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hux (talk • contribs)
 * Thanks for your help. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 05:40, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

So quick to revert my edit of Dwarfism?
I only added the link to the Twinkle tool for a colleague of mine who is actively editing the Dwarfism article. He has voiced some complaints over the rampant vandalism of said article and I was merely putting a link to the Twinkle tool that I mentioned to him. I can, however, simply post this link on his talk page and bypass your unnecessary revert process if I care to. I suggest you take the time to actually look before you go reverting next time, perhaps the material provided is of benefit. Cheers! FoodPuma 01:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your kind comments and display of generosity of spirit, it's really what Wikipedia is all about isn't it. If you had simply included the first sentence of your above comments to the Dwarfism article talk page when you added your mention of Twinkle, none of this would have been necessary. Given your reasoning for placing it on the article talk page in the first place, I'd suggest that posting it on your friends talk page was the preferred option all along. cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 01:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * True, and I shall take that into consideration next time. I was busy at the time and, being on the talk page of Dwarfism already, decided to just copy + paste. And I am a tad bit confused to my "mentor" and his inclusion in this discussion. Any who, I am sure EK (fellow student) is much appreciative of your watch on the page - if it were not for people like you Wikipedia would be worthless. Sorry if I vented some anger earlier, just a little preturbed when I saw (what I thought was) a positive comment being shot down. Again, my apologies. FoodPuma 16:30, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Sincere thanks for the kind words this time. My initial sarcastic comments weren't exactly my finest moment either, I apologize for that. The "mentor" inclusion was only my attempt at carping that a more experienced editor would have obviously supported my side of the case, just me whining is all. More WP:AGF all around would have improved this situation, no harm no foul. happy editing, cheers Deconstructhis (talk) 19:03, 31 January 2009 (UTC)