User talk:EBY3221/Archive 1 (start - July 4, 2008)

Welcome!' Hello, EBY3221, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  07:23, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Portmanteau words
Thank you for your comments. The issue is not one of google hits. It is that if everyone adds their favourite p. word the article gets out of hand. The purpose of the article is to define p. words - and to give perhaps one example of each type, to prenvet it straggling. If you want to have your favourite example up, I suggest you take the article List of portmanteau words (currently erroneously used as a redirect) and adpat it to make it a genuine list for yourslef and anyone else to put up their favourites. Best regards, Smerus (talk) 06:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your further comments. I think the aspect of this which seems to interest you belongs in Supercouples, not in Portmanteau word. Why not write it up there, with a reference to Portmanteau word, rather than vice versa?? With best regards, Smerus (talk) 18:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Just click here on List of portmanteau words. At present it is a redirect. Delete the redirect and rewrite it as a list article with headers for different classes of portmanteau word. Then list the page as a 'see also' in the article Portmanteau word. Smerus (talk) 15:54, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

'You have great faith in a WikiNewbie's skill, but I'll try. Elizabeth BY (talk) 16:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)'. I started once - be bloody bold and resolute!! :-} Smerus (talk) 19:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Helpme (Closed)
helpme

It looks to me like the Disinfo page reads like an advertisement of a small company - although the entry has been around since 2007 or +. Do I recommend it for deletion or that it be cleaned up? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EBY3221 (talk • contribs)


 * I think cleanup tag is a more reasonable possibility considering the Webby Awards nomination. Not sure on where you could list this for wider community perspective, possibly the WP:VILLAGE, specifically the WP:VP/A page. Don't be shy on being WP:BOLD and cleaning it up a bit yourself.
 * Hope this helps,  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  07:40, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I replied to you here: User_talk:Jaakobou.
 * Cheers,  Jaakobou Chalk Talk  07:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Disinfo

 * I added a long series of profiles in major publications -- NYT, Red Herring, Village Voice -- I think it's pretty clear that it's a notable group. AaronSw (talk) 20:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks -- it's much, much improved now. AaronSw (talk) 17:49, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Help Me, Please
The Rupert Hoogewerf article did not look notable (but did look like an autobiography without cites) to me, so I proposed it for (non-Speedy) deletion. Followed the steps at [|Wiki:AFD] to tag article and open discussion on talk page. HOWEVER, when following step 3: Notify users who monitor AfD discussion, a box saying this article had already been deleted (in 2006, Speedily) popped up over at Articles for deletion/Log/2008 June 10 and NOT the usual discussion/vote template. Yet, the article is still there. So...Is there a remedy I could apply, or is this how it supposed to be? EBY3221 16:37, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * The article was deleted in 2006 and then re-created. In cases like that, if you want to make a new AfD, you have to put (2nd nomination) in the name. I fixed this for you. Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 16:47, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks!!EBY3221 16:52, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. You might also want to fix your signature so it actually links to your talk page (also, new posts in a talk page go to the bottom). Ten Pound Hammer  and his otters • (Broken clamshells•Otter chirps) 17:02, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

excuse me but i Am Theo Paphitis's butler, and recently i opened one of his letters declaring is 135 billion in debt, so don't you dare change it!

RE:THANK YOU
No problems, Just remember that such templates always go on the talk page of the particular page. Around The Globe Contact 17:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Todd Bentley
Your rewrite is a great improvement, both to language and POV. One adjustment I suggest: Responding to Randy Clark, you say "Bentley doesn't share that concern" as though Randy Clark IS INDEED concerned. However, Clark often "preaches" in attire similar to Bentley's. In fact, I have heard Randy say directly to Todd, "People say that they can't trust those evangelists in their $5000 suits.  Well, Todd, they can't say that about you!" Evaluist (talk) 20:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I saw this as it was happening, but someone has posted a video clip -- see it starting at 3:37. Randy Clark is talking to Todd Bentley. http://youtube.com/watch?v=G0zq4SOSYMI  Evaluist (talk) 04:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm curious about your removal of the information about common evangelical doctrine with regard to angels. I agree that it presents a POV, but it's in the "Controversy" section and in my opinion it served to explain to those who don't know the teaching a bit more about why Bentley's account is controversial.  I would think it would be difficult for someone who doesn't know that fact to realize it from the subtle implications given in the paragraph as it stands.  Would it be more acceptable with a citation showing that many (if not most) evangelicals hold that view, or would you still object to it?  And if you prefer not to include the information at all, do you feel it would be better to remove the word "female" from the remainder of the section (even though this is, in fact, a huge source of difficulty for many evangelicals)?


 * Also, I was planning to add a bit of information about the problems that evangelicals might have with his claim of a "breakthrough in financial stability" after the vision, and possibly some other points, after doing a little research to find sources. For one thing, there is a lot of information in the AOG SoFT and it might be difficult for those who are unfamiliar with the document to sort out which parts are relevant, so I thought I might address that by listing specific sections, quoting parts of it, etc.  Would you object to that?  If so, can you explain why?  And if not, what form do you feel it should take?


 * I have no desire to argue with you; you've done a great job of editing and maintaining the article and I fully understand your concern with POV. I truly am interested in your thoughts on this.  I merely want to clarify some points in the article, and I'd like to do it in a way that is acceptable to the larger community.  Thanks for your help. -- edi (talk) 23:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your note on my talk page. Your explanation clarified a couple of things in my mind regarding excess information, and I appreciate it.  I've been watching the article for some time now but have refrained from making any really meaningful edits until now precisely because I do have strong (negative, just so you know, for the sake of discussion) feelings about Bentley, and I also believe strongly that this isn't the place for that.  I do, however, want always to be sure that useful (especially referenced) information isn't removed simply because it's negative... or simply because it's positive, for that matter.  (I think it bears mentioning that the only previous edits I've made to the article have been to fix a link and to moderate a sentence that I felt was unfairly negative in tone.)  So for now I'll leave the article alone and just keep watching until I see another reason to speak up.  I do appreciate all your hard work, and I look forward to seeing more of it in the future.  Have a great weekend, and thanks again. -- edi (talk) 03:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Please add speedy deletion warning templates to the user's talk page, not the user page.
Dear EBY3221: I noticed that when you marked Brent Vaca for speedy deletion, you put a nn-warn template on the article creator Brentv187's user page, not on his talk page (see here). I also saw you didn't sign the warning by putting four tildes, like this ~ after the etc template. The template doesn't include a signature, so it's always a good idea to make sure you sign it. I figure that was probably a mistake or a simple oversight. I just wanted to let you know you had done that, and to ask you to please check which page your're posing to in the future when you warn a user and to please make sure to sign your warnings. Not a big deal, just something to watch out for. Thanks. AubreyEllenShomo (talk) 07:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow, sorry. Can't believe I did that. I just clicked the link in the speedy removal template that appeared and pasted the notification - how dumb of me not to check! Thank you very much for cleaning it all up. EBY3221 (talk) 13:04, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem.  These things happen.  AubreyEllenShomo (talk) 17:24, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Brent Vaca (2nd nomination)
You seem to have put it in the article space rather than AfD. Ironholds 20:26, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * That's ok; i'll take a look at the AfD myself, i spend a lot of time handling Afd/MfD's. You also compounded the error by posting your message on my userpage twice, btw :P. Iron</b><b style="color:#808080">ho</b><b style="color:#696969">ld</b><b style="color:#000">s</b> 20:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ok, i've corrected the style problem that prevented it coming up on todays AfD listing. You might want to install Twinkle, it automates the process almost completely. <b style="color:#D3D3D3">Ir</b><b style="color:#A9A9A9">on</b><b style="color:#808080">ho</b><b style="color:#696969">ld</b><b style="color:#000">s</b> 20:36, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem, it's ok! With twinkle, you'll see a line of extra tag's at the top of the page as well as the normal edit/history/talk tags. If you click on "xfd" it brings up a drop-down menu where you can select the type of article/content. So in this case, you'd select "Afd" as it is an article and then categorise it as biographical. Then just fill it all in :). Twinkle does have a tendency to mess up the messages on the general AfD listings and also on the page being nominated, so check them afterwards. If there's a redlink, just literally edit and then save without making any changes, that corrects the problem completely. Feel free to contact me if you need any help :). <b style="color:#D3D3D3">Ir</b><b style="color:#A9A9A9">on</b><b style="color:#808080">ho</b><b style="color:#696969">ld</b><b style="color:#000">s</b> 20:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hey, it's me again. I moved the page from Articles for deletion/Brent Vaca (2nd nomination) to Articles for deletion/Brent Vaca. Congrats on making your first AfD nomination. I made the move, since you only need to call it a second nomination if there's been a previous AfD discussion. No need to do so after a declined speedy. That said, kudos. Many folks wouldn't have gone through the AfD policies and procedure pages at all before doing the nom. That's the right kind of mistake to make! AubreyEllenShomo (talk) 21:43, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, that was fast. Another admin stepped in and speedily deleted Brent Vaca under CSD G11 CSD G3, as a hoax so blatant it constitutes vandalism. AubreyEllenShomo (talk) 21:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for being so kind & generous considering I bungled this to start. I actually hope the kid has teh kind of life where we do end up creating an article about him, for all good reasons...EBY3221 (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It was nice to meet you, and I hope to see you around. (Speaking of bungling, I just corrected my other comment about which CSD was the basis for the speedy.)  AubreyEllenShomo (talk) 02:19, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

On edits to Todd Bentley
Please review my comment at Todd Bentley's talk page reguarding your edits. Quick summery: I believe you're edit of the page much more encyclopedadic. Cindy Flynn (talk) 02:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Repost of what I said on Todd Bentley's talk page.

Interesting. I've desided to review the wikipedia page on Adolf Hitler for more information editing well. Why read the article on hitler? Because even though he is reguarded as one of the most evil men who ever lived, his article is relitively non-bias, with only a small section that reguards him as a disliked person. Included is his honorable military service to germany, his respected ability to lead, and his plans and ideals. It really gives me a new spin on editing. This could be quiet the learning experience for me. If people want to read up on how great Todd is, they can read his praise, if people want to read up on how he's moneyhungery, then can read up on THAT. If they want a fair and non-bias view, they come here. Thank you, EBY3221, for being insperation. Cindy Flynn (talk) 03:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi EBY, your most recent edits (and personal warnings) to the Todd Bently page ignored the discussion. You removed allot of content from well cited sources.. including 2 Florida newspapers and cites from bentley's own cite. I appreciate you trying to remove the unencyclopedic citations but blanket removal of all material because one out of 3 refferences wasn't the best isn't the best way to go. Please see talk. n that page. --68.40.15.156 (talk) 19:02, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The edits you made were NOT "wholesale" reverted; if you check the logs and read the article - you will see that I worked to include all the information that had objective cites (the topic's own website is not considered such by Wikipedia, see links I added above), if rewritten in a Neutral Point of View. An excellent example of bringing neutrality to controversial figures is found in the article about Hitler. By calling out single lines of controversial material out of otherwise neutral journalistic articles and not balancing them with the other material, you were injecting a tenor into the article that is against Wikipedia's policies about Biographies of Living Persons.EBY3221 (talk) 19:12, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * ::Ok, thanks, I've reinstated your removal of POV edits and I appreciate the benefit to the article. PLEASE Don't remove the sections though, work with them, the refrences are valid so help a noob like me wikify it.. Thanks.--Oi!oi!oi!010101 (talk) 19:18, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Eby hey I think I messed up when trying to reinstate your removal of POV edits. Its not showing up in the history and Im afraid I've screwed something up. Can you please check and verify that I kept your first phase edits but reverted the removals? Thanks.. --Oi!oi!oi!010101 (talk) 19:24, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

EBY could you please stop reverting and removing content from the Todd Bentley page without discussing it in hte talk page? The material you're removing is well cited both in areas newspapers, inntervirews, and agreeed on in Mr.Bentley's cited writing. --Oi!oi!oi!010101 (talk) 19:30, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

EBY thanks for your comments to my page I appreciate that our disagreement can be civil. I've noticed that you still insisted on removing the section on Bentley visitng Paul in heaven and entirely removing the 2 south florida newspapers as sources. This material is good for the artile and should be resinstated. I'm sorry that my writing is not encyclopedic enough but that does not mean that the info should be removed entirely. Could you please rewrite said material back into the article in the same way you incorperated the rest of the controversial materials? Thanks for the help. --Oi!oi!oi!010101 (talk) 19:46, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

What the fuck is wrong with you Barack Obama people?
Try out WP:DTTR, and stop templating people every time you disagree with them. The Evil Spartan (talk) 18:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I apologize for my response yesterday, it was inappropriate. Perhaps this can be a case-lesson; I will explain why I responded like that:
 * There is a history on this page of people continually trying to add questionably notable information on Obama's ancestry. The overwhelming consensus is that some information is good, but too much is bad. This is one reason why driveby reversions are a bad idea.
 * I have been warned on this page by less than cooperative editors before. If you read the DTTR essay, you will recognize immediately that the response that templating most often evokes is offense, anger, creating an enemy, etc.; it isn't just patronizing to slap someone with a long and productive editing history (moreso than yourself, you might notice) with an OWN tag, it is usually considered provocative. This is why driveby reversions with a warning are even worse.
 * I made two reverts; someone else had made one of this person, and the person adding the material had made two; and, of course, such material had been removed (properly) on many occasions by consensus. And yet you warned neither of those people. The Evil Spartan (talk) 21:48, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Regarding the Obama ancestry
You seem to be edit warring to insert disputed content on the Barack Obama page. Please recognize that: (1) edit warring is never a good thing - if you wish to add content that is disputed, please discuss the matter on the talk page and reach consensus first there; and (2) the Barack Obama article in particular is one of Wikipedia's most important, highly visited articles, and has been the subject of a lot of instability and edit warring, so it is particularly important to respect the need for consensus and civility there. If you continue to edit war on this page you may be temporarily blocked from editing the encyclopedia, possibly without the customary cycle of warnings. Thanks, Wikidemo (talk) 19:39, 5 July 2008 (UTC)


 * OK, sometimes I get that sometimes these things whip up quickly so I'm going to assume that's how you came to be involved and then to leave a warning on my talk page. In good faith, I seemed to have stumbled into some kind of tempest regarding Martinevans123 and his repeated additions of Obama's Welsh ancestry. I checked the discussion page and there was no pending conversation on the matter, and one of the editors engaged in the add/RM cycle had stated that his/her objections were a) it was trivial especially in light of the b) already massive length of the article.


 * "Oh," says I. "Well, an offer of an official visit is not so trivial and there are ways to make this bit smaller and folded in more appropriately as a compromise edit." And thus I did. Which has since then seen me singed by the same flamethrower that's spinning about this article. My point (and I do have one) is that edits are NOT always edit wars, and no one does own this article - so differing points of view should be a welcome thing to process, yes?


 * This is a conversation that should have quickly been taken to the Discussion page and I, like others, failed to do so. In my case, a moment of poor judgment - but not, emphatically and loudly, any attempt AT ALL to engage in an edit war. My edits tried to make what seemed to be an important nugget of material more acceptable to its gatekeeping editors. It didn't work, and I've walked away. EBY3221 (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. I see you weren't meaning to cause trouble and don't mean to imply you were editing with anything but the best of intentions.  Just trying to keep things under control on an unruly article.  Wikidemo (talk) 20:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)