User talk:Edison/Archive 2

WP:Church
I completely missed the merger of the guidelines (I've been busy, then came the holiday season). I don't see that the existence of a Wikiproject is relevant to the existence or non-existence of notability guidelines. Generally, I think if there is a problem (many controversial church article deletions) there is a need for a solution. A wikiproject would help create articles that pass AfDs, but I don't see its existence as relevant to the creation of notability guidelines. Lurker oi!  14:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

AFD
Hi Edison, On the AFD for Unicerosaurus you have !voted for deletion, stating the article is "nonsense". Actually, the information in that article is verified by the references included in the article. Best wishes, Firsfron of Ronchester  20:12, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Edison!
 * There are scientific papers (and books) on this nomen nudum. Armstrong's 1987 paper and Olshevsky's 2000 (and earlier) book. These are reputable scientists. I have worked very hard to improve Wikipedia's coverage on dinosaurs by creating articles for all genera, regardless of status as valid or invalid; because paleontology is an ever-changing field, many dinosaurs thought to be valid no longer are, and it often takes years for a consensus to be reached.
 * I would be very upset if this article was deleted, because (1) it would set a bad precedent that articles such as Aachenosaurus and Brontosaurus be deleted (neither genera are considered valid today) and (2) it lessens Wikipedia's coverage on dinosaurs. In an ironic twist, WikiProject Dinosaurs was forced to keep a misspelled article here. Only on Wikipedia would a correctly-spelled article get deleted while an incorrectly spelled article was kept as a redirect.  Firsfron of Ronchester  20:41, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

List of Articles related to quackery
I saw that you wighed in on a similar AfD today, and thought that you may want to share your wisdom here:. Thanks. Levine2112 22:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Tactics of the Roman century in combat AfD
Please take a look; you appear to have created two copies of the AFD. This notice courtesy of the Department of Redundancy Department. Edison 19:06, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Ironically, I found the whole process of nominating an article for deletion so arcane (this was my first) that I just submitted a request for approval for a bot to semi-automate it with a wizard interface! Thanks for the heads up, think I have fixed the double-up now, let me know if not. Cheers - PocklingtonDan 19:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

SETI
Howdy,

User:InShaneee has already commented at our project page, and I basically agree with him. We've pretty much established that Ufology falls under our scope, and I think SETI receives enough attention from the Ufology community that we should keep tabs on the page. Zagalejo 03:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

AFD relist (courtesy note)
Hi,

I've relisted Dudley (dog) (on which you recently voted) for AFD. I'm sorry for the almost immediate relist, the reason being, I was going to list it, and checking, found it had been recently listed. The relist is for two reasons: Again, apologies for the almost immediate relist; it's in fact completely independent of the first listing and for a completely different reason. Anyhow, a courtesy note so you are aware. FT2 (Talk 12:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) Per Deletion policy "The most common reason for a repeat nomination is that there was marked lack of discussion or lack of consensus in the original decision and the second vote is required to clarify opinion."  4 editors in a 3-1 split isn't really sufficient to show a consensus by the community. It's worth a relist for more opinions.
 * 2) The real issue with this article, and the basis upon which it should have been listed for AFD, is lack of notability, rather than lack of verifiability. (Verifiability of existence of the term is easily confirmed via Google)

Interview for public radio show
Hi there,

My name is Neille Ilel and I'm a producer with a national public radio show called Weekend America. We want to do a story on the fine line between an individual who deserves an entry on Wikepedia and one who doesn't. As someone who's weighed in on the issue, I was hoping you might be able to chat over the phone for a few minutes.

We're a conversational show and want to have a relatively laid-back discussion about what goes on in Wikipedia, just to let you know that this isn't a debate-type show where we encourage fighting.

If you're up for it, or if you have any questions, you can e-mail me at nilel (at) marketplace (dot) org to set something up.

[http://weekendamerica.publicradio.org/ ] Thanks! Neille

Neille i 22:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Web Producer Weekend America 213 621 3450 http://weekendamerica.publicradio.org/

response
Hi Edison,

I disagree with your assessment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shattered Consensus: The True State of Global Warming. I would have been surprised if somebody hadn't written a blurb about the book. However, consensus at Notability (books) is pretty clear that blurbs in publications that review thousands of books a year don't make a book notable. Every non-self-published book is going to have at least one trivial review, just like it will have an amazon page. The point is that not every published book is notable, so reviews only count towards notability if a selective publication decided that the book was notable enough to review.

I can't remember if you've participated in the discussion at WP:BK, but if you haven't I think the place to make your argument is there. GabrielF 18:59, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Poll
Thanks for alerting me to the poll. I've been busy with holidays and an ArbCom case, so hadn't been keeping up with the mall discussions. I'll take a look as soon as I'm done with my ArbCom evidence. --Elonka 21:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply
I replied on my talk page. Yuser31415 01:25, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Call for consensus
I posted a call for a final consensus discussion below the now-closed poll on the talk page for WP:MALL. The next step, I think can be some formal mediation process among the admins, which I have had to educate myself a little bit on tonight.--Msr69er 02:01, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Ukrainian-German collaboration during World War II
Hi! I saw your interests page, and I wish to explain a bit situation with mentioned history-related article.

In fact, we don't want to erase content of this, it will be merged into more global article like "Occupation of Ukraine".

Also, as you can notice, current version of article contains >50% about Holocaust, it's not the primary goal of it. If it will be merged into Occupation of Ukraine it will be more title-specific. Because at that times, there were Soviet people, not Ukrainians. And article particularly speaks about Jews.

Thanks for understanding, please provide your arguments. --Galkovsky 06:11, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Battery experiments
Hello and thank you for your kind and thorough response. First let me detail the specifics of my question.

In one of my mechanical engineering classes, we need to design a prototype that will follow a certain course and drop balls in specific containers. The only allowed sources of energy are 2 AA's, 6 elastic bands and potential energy. Since I already have a good background in electronics, I wanted to know if it were possible to do the whole course using motors and encoders for navigation, all controlled by a simple PIC micro controller.

After selecting a few motors that would be able to generate the necessary torque and speed, I needed to know if the current draw would be too much for theses motors. In the design, I provided a step-up DC/DC switching converter to obtain a stable 5V voltage regardless of the drain of the batteries (down to 0.7 V). The total consumption is estimated at 4 A at 5V (20 W). Note that this is all in theory right now and no prototypes have been built.

Seeing that the D cells lasted for 4 minutes, the AA alkaline cells will probably last under a minute at that discharge rate. Perhaps the prototype won't last long enough. Anyways, I'll do some tests on AA alkaline cells in the near future and post you with the results (if you are interested). Although it would be nice if you could do the test since I don't have much free time right now -- nor a 10-20W 1 ohm potentiometer ;-). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jcmaco (talk • contribs) 04:27, 18 January 2007

Question
Seeing you in the AFD discussion reminded me of this question (not related to the AFD) I was going to ask you after our conversation last month but forgot. I was wondering if you know whether there has been a proposal to make new users wait 4 days before creating an article, just like the required 4-day wait for page moves and editing protected articles. Seems this extra barrier would cut down on a lot of the uncontroversially inappropriate articles that make newpage patrol such a chore or slip past newpage patrol. New users who actually have a good contribution to make must be far fewer in number than the bad ones, and anybody can always submit articles through AFC. Also, good new users who have a serious contribution to make are more likely to stick around for a 4-day waiting period than not-so-good new users. I'm sure this idea must have been proposed and discussed somewhere, but I looked on Category:Wikipedia proposals and Perennial proposals and don't see it there. Any thoughts, and/or directions to where this has been discussed? Thanks, Pan Dan 12:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response. As you can imagine, I would definitely be a fan of WP:SPEW.  As for the waiting period for new article creation, I guess I'll take it to the pump.  Pan Dan 15:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Essay
How exactly does one create an essay such as yous User:Stifle/Don't say non-notable? I wish to create one that says "Don't spew" meaning please do not create articles on every minor character in a book, show or game when there are no sources independent of the book, show or game. I know how to create an article, but not an essay page such as yours. Thanks. Edison 15:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)
 * If you want to create it in your own user space, just create a link to it (like User:Edison/Don't spew), then click the link and edit it like a normal page. You can alternatively create it in Wikipedia space in the same way. If you do that, then make sure to put essay on it. Stifle (talk) 20:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

What is an "independent editorial board"?
Hi, Edison!

Thanks for your comments and thorough analysis on Articles for deletion/Daniel Avila. I would like to ask you, though: what exactly is the concept of an "independent editorial board" that you refer to, or the concept of "editorial oversight" that Reliable sources refers to? Independent editorial board and Editorial oversight are redlinks, and Editing and Editorial board don't yield much insight on these concepts. More specifically: if I wanted to determine whether or not a website like Game Show NewsNet has editorial oversight or an independent editorial board, how would I go about it? &mdash;Neuromath 21:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Note: Edison replied at User talk:Neuromath; further discussion there. &mdash;Neuromath 00:10, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

AFDs
Yes, I know they're not vote, and I suppose it was poor wording. I was just trying to show some good faith to a contributor I've been in conflict with. Thanks for the note, though. AniMate 22:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Archiving
You may want to consider archiving your talk page, as it is very long. See How to archive a talk page.

Cheers,  T  yson Moore   01:12, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Notability
Sorry, that was indeed inadvertent. Шизомби 12:55, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Porch collapse
You've persuaded me to retract my "delete" vote in the AfD. A minor (tongue-in-cheek) gripe: by characterizing my argument as a strawman on the basis that "not too many people have been killed by coffee spills," are you proposing replacing the Notability guideline with a Lethality guideline? ;-) PubliusFL 00:46, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Notes on dogs
I corrected that to be a little clearer. :) My dog's name is actually generally "What are you barking at this time?" Seraphimblade 19:35, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Blowing Up Satellites
Did the US, Russia and China destroy their own satellites, deployed for the purpose? --Seans Potato Business 20:59, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Your comment solicited
Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/BenBurch

Thanks! --BenBurch 23:06, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Personal Attacks
Would you like to have a look at the response to my contribution on Cultural Warriors (Baskets and Bombs)-item 14 of 8 January-then I think you will be in a better position to judge what a personal attack constitutes. My postings on the France and Germany question were in response to yet another attempt to question on my personal integrity, and are really rather mild. You seem to be taking a somewhat one-sided view of this matter, which is, of course, your prerogative: there is absolutely no reason why you should take a detached view. But please do not lecture me on personal attacks. I will happily avoid you just as I try to avoid that other person; but I will not tolerate attempts to undermine my honesty and intellectual credibility in a public forum. Clio the Muse 23:21, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I apologize if I misjudged you. However, you have seen how low this individual can sink, and these particular comments are only part of a more general history of obsessive and unhealthy behaviour on his part: he even removed material from a Wikipedia article to support a contention that I was making things up. Read again what he has written on the France and Germany question: he attempts to raise all sorts of doubts about my motives.  My comments are a vigorous response, which are both relevant and to the point, and well within the limits of frank intellectual exchange.  Thank you for your positive comments, and I do value your good opinion.  However, I would ask you to think about this matter again.  Loomis is a bully, and I will not be bullied.  I would not normally removed a posting from my talk page; but I simply cannot abide to see him quoted at length. Clio the Muse 23:47, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Edison my remarks in this particular context should really be seen against a wider background; but I did in fact raise the Cultural Warrior response on the Ref. Desk talk page (I can't remember the exact date, but it was not long after these remarks were posted). You will see, if you read it, that the response is quite variable, and some people seem to miss the essential principle altogether.  On the particular issue you have raised it is not disagreement that alarms me; I'm a big girl and can cope with that: it's the attempt to personalize the issues.  My comments were not intended as 'pay back', as you put it.  Acidy they may be, but I am simply questioning the sincerity-and authority-of the response.  However, as I say, this whole sorry business has to be understood in context.  You are more than welcome to keep an eye on this, as I have asked other users in the not so distant past.  To be frank with you I feel as if I am being stalked.  I hope this does not sound too paranoid. Clio the Muse 00:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, you are probably right; but this person has gone from an extreme of adulation (please read his past comments on my talk page) to an extreme of hostility. Quite often where I am there he is: it's a bit like having Mephistopheles in the shadows!  I try to avoid him where possible.  But, as I say, I will not be bullied. Clio the Muse 00:27, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I will be in Mexico for most of February, perhaps an appropriate and timely Wiki break. Clio the Muse 00:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I hope you have noticed, Edison, that once again I have been signaled out for 'special treatment', this time by User Froth. If not, you may be interested in his remarks about me on the RD discussion page under Not a Soapbox.  Clio the Muse 08:09, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Random Smily
For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Awardoriginated by Pedia-I  (Explanation and Disclaimer) Jerry lavoie 23:48, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Notability for news
Hi. Yeah, I saw your proposal and will be interested to see if it gets anywhere, but I don't really want to be involved thanks. I'm slightly disillusioned with deletion in general at the moment. All the best. Trebor 01:14, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Notability Guideline for News
First, let me thank you for your effort to create a guideline that addresses this issue and to improve Wikipedia. I am, however, quite reluctant to see something like this becoming a guideline. Frankly (and I hope you do not take offense), I do not think this guideline is necessary given the existence of WP:Notability. Also, the range of topics it covers is very large (as compared to, say, WP:BIO, which applies only to biographical articles). Everything in Category:History was, at one time or another, a "news item", and many of the best articles may not have satisfied the 3 criteria for years. Which brings me to my last point: I feel the guideline is too restrictive and exclusionary. The guideline notes that WP:Notability can be insufficient because "news stories are generally covered by multiple independent sources".

However, WP:Notability considers and excludes such superficial multiplicity: "The 'multiple' qualification is not specific as to number, and can vary depending on the reliability of the sources and the other factors of notability. For example, several newspapers all publishing the same article from a news wire service is not a multiplicity of works, while several researchers or journalists all doing their own research on a single subject and writing their own separate articles do constitute 'multiple' sources."

At the least, assuming that this guideline (or a similar version) is supported via WP:Consensus, please consider adding a fourth criterion for inclusion that reads something like:
 * An event is notable if it receives non-identical coverage in more than one reliable news source on multiple occasions.

Let me define my terms:
 * 1) "non-identical" means that the text of the news reports cannot be the same (e.g., 10 newspapers publishing reports that replicate the text of the same AP wire does not constitute "multiple").
 * 2) "coverage" refers to news reports that treat the event as the primary subject or that report on events that are the direct result of the original event (e.g., a reports on the "occupation of Baghdad by US forces" in 2003 that references the "invasion of Iraq by US forces").
 * 3) "on multiple occasions" requires that the event be newsworthy on at least two separate occasions (not necessarily by the same source) separated either by time or form.
 * 4) "by time" - an event is reported on the day it occurs and then further reported on 2 days later as new developments arise, even though the significance of the event has not changed during that period of time
 * 5) "by form" - the significance of an event increases over a given period of time (e.g., an event is reported on the day it occurs and 2 days later another news article reports on Angela Merkel giving a speech in response to the event or that references the event in a non-trivial manner)

To summarize: Given that I believe WP:Notability suffices for determining which articles should or should not be in Wikipedia (see quote) and that Wikipedia editors should be trusted to handle such matters through consensus. "Notable here means 'worthy of being noted'[1][2] or 'attracting notice'[3]. It is not synonymous with 'fame' or 'importance'. It is not measured by Wikipedia editors' own subjective judgements. It is not 'newsworthiness'."
 * 1) Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy,
 * 2) Wikipedia should avoid instruction creep, and
 * 3) it is official Wikipedia policy to do what is best for the encyclopedia even if it means violating some rules,

Thank you for reading through all of this -- unless you haven't ... ;-) -- and I apologize for writing such a lengthy comment. Cheers, Black Falcon 02:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Does "newsworthy" always mean "encyclopedic?"
Thanks for your thoughtful post about the proposed guideline. My concern is that we will have too many articles which are definitely news at the time they happen, as evidenced by the decision of newspaper editors and TV news show producers to present them. But they may be so commonplace that we would have articles about things which are a frequent part of daily life. The example was give of a fatal multipassenger car wreck in a small European country. It will definitely be presented in the 3 major newspapers and the 3 TV stations. Some would say, well, it still doesn't get in, because we require coverage on more than 1 day's events. So we have the accident reported on Feb 1, then the funeral on Feb. 4, with more coverage because one was a high school honor student (nonnotable but sympathetic). Then we have another when the hit and run driver is found and arrested. We hasve another round of stories when he is put ontrial and another when he is convicted. To go to a recent tragic missing white girls story, please tell me if there should be Wikipedia articles for Rachel Smith and Rachel Crites. The two girls, 16 and 18 went missing along with a car belonging to one around Jan 22, 2007 from Gaithersburg Maryland. On Jan 22, TV station NBC4 (Maryland?) ran a story "Police get leads from public. The Washington Post ran an independent  story "Police reach out to 2 missing teenagers " on page PB2. On Jan 23, CBS TV channel 5 in Montgomery County Maryland ran a story derived in part from an Associated Press story, "Diary may hold clue." WJZ, CBS-TV Baltimore Maryland ran "Diary may hold clues." CBS TV station KCAL in Los Angeles,  California ran a story originating from the Maryland TV station, giving the story coverage on at least both coasts. The Frederick News, Frederick Maryland ran an original story "Police search for missing teens." ABC-TV WJLA ran a story based on the Washington Post story. The Gazette-Net Maryland (print or net, not sure) ran  an original story "Search for missing teens."

On Jan 24, the Examiner.com Montgomery County Maryland ran an original story "Scope of search increases." The Maryland Gazette ran "Nationwide search launched for missing teens.

On Jan 25, NBC4.com ran an original story "Center for Missing and Exploited Children searches for teens.”

On January 26, Cox.net a cable TV news channel, ran "Two missing Montgomery County girls gone a week."

On Jan. 27, The Washington Post ran "Family member plead for a phone call. America's Most Wanted, a network TV program which had earlier run a brief story on the two, ran a feature story.

There was a gap, then on Feb. 2, Fox TV News ran "On the Record, a network program with Greta van Susteren, in which the story was covered extensively and the father of one was interviewed. The Herald Mail online of Hagerstown Maryland ran an original story "Missing girls might be in area." NBC-TV channel 25 of Hagerstown ran an original story "Police find car with two bodies," with no signs of foul play. Snopes.com, a respected website which is carried in numerous newspapers, ran "Rachel Smith and Rachel Crites" telling the sad story.

On Feb 3, the Washington Post ran "Missing MD teen car found with two bodies" on page A1, indicating it is a major news story. The Associated Press sent out "Teens most likely dead from fumes." no suicide note, no pills, ignition on. But one girl had expressed a desire that they be buried together in her diary.

So this story had numerous original stories, not just reprints, written over numerous days, carried in papers in Maryland and adjoining states, and carried on 2 network TV programs, and carried in TV stations around the country This Shakespeare-quality tragedy seems to fully satisfy [WP:N], [[WP:RS, and WP:V. Are there other guidelines which could be used correctly against in in AFD, or would it be deleted on grounds “It just isn’t important enough a story?Does it satisfy WP:BIO?  Compare to Jennifer Wilbanks who chose to run away and turned up safe. But Examiner.com, Washington D.C ran a story Jan 24 which said Montgomery County police (one county out of thousands in the U.S. had 1650 cases of runaways in 2006, and 811 remain open. Should we have 811 Wikipedia articles per county? Or only ones where two pretty teenage girls run way together in a Missing white woman syndrome.  ( I can think of several similar cases in my  medium size town) or only when they are found dead? Or is it a sad case for Wikinews? After doing the research and finding sources, I feel that I (or we) could write up a well sourced article on each girl or on the disappearance of both, and see if it survives AFD. It is a heart rending story for parents or friends of teenagers. But I'm not sure that this story or literally tens of thousands a year belong in an encyclopedia. I do not see new laws or any other change in society coming out of it. Can you find a reason for there not to be an article about this, or do you think I (or you) should write such an article? How many such cases of disappearances, crime victims, or even cute animal human interest stories get enough press coverage in enough independent sources over a long enough period to satisfy the filters you have listed and not get stories? Or is all news encyclopedic (not just Wikinewsworthy?) I really see the need for an additional filter to say, yes, it was widely covered for a couple of days or  weeks, but it is not encyclopedic. A fat cat stuck in a doggy door may make national news on the day he is rescued, and then again when the owner installs a giant doggy door, because editors love to keep going back to an appealing story.  Please give me your thoughts on my long (but labor intensive) reply to your long and thoughtful posting. Edison 21:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your thought-out and detailed response. To answer your question: No, "newsworthiness" does not automatically translate into "encyclopedic"?  Wikipedia should not have an article for every incident or person that makes the news.  You are quite correct to note that my suggested criterion of "non-identical coverage in more than one reliable news source on multiple occasions" for the notability of news items would permit a great many articles which even I agree would be unencyclopedic (such as 811 separate articles about missing persons for each regional political subdivision in the world--county, province, etc.).  However, I still believe that it is a necessary addition to this guideline assuming it is adopted (a part of me is still quite reluctant to embrace this new criterion despite my frustration at seeing unencyclopedic articles about captains of non-notable naval vessels, newly-established bands, etc.).
 * I believe the current criteria of the proposed guideline are much too strict and would justify the exclusion of articles like the Battle of Hurtgen Forest--a WWII battle that involved 200,000 soldiers and caused 45,000 casualties and yet had no great strategic importance--for years after its occurrence. Although WP's deletion process is imperfect, I think it works rather well.  Unencyclopedic topics, no matter how well-sourced or NPOV will eventually be tagged for deletion and a final decision can be reached based on consensus.  An article about a boy that is rescued from a well and then gets a dog is obviously not encyclopedic, and though it passes my criterion, that does not mean it is safe from deletion.  WP:Notability specifies the kind of articles that categorically do not belong, but it does not extend guaranteed protection over all others.  In any case, simple "news reports" (even if they have multiple sources) fall under WP#NOT.
 * Another concern: the criterion of secondary (non-news) documentation, publication, and/or analysis (which is essentially what the entire policy is) is likely biased toward certain countries that have a larger publication capacity. For example, you will find many detailed analyses of WWII battles (and even minor engagements) involving the US and UK, but far fewer on battles between the Third Reich and the USSR.
 * I will note again that the deletion process, though imperfect, is quite good. Articles that are newsworthy but unencyclopedic will be identified, targeted, and eventually deleted (the 7th sentence on WP:Notability specifically excludes merely "newsworthy" articles).  Given that "Notability is generally permanent", some news pieces may pop up as articles from time to time, but if long-term notability is not shown, they will be deleted.  I believe we should trust consensus to do what is best for the encyclopedia.  I would value your thoughts on the issues I have raised.  Cheers, Black Falcon 01:53, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Merger of Notability pages: Organizations with Companies and Corporations
The topic was discussed at both pages, and in December the discussion was redirected from Organizations to Comp/Corp, to eliminate redundancy. The merge tag has been posted for even longer. Parties to the discussion at both pages were notified directly that the merger was close to happening, and the consensus was reached after several days past.

The pages were merged, but the discussion pages were not. If you feel that the discussion pages should be merged, you have my support.

Talk to you soon.

Kevin --Kevin Murray 22:22, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Per your request, I have pasted the text from the page and talk page at your user page. Please let me know how else I can help. --Kevin Murray 22:33, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

You were not contacted since you had not specifically commented on the merger. The only parties contacted were those who had previously been involved in the discussion of the merger.--Kevin Murray 22:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the format of a "vote" was rejected, and consensus was reached by discussion. The support was overwhelming so it is not likely that another opinioin would have swayed away from the consensus. The least support was from an editor whose opinio was "six of one half dozen the other." --Kevin Murray 22:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Please look at how I added the Student news prohibition. In the adjacent section it discusses that sources can be added to support the text, but not be considerd for establishing notability

Edison, I read through some of your comments about the student newspapers. Without reading the whole discussion, I think I get your point that arbitrarily excluding them as viable sources is wrong. I agree. When I was combining the articles, that prohibition bothered me for the reasons you state. I feel the same way about many online sources which bring good information, but are not respected. However, like I have struggled with the online dilemma, how can you establish objective criteria for judging the independence and oversight at a school paper? Solving this conundrum might open the door to resolving other issues of source credibility. --Kevin Murray 01:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I see both sides of the issue. My preference would be to remove the metion of student newspapers as a specific prohibition, and replace that sentence with a sentence recommending that the accuarcy objectivity and editorial oversight of certain media be considered and then include examples such as tabloids, blogs, student papers, political papers, etc. I started to change that sentence in that direction during the merger, but felt I was overstepping my purview. Perhaps we could brainstorm between us on a general criteria, and then try to get consensus. I spend a good deal of time at AfD where I think that participants are already using good judgement to evaluate the sources. I would prefer to empower the wise minds, rather than hog tie them with too much wiki-law. Thanks. --Kevin Murray 01:45, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Recent AFD
In this active AFD, you say that you prefer the November 30th version of the article. Well, umm, maybe it is better in some ways, but if the article is left in that form, it will be speedily deleted again. After all, it has been twice already, and the ArbComm remedy encourages speedy deletion. So something has to move. The goal of redacting was to 1) refocus the article as being about the controversy, not the people and 2) eliminate whatever biographical content is possible. Might I have gone too far - yes. I think a complete rewrite, by someone that has the sources in hand, would be a good idea, but I didn't have the sources or the time for that during the DRV close. In this particular AFD, keep and cleanup is strongly discouraged as an opinion, cleaning up right away is encouraged. Also see Requests for arbitration, where the version in the history is even more disliked. GRBerry 20:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Roadcruft
Well, I guess I finally nailed my colors to the mast -> Articles for deletion/Pennsylvania Route 999‎. Did I go too far? Or not far enough? Edeans 02:49, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Money is the True God of the Jews
Edison, after being so zealous in (attempting to) reprimand me on my user page for my, at the very worst, "questionable" behaviour, I find it rather odd that you seem to have completely ignored a certain dispicable user by the name of Barringa.

This user actually went so far as to ask the question: "Is Money the True God of the Jews?" before going into a somewhat detailed question elaborating on this most ugly of questions.

Perhaps you missed it, and if so I understand. But now that you're aware of it, and myself being experienced in the fact that you take an active role in the integrity of the RefDesk, I fully expect you to post a message on this users talk page voicing your absolute disgust.

You were apparently disturbed by my conduct and voiced your objection to it. Fair enough. I took your objection seriously. But if you're not all the moreso disturbed by the conduct of this other user in asking such a disturbing, hideous question, and don't even bother to voice your disgust, yet at some time in the future once again voice your opposition to my conduct, then, well, I'll know exactly from what kind of person the criticism is coming from, and toss that criticism where it belongs: in the garbage. Loomis 06:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Here's the discussion you requested:


 * == True God of the Jews...? == == True God of the Jews...? ==


 * Beginning with the gold looted from Egypt and eventually formed the Golden Calf all the way up to Howard K Stern's persuit of money via a relationship with Anna Nicole Smith is money the true God of the Jews? -- Barringa 17:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC) + Question removed to : Reference_desk/talk see there.87.102.9.117 19:39, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No. God is the god of the Jews. The fact that the Levis were rewarded for their rejection of the Golden Calf simply demonstrates that. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 17:10, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, but did they do this only for the reward? -- Barringa 17:21, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * No, bceause they didn't know they would receive one. And their reward was to become an entire tribe of priests dedicated to God, so it was hardly monetary. Dev920 (Have a nice day!) 18:30, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you need to present more evidence for this. I wasn't even aware that Howard K Stern or Anna Nicole Smith were jews.87.102.9.117 18:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * By the way the article levi appears to be getting some sort of spam or something - maybe it should be 'spam protected'87.102.9.117 18:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * A word of advice, Barringa. The way you phrased your question, some may mistakenly construe you as an anti-semite, and anti-semitism isn't very PC these days. To avoid undue critisism, I'd suggest you rephrase it in political terms such as: "Is the insatiable pursuit of money the sole and guiding factor influencing Israeli foreign policy?" This way you'd be asking essentially the same question, however without being unfairly misconstrued as an anti-semite. After all, it's perfectly fair to question and criticize a country's foreign policy, right? Loomis 18:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
 * How does rephrasing the question make it any less anti-semitic? Same old garbage, different bag. Clarityfiend 19:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Loomis 14:16, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough? Will Barringa now be given any sort of dire warning as to his behaviour as I had? Or is the supposed baiting of (what I believe to be) a fraud so much worse of an offense than the spouting of outright, direct, unequivocal anti-semitic remarks? Loomis 06:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I really don't get why you don't understand my position. Is it really that confusing? It's just yet another case of Truth vs. Decorum, just like last time. It's my view, that as an Ecyclopedia, Wikipedia's most important role is to provide truth. Decorum, while being an important value, must never stand in the way of truth.


 * It's an unfortunate truth that despite our wishful thinking, anti-semitism is alive and well. Barringa is a living and breathing example. Nonetheless, many would like to bury their heads in the sand and pretend that anti-semitism is largely a thing of the past, that humanity has finally overcome this particular ugliness. Consequently, those like myself who do our best to remind the world that people like Barringa still exist today, are often branded as paranoid opportunistic Jews, disingenuosly relying on a long dead phenomenon to justify the need for a Jewish State. That, in a nutshell, is why I opposed the deletion of Barringa's post. While his statements may be utter nonsense, the fact that he exists is a vitally important truth, a truth that should be exposed as best as possible, rather than swept under the rug and censored. If we continue to censor these freaks, the world will inevitable assume that they don't exist. What could be a more harmful to the dissemination of truth?


 * For your convenience, here are a couple of quotes from Barringa:
 * "[T]he true God of the Jews is money - but delete it so as to hide this fact from everyone".
 * "Wikipedia is controlled by Jews who believe that God is money".


 * If his remarks are deleted, fine. But don't you think, at the very least, Baringa deserves a reprimand? Or is it your view that such open displays of anti-semitism are nowhere near as offensive to Wikipedia than an admittedly less than civil dispute between a self-styled-expert-on-everything, and another contributor who openly and perhaps even rudely disputes those facts claimed by the former (successfuly I should add). Is it your position that a possible violation of WP:NPA is so serious that it warrants the opening of a Refdesk talk page discussion concerning the alleged violator, whereas the openly anti-semitic comments of another user are of no consequence to you? In short, it would seem that you regard my behaviour as worse than that of a hideous anti-semite. Loomis 00:59, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Wrestling
Every single article up for deletion you go to about wrestling you just say "Wrestling is fake so delete", that is not a worthy reason, so please stop doing this. Kris Classic 14:49, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Wrestling is predetermined, but that doesn't mean every article about the said topic should be deleted for that reason. That would be like saying "All movies are predetermined, so I shall delete all of their articles!" Kris Classic 20:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. Thank you for your time. Kris Classic 23:36, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

David Hughes
Thanks for the info. I had never heard about Edison and Henry experimenting with radio. Perhaps that information should be in the related articles. I didn't know what Hughes called radio so I put it in quotes. My understanding is that one of the reasons the Royal Society turned up their noses at Hughes was because his experiments supported Maxwell's theories (whether or not Hughes was familiar with them) which the society didn't accept. Rsduhamel 23:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Merging
Edison,

On the prior merge it had been posted with tags for months before the final discussion was closed. You were inadvertently ommitted from the "mailer" discussing a final close of the merger. Your no vote would not have affected the total. Please accept my appology and let's continue to work together. --Kevin Murray 00:26, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your kind notes; I appreciate your thoughts. I hope that you don't mind me rephrasing my hasty comment; I was a bit frustrated. --Kevin Murray 01:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that we have the same overall goal of inclusion without spam and trivia. Getting there may be the challenge.  What worries me more than anything else about permutations of guidelines is the confusion, but I will only be restating to you what I've said before.  It seems that the Cong page is well written in general.  I agree that a "sandbox" version of the merged criteria would be a good example. --Kevin Murray 01:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Upgrade
As far as I can tell, WP:N is an accepted guideline, albeit with some changes being proposed discussed. I know there are some other people who believe you can upgrade or downgrade pages, but the point is that that really doesn't work. This stems from the idea that a page's quality is determined by the tag that's on it, and can therefore be changed by changing that tag - whereas in fact the page's quality is determined by actual practice, and the tag is simply a convenience to reflect that.

An essay is a piece of opinion; you cannot, by definition, make an opinion factual by saying so, which is in effect what people are attempting when they try to "upgrade" an essay. A guideline is a description of the way things work; you cannot cause things to stop working that way by calling the description an opinion - which is what people are attempting to do when they try to "downgrade" a guideline. The page WP:PPP tries to explain this in greater detail. HTH!  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  10:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Notability guidelines
I'm not too happy with the "royalty" guidelines. I believe them to be overly specific and would prefer to see them merged to WP:BIO. There does not appear to be consensual support for it as a separate guideline, and it appears to be stuck in "permanent proposal" status, which is inappropriate (per WP:POL). I kind of understand how the PornBio business got started but I'd say it's a bad idea to have separate (and divergent) guidelines by profession. On the whole I'm trying to keep the overall amount of guidelines down, but that's not particularly easy.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  10:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

My interest in gulls
''Kurt: do you have really strong interests in particular subjects (like gulls) which bewilder your family? What strong interests have you had in the past? Regards. Edison 05:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)''
 * Just gulls, my friend. It started when I raised a baby GBB gull pretty much from the egg. She fledged, then started hanging around outside (ten years and counting!) from time to time, bringing a load of other gulls with her (and later, her own chicks). I thought that this was pretty cool. I've managed to build up a rapport with some of the other wild gulls - they seem to like me, or at least see me as a soft touch who'll give them free food every day (they're there every single morning, waiting for me in the garden - if I'm not awake in time, they come to the windows and start tapping). Does that sound weird? :) --Kurt Shaped Box 13:11, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Per Policies and guidelines:
''"A rejected page is any proposal for which consensus support is not present, regardless of whether there's active discussion or not. Consensus need not be fully opposed; if consensus is neutral on the issue and unlikely to improve, the proposal is likewise rejected. Making small changes will not change this fact, nor will repetitive arguments. Generally it is wiser to rewrite a rejected proposal from scratch and start in a different direction."
 * --Kevin Murray 01:17, 28 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Indeed, what he said. Wikipedia doesn't work with "motions to reject" or "efforts to label" or anything. Rejection isn't a "motion", it is the simple acknowledgement of a lack of consensus. So people aren't "trying to reject" anything; the page is rejected because it has no consensus.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  15:34, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Your or Kevin's impression of a lack of consensus is just that: your subjective impression. It is not an objective fact. I se other guidelines which were tagged as such despite some disagreement. A couple of people can always barge into a guideline which expresses the actual practices in AFDs and introduce changes and disagreement then claim there is no consensus then claim the guideline is rejected. This is disruptive. I see a pattern of trying to merge guidelines into more general guidelines, which would not be the end of the world if those were then modified to address the concerns which arose form AFD endless repetition of the same arguments, and if that fails labelling guidelines or proposed guidelines as "disputed" "rejected" or "historical" then trying to delete them altogether. Then Kevin in claims because there is no consensus at WP:CONG there is "nothing to merge" so all that would be left of the deprecated guideline is a redirect to something so general it means whatever one wants it to mean. Then we are  back to the repetitious unending arguments at AFD that films, malls, schools, professors, books, newsstories are always/never notable. I see the general guidelines such as WP:N being chewed away at with "multiple nontrivial" references being replaced with "sufficient" or some such meaningless inanity. The end result is twofold: articles about notable things get deleted, and articles about nonnotable things get kept, with excessive repetitious arguments in MFD and AFD, to the detriment of Wikipedia. 15:58, 28 February 2007 (UTC)
 * If you have problems with the way WP:N is being edited, I would suggest you go to that page and fix it. WP:BOLD and all that.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  16:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:CONG
I believe requested full protection of the page because of an edit war. I went ahead and processed that request, as it was evident that an edit war was brewing. Hope that answers the question. Remember that protection is not an endorsement of the current version of the page, and I have no prior involvement with this article. Hope that answers your question,  Nish kid 64  20:33, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "Edit warring" is the reason for fully protecting almost all pages. Also, it seems you guys are still discussing the article, so I don't think it is appropriate to unprotect the page. Contact me when you have an agreement with all other editors who were conflicting with you over the article.  Nish kid 64  23:57, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

PORN
Funny you should mention that! I joined that dicsussion today. I think that should go for multiple reasons more so than just CREEP. It will be nice to play on the same team. Cheers! --Kevin Murray 00:00, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Your comment at Wikipedia talk:Attribution
Well said! Exactly the point I'm trying to make! --Coppertwig 13:24, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Userpage
Hey, when you get vandals mad enough to vandalize your userpage, you know you did something right! (I did warn them, you're just missing that particular one under the large pile of warnings on the page.) Seraphimblade Talk to me Please review me! 03:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Great job
I'm really impressed with the List of fat actors article. Great work! I voted to keep the article at the AfD. Otto, the nominator, has made many of the same arguments at some of his other deletion nominations, including Articles for deletion/List of Christmas dishes, where several editors have made what I think are some compelling arguments against his points. You may want to take a look at those.

I think lists of what I call "cultural" items (nonscientific subjects where there's no authoritative source saying "these things are in the list and those are not") may have a strike or two against them that make them more likely for someone to nominate for deletion. It might be prudent to have a paragraph on the talk page of each one of these that emphasize the need for citing sources for each item (I see you've done that) but also explaining what's included and what isn't and some ways the list might be used by some readers.

I gave some reasons why I thought this fat actors list might be important to some readers. I also think a list of actors who have worn fat suits could be useful, either tacked on to this list or separate from it, but it's not my subject. Noroton 23:22, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Earl_of_Holland
It's perhaps not ideal using LRs site -it's not obviously cited by item as is but it does have much the easiest lists of holders whereas the previous site you do have to go to some effort to make up a list. Sadly the online (free) version of burkes / cracrofts only shows the present holders and doesn't list all holders. Alci12 19:06, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Delete vote
Hello Edison.

In your vote here, you said the article is "referenced".

I beg to differ. The article does not a single source. None at all. Zero. I would appreciate it if you would take that into consideration and re-evaluate your vote.Bless sins 22:55, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello Edison. Consider this:"If an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it." (WP:ATT) Thus the deletion of the article is justified.Bless sins 16:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Independence
I have replied to your comment at my talk page. -- Black Falcon 04:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Reference Desk
On the reference desk, someone asked an odd question about "nymphs and humans" and you posted "Secondly, please try and rewrite your question - I can't waste too much time answering a question I don't even understand." Please do not bite the questioner. If you don't understand what the person is asking, or if they seem disoriented, please just ask for clarification or simply go on to the next question. Thanks. Edison 16:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Although understand that in a way I was asking for a clarification (although it should be said that clarification should contain specifics - which I did not give). The question seems very suspicious, and another user simply answered "I think you should see a doctor" - which was far less helpful than my answer - which in fact attempted to help - was. But I suppose I should have phrased my answer a bit better, wouldn't say I *bit* the newcomer per sê, just gave up on the question. Rfwoolf 16:13, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Revert of Thomas Edison
I had a quick run through all the edits since the version you reverted back to just now, and I could only find one other minor spelling edit that needed to be restored. Oh, some days... ;O) Flowerpotman talk-wot I've done 00:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:RD/M
Your answer was quite beautiful. My compliments. —Steve Summit (talk) 13:52, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

About: Ref desk and user:JaneAusten
You may want to contact user:JaneAusten about her sloppiness with regard to comparatives. It also seems she needs to get her house in order about her pronoun usage, as well. And as for user:WilliamShaksper, he can't even spell his own name let alone anything else, his grammar's all over the place, and ('vasty'? what's that supposed to mean?) he thinks it's just fine to make up words as he goes along! Young people these days, I tell you... --Shirt58 11:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Edison trivia deletion
You should probably READ the hello page (First Use section). It clearly states examples of the word's use (with that spelling) as a greeting in literature dating to the early 1800's. Apologise any time you want.tactik 04:31, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * "On this occasion she switched it on to a patient who was awake and who merely said 'Hello Sister, what's the matter with you..." - now, I'm not a English/Literature teacher, but by the way this is written there is no surprise invoked (use of the term 'merely') and it is clearly being used as a greeting. I take the Edison accreditation of "hello" as an urban myth (like many other items and events attributed to him). I would possibly accept that he may have been the first person to say it on the telephone (not really notable, considering...), but it has to be understood that he; did not invent the word; was not the first to use it as a greeting; did not affect it's use or the spelling of the word. There is zero evidence supporting the claims, and plenty actually disproving them (as seen in the Helloarticle). In fact all those suppositions are refuted beautifully by the above quote, from 1826.tactik 07:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The example I mentioned was already in the article (have you even read through it?). Noted, you changed the wording to credit him with using the word specifically as a greeting on the telephone - you don't think it is ridiculous to credit such a thing considering it was already a standard greeting. Shall we now credit other people for using hello as a greeting in other situations? The first to use it as a greeting to mountaineers? The first to use it as a greeting on an internet chat?
 * And as for your sarcastic remarks - seeing as 'hello' is used in Mark Twain's novel "Roughing It", printed in 1872 (written between 1870-71) this would seem to be a great blow to the OED's claims of 1880's origination. Don't you think.tactik 09:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Iran War
I could use some help here. Articles for deletion/Iranian-American War--Lee1863 15:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Band
In a recent AFD you wrote:
 * Delete' per nom. Bands which have names at all confusable with real-world things should always have (Band) in the name, as in Wheatstone Bridge (Band). There is an important electrical circuit called a Wheatstone bridge. No one looking for information about it should have to see an article about some obscure band. This should be an automatic practice: see a band, rename it with (Band) in the title. Edison 18:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Since this was an AFD that also discussed a capitalization error, I feel I need to point out that bracketed words should not be capitalized, so it should've been (band) rather than (Band). - Mgm|(talk) 08:22, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Alekhine's defense, Modern variation, 4...Bg4
Hi, you stated in this AfD that you considered the nomination to be too broad. As I asked the other user who made the same remark, I do not see how. They are all on the same subject, and I feel that the numbers are low enough that they can be appropriately considered even if they are of slightly different levels of quality, as the difference between any of them is minimal at best. I deliberately selected a variety of page qualities in order to give folks a wider picture of the situation, and a number of different openings to consider. So I'd like you to explain your concern further if you could. Would you prefer fewer nominations? Is there some great difference between the article qualities that I'm not seeing here? I've had problems with mass nominations myself, but I do not see why this one is such a problem, and your response didn't articulate it. If you wish, you can reply back on that page, so more people can see it. Thanks in advance FrozenPurpleCube 23:08, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Rejected Tag
This seems to be a custom rather than a policy. I tried to edit text at several rejected pages and was slapped down. The premise of the AfD on the FILM guideline is that rejected guidelines should stand as examples of what has failed in the past; this was a pretty well discussed consensus. I think that we can extrapolate from that an expectation that the text will remain undisturbed. Your thoughts? --Kevin Murray 21:42, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Further response
Much as I'd prefer that the rejected policies stay rejected, there should be a method for resurrection if the needs of WP change. My absolute preference would be to delete these and "salt" the title until admins are convinced that there is broad-based support for resurrection. No worries, no one will support me on this.

I like your first proposition of developing a prototype and then seeking consensus to replace the existing rejected page with a new proposal. Evaluating consensus is such a shady area though, and really who among us who debate at the notability infrastructure truly represents a consensus of the overall participants in the project?

I think that before we try to resurrect or create new guidelines, we should all participate in the discussion about what the overall infrastructure should be. I'm in the middle (I think). I believe that we need some form of measurement for encyclopedic suitability call it notability or something else. Do we need specific guidance on shopping malls? On the one hand it wouldn't hurt, but as I've frequently said the accumulation of pages could be overwhelming. I'm not as sure any more as I was and resolving the major issue of continuity might make me more supporting of sub-pages.

PS: I really appreciate your kind and wise words on the other matter. --Kevin Murray 22:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If I may weigh in on this... yes, rejected proposals can be "revived", e.g. become a proposal again, but in order for this to work you should really (1) advertise a lot to get more feedback, and (2) take a good look at earlier criticism and try for a different angle, otherwise it amounts to beating a dead horse. I should point out that I've never seen this method actually work, however, generally due to people omitting point #2. It usually boils down to the page being rejected again, so caveat emptor.  &gt; R a d i a n t &lt;  11:22, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Template:pnc nominated for deletion
See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Template:pnc for the discussion, which will certainly spill over into larger issues. Your thoughts would be appreciated. --Kevin Murray 23:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Igor Jancevski
I would like to see your opinion, following your contributions on the talkpage of WP:BIO. If international player does not mean notability, then I am wondering why this article will be kept. User:KRBN 20:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review
As you were involved in the deletion discussion, I thought you might like to be made aware of Deletion review. Epbr123 18:59, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Looking for input
Hello, you recently participated in this AfD. There is a discussion going on at the article's talk page about the title of the article, so I am notifying everyone who voted or commented on the AfD in case you wanted to participate in the discussion. Thanks! Tufflaw 00:55, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Paging you to the Science Reference Desk...
Reference desk/Science

Atlant 14:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks!


 * Atlant 15:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Howdy
im sorry but i dont have time, this guy is everywhere going crazy on any editor that does not agree with him. Look at my contributions and see what he's up too. CINEGroup 16:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

News
Hi.

The terms "news item", "news story", etc. are in my mind not a separate category. An occurrence, topic, or entity exists separately from the news coverage about it, and its notability should be judged on its own attributes. Having news coverage may help to establish notability.

I think that the most important aspect of the essay is: ''Where a single news wire has been used by several news publications, this should only be counted as a single source in all notability discussions. Likewise, when reporters base their information off other news coverage (for example, "CNN reported that ..."), the coverage is only a single source. Such derivative reports are not independent of each other and can not be used to verify each other. '' and that this concept should be more prominently included at WP:N. I think we put it in a while back, but the guts have been negotiated away. What do you think? --Kevin Murray 20:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

An Automated Message from HagermanBot
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! HagermanBot 05:04, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Auditor
I see that you voted on the AfD of Robert Arbuthnot (auditor). I just thought I would tell you that I have now put together an article on the Auditor of the Exchequer in Scotland. Regards, David Lauder 15:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Walther P22 disputes continues
Hello. The discussion of whether to include a mention of the Virginia Tech massacre at the Walther P22 article continues. Earlier, a compromise was reached to include a mention of the Viriginia Tech massacre in a "See Also" section of this article, but now that idea is being debated. Care to weigh in? The Walther P22 is being discussed here. Griot 16:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

MAlls
Thanks for pointing out my error. I made the change. That entry about the space available seems liek advertising, especially in the lead paragraph. Should it be removed? --Kevin Murray 22:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

nom disappearance
it looks like i removed the nom, but i removed the dead link to the nom, which was messing up the page. i was voting adding my 2 cents on the afd for the article, when it disappeared. it seems someone speedily deleted it. however, they deleted the entire afd entry, including votes. the template was left on the page (as you can see from the link you sent me), and it was interfering with another afd. in essence, i removed the red link, not the afd itself. if you look at the version i changed, you will see that i haven't gone daffy. the_undertow talk  02:44, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * have a look here . at the bottom you will see the afd that somehow got deleted. the_undertow talk  02:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * i assumed a sysop took it down because the name of the article itself could be used for evil! i dont think they could have left a notification on the afd main page without making people even more curious. haha. the_undertow talk  03:08, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * It is so hard to unring a bell. Edison 03:10, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I will launch a deletion review if there is no explanation.SYSS Mouse 03:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * that code is really much less dangerous than it's made out to be (although i understand its immediate removal). should we speedy DVD43 as well? the_undertow talk  01:23, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: That 09 DVD string page deletion review
I added a comment on the deletion review page, but it was apparently removed without the courtesy of contacting me. The AFD was closed ignoring Wikipedia AFD process, then the Deletion review was closed ignoring Wikipedia Deletion review process (no 5 day period was allowed). Did the Wikipedia Foundation receive a demand the article be removed instantly, so as to prevent normal processes to be followed? Did the legal counsel of the foundation tell someone to remove the article and AFD forthwith? You stated that it had been done by oversight. Do you yourself have oversight authorization? If not you then who erased the AFD and all comments in the AFD debate? Is there a log of oversight actions? Does it seem like a good idea when oversight makes something "go away" to explain the action on the talk page of the AFDs for the day? There could be an explanation without repeating the secret squirrel number itself. Thanks. Edison 03:31, 3 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Process is a tool, used to alleviate the tedium of having to repeatedly work out methods of dealing with common, repetitive situations. The less typical a situation, the less useful the typical methods of dealing with it become.
 * No I don't have oversight access. A log is kept, but for obvious reasons, is only available to those with oversight access. It can only have been one of these people. You might like to make a game of guessing who. --bainer (talk) 04:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: "The knowledge needed to start from scratch"
I really liked your answer. Well done. —Steve Summit (talk) 04:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Help?
Do you think you can help me with my questions:


 * Reference_desk/Humanities


 * Reference_desk/Humanities


 * Reference_desk/Humanities

--Goingempty 01:24, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Amanda (Buffyverse)
In the AfD for Amanda (Buffyverse), you voted for "deletion", but did not say much about it beyond claiming the article as unreferenced and calling it "fanspew", which is a judgemental tone (per Wikipedia:Civility) and should be avoided. Also, the reason why the article is important is noted in the AfD article, where it is mentioned that there is a reference as to Amanda being a notable recurring character in the Buffy series' seventh season (the Buffy Magazine article, which falls under No original research and Reliable sources). Starbuck-2 00:24, 12 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I changed my vote at the article to merge into Amanda's section at the Minor characters of Buffy the Vampire Slayer article just before you replied at my talk page about doing a merge, so I think merging the article would make sense, something I think we can agree on. Starbuck-2 03:04, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Qian Zhijun
You commented on Articles for deletion/Qian Zhijun. It has been closed early after a confusing and IMO unfortunate sequence of events. I have now listed it on Deletion Review. You may wish to express your views there. DES (talk) 00:55, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Belated thanks
for this - - just beautiful! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adambrowne666 (talk • contribs) 01:18, 23 May 2007  (UTC)

5280
Hey, Edison! Been reading Articles_for_deletion/5280_%28number%29 - gotta say, your "spare the rod and spoil the mile" comment was first rate! Keep up the bad puns :-) Js farrar 22:43, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Clio Invictus
Thanks for your good wishes, Edison, they are very much appreciated. A copy of my dissertation will wind its way towards you in due course, in published form and at an astronomical cost in postage. However, Clio is still here, and you will understand why if you read 'Clio Arises' on my talk page. There was a little drama, which left some blood on the carpet, not mine, of course! Clio the Muse 01:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Madeleine
"attractive white girls" If English is your second language and that was a mistake no problem. Otherwise man you need to watch your mouth. You don't call a four year an attractive white girl. 74.122.209.176 22:47, 29 May 2007 (UTC) Jordan
 * The term relates to the Missing white woman syndrome in distinction to the "unattractive white women," the men, and the minority females whose disappearance goes unnoted by the 24 hour TV news channels. I am a North American native speaker of English. Your IP address indicates Roger Cable, Toronto, Ontario Canada so I assume you are also reasonably fluent in English. "man you need to watch your mouth" sounds like a threat, and is inappropriate on Wikipedia as a violation of WP:NPA.Edison 14:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Brown's gas
There is no reliable scientific evidence that Brown's gas or HHO (Hybrid Hydrogen Oxygen) is anything more than oxyhydrogen.


 * Agreed wholeheartedly. That's why we need an article explaining and debunking the claims made about each.  Why would you not want this? — Omegatron 17:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually, the main promoter has been driven off. The only people contributing to the article right now are skeptics and one pseudoskeptic who keeps adding crap like "Some scientists disagree with Mr X."
 * Neutrality means leaving it up in the air until reliable facts can be added. But we need real, reliable refutations, not weasel words.  We'll get it done if he stops interfering and nominating it for deletion.
 * If you agree that the article needs work, but is about a notable subject, then you shouldn't be trying to delete it. It will just be resurrected again by the crackpots someday and we'll have to start all over again from scratch.
 * "Repeated re-creation of an article by previously unassociated editors may be evidence of a need for an article, but repeated nominations for deletion are not necessarily evidence that an article should be deleted" — Omegatron 17:58, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

You sound like you have more chemistry background than me. I'd love if you could help contribute to the article. See Talk:HHO gas. — Omegatron 18:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Julian Sprung
THanks for your nice comment you left in my page. You know, I was reviewing Articles for deletion/Julian Sprung, and I think maybe the best approach there would be a nice "expand". Your take? Stellatomailing 20:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yep, I guess I will withdraw the nom, but I need to find somebody who knows about reefs, etc. Any suggestion? Stellatomailing 20:48, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Tarriff
The word tarriff is a fixed value placed upon something so this can generally be applied to anything.--Lucy-marie 22:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review Kari Schull et al
You participated in the AfD for Kari Schull where the nominator is attempting to overturn the "keep" decision at [deletion review Kari Schull]. This discussion is linked to 3 others the previous day, where the author of the articles is attempting to use the "keep" at Kari Schull to overturn the rejection of his other similar articles. Interesting potential precedents for the applicatrion of BIO, or for the reform of special case notability criteria --Kevin Murray 18:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Response to your comment
I agree that "Yawn" is not an appropriate criterion for deletion of an article; it was not intended to be one. Nor was it intended to demean the deceased, so I apologize if that impression were conveyed. I'm simply tired of the bereaved's seemingly frantic efforts to sieze their putative 15 minutes of fame in the wake of the loss of their loved ones. While it is true that they should not be simply forgotten, that does not in itself give them a measure of notability. The "Yawn" was an expression of boredom with the proliferation of such articles on Wikipedia. I suppose a more valid response would be to merely ignore said articles on AfD and focus on others less annoying to me. Thanks for taking the time to bring this to my Talk page. --Nonstopdrivel 16:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Re:Vandalism by 74.12.11.192
Well, I figured since it was the only edit that the IP had made, I'd start with a "beginner" warning and work my way up if necessary. Besides, sometimes vandals just want to get a rise out of the editors, and a milder rebuke will deny them the satisfaction! ... disco spinster   talk  19:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Deletion overturns
Done --soum talk 15:26, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Good job on having these redone. Much as they look like valid deletion candidates, the WP:SNOW closure was a bit irregular and I'd have said something but you beat me to them.  Ark yan  &#149; (talk) 15:37, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Radio: Tesla Vs Marconi
I take note of the info on your User page about your interest in attribution issues, so I'd like to ask your views on this oldie:

I recently compared the pages for Tesla and Marconi and I can't conclude who is really the inventor of radio communication. I have noticed that the popular "default" belief gives the credit to Marconi. If Tesla managed to convince the US Supreme Court doesn't that settle the issue legally? Regardless of legal acceptability, is there any historical source that can be relied upon? Retarius | Talk 02:43, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thankyou for your reply. It puts the dispute in a nice precis! Retarius | Talk 01:35, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Res publica
Please read carefully what I said in the AFD. I did not complain that the article was 1310 words long; I complained that it contained 1310 words of cut and paste from primary sources, and this is Wikipedia, not Wikisource. An article should quote secondary sources, not just paste in lengthy extracts from the primary sources. Edison 04:38, 27 June 2007 (UTC)


 * My apologies, I didn't read that correctly. I agree that the lengthy PD stuff needs to come out, but still feel the article has merit in terms of enc. value. Thanks for pointing out my oversight. Pedro | Chat  07:39, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

AAA battery current
Nicely done! I was going to try this myself, but I was hesitant for fear of burning something up, and you beat me to it. --Steve Summit (talk) 14:18, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Re
Instead of lecturing me, please look at who nominated the article and what their first handful of edits were, thanks. If you want it reopened so badly then just do it. &mdash;Xezbeth 21:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Requests for comment/Alansohn
I want to genuinely thank you for your comments at Requests for comment/Alansohn. I'm not sure how or why you found this, but your comments are truly appreciated. Alansohn 01:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Densa
It does look like it's there, so sorry to question it's authenticity. Looks like the article will be kept and it has a ton of references by now so I won't AFD anymore after this. Cheers. The Parsnip! 01:23, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD notification
First off I apologise if this is considered an attempt to "vote-stack", but I think it's a slightly different issue since you already" voted to keep the article George W. Bush pretzel incident back in March...it's now back on the AfD list, despite'' it's earlier "Keep" verdict - and I'd appreciate an extra voice if your opinions are unchanged. It is at Articles for deletion/2002 George W. Bush pretzel incident (2nd nomination), much thanks. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 04:50, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Buffverse
I just posted to the AfD agreeing with you. I really dislike the previous excessive detail in some of the articles in this group, but I think removing the plot entirely is going much too far. Where else should we say this?DGG (talk) 16:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC) Right. (Plot of novels is a separate matter with different considerations, and I think the arguments may be different since they are individual novels--I think a better argument for Les miserables is that the plot as such is of critical importance in its own right, not that the WP article can or should serve instead of reading the book). If you argue this anywhere else let me know, & I'll join--I think there is a point is raising questions like this at different places, and repeating every few months, because gradually a consensus can change--I've seen several such since I've been here. Our arguments complement each other. You say there are sources discussing the plot--why not add them to the present article at AfD right now as it stands and we can argue on that basis. I think it would be defensible.DGG (talk) 16:37, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Jennifer Ann Crecente
You included a link to the AfD for the above-referenced article on Wikipedia_talk:News_articles. Could you please modify the statement "High school student shot to death by boyfriend." to "High school student shot to death by former (emphasis added for clarification) boyfriend."

Additionally, the top of the list states "Note: this list includes articles about people, things or incidents which were newsworthy and have 2 or more press or TV citations, but some do not judge to be encyclopedic." While this is true of this article that is not the primary discussion underway. The AfD was undertaken to merge this article with Jennifer Ann's Group, a non-profit charity created as a result of the murder. It may not be entirely appropriate to include this article in the list for this reason. Just a suggestion. Thanks. Drew30319 20:52, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the change. It wasn't clear to me if the list was somehow sancrosanct so I erred on the side of caution! Regarding the quotemarks on "former," I actually was attempting to italicize the word to make it clearer which word needed to be added - I must have done something incorrect for it to appear as quotes instead. Thanks again for the change and I agree with your sentiment regarding this and other similar tragedies. Drew30319 19:47, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Drew30319 18:12, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Christianity and Buddhism
Remember that your AFD vote only applies if the article stays at "Buddhism and Christianity" - Remember that the article was at "Buddhist influences on Christianity," which was NOT encyclopedic. WhisperToMe 16:42, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

episodes
You'll probably be interested in the AdF at , and perhaps the MfD at  .DGG (talk) 01:04, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

faux
I've made a comment, and would welcome you response, on Articles for deletion/Zeitgeist the Movie. &#151; Xiutwel (talk) 11:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: I'm concerned about Les Mis closing admin comments
Please take a look at this, in which you're mentioned:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3AEveryking&diff=144118145&oldid=143937492

Independently of Kurykh's comments to Everyking, I've left a message at Kurykh's talk page to complain/state my concerns. I don't know everything about how admins are supposed to handle deletion closings, and I recognize some judgment is involved. I'm going to look into what the guidelines say, and if you don't mind, could you tell me what you think (especially about my comments at User talk:Kurykh?

I think it would be best to see how Kurykh replies on his talk page and consider that before saying anything further. Noroton 16:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Your opinion welcome at deletion review for Plot of Les Mis
After Articles for deletion/Plot of Les Misérables closed as a deletion, I'm challenging the way the closing administrator acted as in violation of Wikipedia rules. Your participation is welcome at that discussion, Deletion review/Log/2007 July 14. Please keep in mind that only arguments related to either new information or to how Wikipedia rules were violated or not violated in closing the discussion will be considered. It isn't a replay of the original AfD. I'm familiar with WP:CANVASSING and I am alerting everyone who participated in that discussion to the deletion review. I won't contact anyone again on this topic, and I apologize if you consider this note distracting. Noroton 04:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Your babies
can I have them? That's the perfect comment, in the perfect place, at the perfect time. -- L augh! 21:11, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * ...so is that a yes? -- L augh! 22:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Cool Globes: Hot Ideas for a Cooler Planet
I note that you have reverted my edit on Cool Globes: Hot Ideas for a Cooler Planet. I removed Category:Energy conservation and Category:Environmentalism since they are not appropriate categories for this article. If this article is to be included in those categories there would be hundreds of other articles that should be included. Articles should not be included in a category if the connection is tenuous or there is a suitable sub-category. Note that the article is in Category:Environment of the United States. Alan Liefting 10:44, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * My main objection for it to be added to the higher level categories is that if this article is added there are hundreds more that would be equally valid. The category system works best by having articles in suitable subcategories for ease of navigation to a particular article rather than having the higher level categories cluttered with less relevant articles. The high level categories are for VERY relevant articles to the category name as are the sub-categories.


 * If the art project was internationally renown or involved many other countries (rather than just the state of Chicago) it would be justifiable to include it in the higher level categories. Alan Liefting 21:52, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I have expanded my argument at Talk:Cool Globes: Hot Ideas for a Cooler Planet which is where we should continue this discussion. Note that I am not concerned about server issues but about usability issues. Alan Liefting 01:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Speedy close
"Now to shift gears, what exactly would one do to do a non admin speedy close? I am considering giving it a go at Articles for deletion/Conversion of canal water into drinking water which I see as a good candidate." What do you mean by that? Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 23:39, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * The only time I ever close an AfD as "delete" is if someone else deletes the article but forgets to close the AfD discussion. When I closed the Cartoon Network BLOX one, the article had already been deleted but the AfD was still open. A check of the page's deletion log indicates that he did indeed nuke the page. Ten Pound Hammer  • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 00:28, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Smerge
Yeah, the Smerge may be my greatest contribution to Wikipedia, for what that's worth. I'm glad to see it caught on though. As for the random article test, I think it would be quite interesting to see what it shows as the site approaches the 2 million mark. I'm not sure I have the patience to do it again though. I've actually been trying to spend less time on Wikipedia sa I have increasing other things that I need to deal with. I have a feeling the results won't differ too much (a smaller proportion of Rambot and such obviously, but no huge changes in the major groups). I have a suspicion that average article quality is going down, the fastest growth rate being in articles of poor quality and dubious value, but the system doesn't test for quality, nor do I have any data from before for comparison (except for the "deletables" from the first test). I'd like to see someone try it. I don't know of any other test of it's size; and the next one should probably use a larger sample. Maybe there's someone out there who wants to take it on. -R. fiend 13:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

undoing redirect
Hi - Redirect is usually just like any edit - the "redirect" command replaces the text of the page, so to undo it you just go to the page history and click UNDO on the redirect edit to bring up the last edit before that. Hope that makes sense. Tvoz | talk 23:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Your comment on Articles for deletion/Pennsylvania Route 39 (1920s)
Can you please comment on my proposal to move it to Pennsylvania Route 19 (1920s) or merge it into Pennsylvania Route 5 (1920s)? Thank you. --NE2 17:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Ref desk shootout
A humour site? Then I should definitely cancel my "Down with entropy" rally. iames 22:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletes
Okay, from now on I'll include a diff showing that an admin nuked the article whenever I close an AfD. Ten Pound Hammer • (((Broken clamshells • Otter chirps))) 21:24, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Fudgie Frottage article
Please revisit the AfD page [] and article to see if your vote might change. Benjiboi 22:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Species integration nominated for deletion
As someone who has commented on Articles for deletion/Most ancient common ancestor, you are invited to comment on another article by the same author which I just nominated for deletion. The same author coined a new article Species integration which similar theme with two completely irrelevant references, after the 'most ancient common ancestor' article was deleted. I removed these two irrelevant references, and commented on these on the Talk:Species integration page.

The new nomination/discussion page is at: Articles for deletion/Species integration.

Thanks. Fred Hsu 01:47, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

CSS Reboot
You must be thinking of the German submarine donated to the CSA (overshadowed by the Hunley) the CSS Das Boot. :) &rArr;    SWAT Jester    Denny Crane.  17:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Mall AfD table
I'm thinking this needs to be made a subpage. If not, I think the archive bot will archive the table. Vegaswikian 02:30, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: comment on BLPN
You wrote: "The combination of the articles about these two people makes no sense." regarding this AfD. I've been (still am) away on holiday, just happened to stumble over this comment when logging in for an hour from my hotel room. The reason for making this a double AfD was (as mentioned by its participants and also in the nom itself) that during previous AfDs and discussions regarding the Gore article editors had complained about pov (politically motivated) deletion !votes and vice versa. Since the policy-based reasons to delete should not affect these subjects differently, the politically-motivated-card could not be played in such a joint AfD. The attempt to rid the discussion of such POV accusations was successful until editors started to give different opinions on both articles, possibly displaying their POV and often missing the point of this joint AfD nom. I hope will reconsider your opinion on such joint noms. The problem of mixed !votes here was probably that latecomers had missed the nomination that said: I have taken the unorthodox step of nominating them together to avoid the appearance of partisanship which has nagged previous debates. Avb 17:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Cool Globes
Are you aware Cool Globes is a nominee for WP:CHICOTW. You may want to cast a vote.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 00:26, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Duplicate AfD !votes
So... I understand that you really really think that this article should be deleted... but could I get you to strike one of those !votes for the sake of keeping up appearances and AfD etiquette? Thanks. -- Ben 05:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Re Cecelia Cichan
Is this OK? For future reference, since the article wasn't deleted (only redirected) you can go into the history yourself and dig out information from old revisions; feel free to do that if you think there's more to be added to Northwest Airlines Flight 255 about her. WaltonOne 16:17, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Anna Svidersky
Howdy! You recently participated in the August 2007 AfD of the Anna Svidersky article. There is currently a Request for comment on the talk page of the Svidersky article aimed at resolving disagreements over the outcome of that AfD. I hope you don't mind the interruption but any additional or outside input would be greatly appreciated by all the editors on the Svidersky page. Thank you for your time. AgneCheese/Wine 14:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Edison Medal
The article on the Edison Medal has just been deleted without any discussion. Turn on your email so we can communicate better. I am going to move a copy of your Edison Medal arguments over the the page itself if thats ok with you. I want all the arguments in one place so it can be archived. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 02:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The email is done through a hidden link. No one can see your email unless you respond to them. Its very handy if you have a Gmail account, that way you can see who else is online at the moment and get help with a problem quickly. Are you also contributing to the debate at Wikipedia:Speedy Deletion to change the process? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 18:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Cassandra Clare
You commented in the AFD that Clare is currently at #8 in the relevant NYT bestseller list. I have just looked at the lists at and the pages linked from it and don't see any book by Cassandra Clare in either Hardcover Fiction or Paperback Fiction. Please point me to the right page. If she is indeed a current NYT bestseller, then I will be happy to change my vote. Ringbark 19:21, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Admin
I see that you are not yet an admin, and have expressed to me the need for tools. Would you accept a nom? - Gilliam 04:59, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll get the process started on one of my user subpages soon. You'll accept the nomination on the subpage before I submit it to RFA.  I'm quite sure that you'll pass with no problem as you have plenty of contributions to the Wikipedia namespace (that issue seems to be important with many voters there) such as AFD's, CFD's, AIV reports, etc. Also your history of reverting vandalism demonstrates that you need admin tools.  I will work writing up the nom and get back with you soon. Good luck! - Gilliam 22:47, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

 Gilliam would like to nominate you to become an administrator. Please visit Requests for adminship to see what this process entails, and then contact Gilliam to accept or decline the nomination. A page has been created for your nomination at Requests for adminship/. If you accept the nomination, you must formally state and sign your acceptance and answer the questions on that page. Once you have answered the questions, you may post your nomination for discussion, or request that your nominator do so. --Gilliam 22:46, 29 August 2007 (UTC) You're welcome and good luck; you'll do fine. - Gilliam 01:12, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Advice needed
These days I don't use too many tools for vandal-scrubbing other than a modified recent2.js and custom badwords file. On occassion I still use CryptoDerk's VandalFighter for real-time monitoring, but not much any more. Most folks these days seem to like WP:TWINKLE which, as you probably know, is javascript-based and does not play well with IE. For Internet Explorer users I suppose I'd suggest trying out VandalProof by AmiDaniel, but it has been ages since I've tried that as well. Sorry this isn't more helpful, I am probably using the equivalent of ancient stone tools by today's standards. ;-)  Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Install Firefox, even if you don't like it, and configure it with Twinkle and Popups. It's all very easy to set up, no brain twisting required. You don't have to use Firefox for anything but vandal patrol, but it sure makes life easier. I tried valdalfighter for monitoring, but gave it up. Old school works fine if you have popups and the enhanced display of twinkle. It is a race to get to the revert before the other guy, but I found a little trick I've been using: Ignore the obvious vandalism. The bots or seventeen other patrollers are going to beat you there first. Twinkle will enhance your display to show the byte count of edits (or maybe it's popups that does it, I forget). Look at the small byte count or zero byte count edits. There tons of "poop" edits, deliberate mispellings, etc., that get missed, because everyone is racing for the big obvious ones. Something else I noticed, and I swear I am not being political here, but conservative subjects don't seem to draw the same pile-on of patrollers as liberal subjects. If you see two edits go by, and one is a bio of a liberal, and one is a bio of a conservative, if you try to deal with the liberal article, someone will usually beat you there and have already reverted. If you go back and check the conservative article, even after a minute or two, often that article will still be unreverted. (I often find con articles on my watchlist that had been blatantly vandalized hours before and not dealt with.) It's just an interesting observation of mine, check it out sometime and let me know if you notice that too. Anyway, I was actually coming here to wish you luck in your RfA, and saw this discussion. Just had to put in my two cents. - Crockspot 02:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

mail
You've got mail --rogerd 03:10, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Your edit on the Astrology page
Please read the Talk page before doing your edits. Your comment on the revert ("Revert from good faith deletion of text sourced to reliable sources to previous version. Get consensus on Talk page before such a deletion.") doesn't hold water. Aquirata 18:15, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I checked the talk page before doing the revert and saw no claim of consensus to delete the two scientific studies critical of the accuracy of astrology. While I was doing the revert, you were adding the claim of consensus. Edison 02:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
 * For three weeks the claim by several people that the section was out of balance had been standing unchallenged. Wouldn't you call this a consensus? The scientific POV was about six times the length of the pro-astrology POV. I have cut the former down to remain at twice the latter, so it was still a very moderate change. Clearly the scientific POV will need to be condensed and the pro-astrology POV will need to be detailed to achieve balance.
 * I would also like to understand why you felt that you needed to react so suddenly to my edit. I waited for three weeks before implementing a change supported by the Talk page, while you waited a total of 11 minutes to go against the Talk page without discussion. To your credit, you are now open to discussion rather than going into a revert war. Thanks for that! Aquirata 13:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Books, Buffistas!
Yes, that was me on Table Talk and later on Buffistas.org. Oh, god bless Buffy and you! Good to see you here. :) jengod 08:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Rape of Belgium
It's all on my talk page! Clio the Muse 23:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Promotion
I have promoted you to adminship per your RFA. Congratulations. Please familiarize yourself with our relevant policies before using your shiny new buttons. Raul654 23:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! Not too many get through with no oppose votes. --rogerd 03:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Congratulations for a successful election.- Gilliam 06:20, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Congrats! What are you doing looking at this page? Get to clearing Speedys =P. -- Hirohisat Kiwi 06:29, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Glad you made it! --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 06:41, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Well Done! Enjoy that shiny mop head and bucket - get it dirty soon! Pedro | Chat  15:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Congratulations! I have put the "badge" on your user page - you'll find it useful - especially when removing speedy tags when declining speedy and not being accused of disrupting process. Carlossuarez46 16:32, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome; glad it passed. :) Acalamari 16:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Congratulations and best wishes! Majoreditor 17:02, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * If you do as well as on the RefDesk, all the rest of us admins can retire. ;) Good luck mate! · AndonicO Talk 17:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Good luck & job! Slade (TheJoker) 18:18, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Nice job. -- Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor  ( tαlk ) 20:03, 7 September 2007 (UTC)


 * After overcoming the strangeness of a section titled "Rape of Belgium" followed by one titled "Promotion" ... allow me to join everyone else in congratulating you.  Black Falcon (Talk) 22:21, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I thought I would wish you congrats again. -- Tλε Rαnδom Eδιτor  ( tαlk ) 02:20, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

RfA - Onnaghar
Thanks for the response. So many don't get back to me. It obviously distinguishs you from the others, and I may require you later when I need AIV and so on. Thanks once again.  Onnaghar  talk ! ctrb 15:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Re: Thanks!
You're very welcome! Congratulations on becoming an admin! You deserved it! :-)  Lra drama 19:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Didos.  Pat Politics rule!  19:28, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Cheers, thanks for the thanks! -- Ben complain 01:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I've not been active at RfA of late but from what I've seen at the RD was delighted to see you given the mop etc. And, sixty-naught-naught is commendable you wise guy you! ;-) - hydnjo talk 04:19, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Your Rfa thanks boxes ..
..they all seem to be missing the |} at the bottom to close the box with. Just a heads up and congratulations on your RfA. -- VectorPotential Talk 21:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up. It looked good in my sandpile, but, amoeba-like, it engulfs any following comments before the next header. I am correcting each one. Edison 22:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

"Removing speculation" used as an erroneous rationale for deleting well-sourced content in Disappearance of Madeleine McCann
Hi... do you have an opinion on this? --Rrburke(talk) 19:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
 * This is just madness: there is no basis for an inexperienced editor with such a fundamentally flawed understanding of the relevant policies and guidelines to be acting as gatekeeper for this article. You've already been involved in the discussion, so you may not want to don your administrator's cap for this one, but someone really needs to make it clear that it's time to go familiarize him/herself with at least the simplified ruleset and in the mean time get out of the road.  --Rrburke(talk) 15:51, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Please stick with this discussion, otherwise I may lose my mind :) --Rrburke(talk) 02:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk Item re:Atta
Thanks for your note. I don't consider Atta to be living; that template trips me up sometimes. I consider Bush to be living, and I removed the edit because it was an unrefed controversial statement about him. I know the language added by the template refers to "article about living person", but the template itself actually is called "adding unreferenced controversial information about living persons," not specifically limited to artcles re:BLP. The first level and third level warnings don't have the "article" language, and sometimes I forget before saving second or fourth level warnings that they do. I suppose I could have fixed the warning after I saw that it was mildly misleading ... but between giggles I'm sure the anonymous POV pusher got the point, and I didn't want to keep sending repeat warnings. Best ►  DRT  ïllberġ ◄ Talk 04:06, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Vandal fighting
Yeah I think I did that by accident, sorry  °≈§→  Robomae  yhem   ←§≈°  05:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Paranoid
Unless you assume that a clinical diagnosis was being made, the term "paranoid" is regularly used conversationally to describe an "irrational fear", a usage clearly supported by this search, and the clear intention here. This usage, which is far more common in non-medical settings, is used rather commonly to describe such beliefs. I would be more than happy to provide reliable sources, if requested. Though I will acknowledge that the belief that all such comments are personal attacks might well be consistent with a diagnosis of Paranoia. Alansohn 15:58, 10 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Can you see that your edit in question would have had the same effect without the little tweak of the nose you added at the end of the edit summary, and would have been more civil? The goal is to get good content into this online encyclopedia, not to get in little tweaks and taunts in the accompanying edit summaries. Note that I have not been involved in the editing of this article nor in the associated AFD. I just noted the AFD and that the article was not red linked, and went to take a look. WP:BLP clearly requires a source for a statement that someone "committed a felony," as opposed to being charged with a felony. Nothing paranoid there. But compliance with BLP can be done by removing or modifying only the offending sentence, which would have been a good remedy here, rather than deleting the article. Restoring the questioned sentence with a reference is also fine. The article still does not state explicitly what she pled guilty to as stated by NY Post and even that source does not state whether those offenses are misdemeanors or felonies. The article is now close to being a stable, well referenced one. Just speaking as a friend, I think it can get there without some of the unnecessary and unproductive drama which can be produced by snarky edit comments. Edison 16:33, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I more than appreciate your comments. I was stunned to see an article with the clearest possible consensus for retention, deleted without any explanation other than the fact that there were WP:BLP issues without any further elaboration. All we were given was "The article as it currently stands has no sources and with it's content, is a very serious BLP violation." I would have been more than happy to provide a source for any material that violated the policy, but all that we were left with was a guessing game. As suggested to the admin in question, the proper way to have dealt with this issue is to have kept the article, respecting the clear consensus in the AfD, deleted (or marked) the perceived WP:BLP issues and stated clear and specific issues so that they could be sourced by other editors. Yet, multiple requests to the nominator for details of the WP:BLP issues only elicited concerns of lawsuits. The article was recreated with my guesses for the needed sources added (along with what could be perceived as a potentially "snarky" comment), and with more sources on the way, and then was deleted a second time due to unspecified BLP and GFDL issues. I have worked diligently with a mantra that "The goal is to get good content into this online encyclopedia". Just as the only veterinary solution to equine ailments is to put the horse down, it amazes me that so many people, admins included, see deletion of articles as the only answer to problems that can be solved with a multitude of other, less disruptive solutions, many of which might yield solutions that address the issues without interfering with the process of adding good content. There has to be a better way. Alansohn 16:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann
For once I agree with the spotted canine. WP:BLP requires that these comments by User:Mecanismo be removed even from the talk page. The sources the editor provides don't substantiate the derogatory claims, and WP:BLP is quite clear that the principle of aggressive removal in the case of unsourced derogatory claims "appl[ies] equally to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages." In my opinion, any reference to these allegations -- even your rebuke to the editor, which partially repeats the allegations for the purpose of explaining why they can't be included -- must be removed.

You're the admin and I'll defer to your better-informed judgment. But in the mean time I'll delete the section, leaving you to restore it if you think I'm in error. --Rrburke(talk) 00:10, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi and thanks for your reply. My specific concern involved the "regularly sedated their etc. so they could etc etc" and the "fourteen bottles" claim, neither of which (the first obviously being the more serious, especially "regularly") could actually be located in the sources the editor provided.  Since these claims were not just poorly sourced but entirely unsourced, I wasn't sure whether they even rose to the level of allegations (as opposed to just scurrilous rumour), so it seemed better to me just to pull that whole lot.  If I've got that wrong, feel free to revert me.  I don't mind -- it's happened before :) --Rrburke(talk) 03:23, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * For any future correspondence, we will each need one of these. This message will self-destruct in 30 seconds.  --Rrburke(talk) 03:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Khattam-Shud. OK, I now realize I'm very punchy.  And so to bed. --Rrburke(talk)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rrburke (talk • contribs) 04:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

iJustine
I have nominating the Ijustine page for afd, feel free to place your nomination wh this link Articles for deletion/Justine Ezarik. Dr Tobias Funke 00:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD canvassing
Hi there - I wouldn't usually remove canvassing, but this one was so ridiculously spammed that I removed every one so I could tell the canvasser not to do it again. Ironically, I completely agree with him that the subject is NN :)  E LIMINATOR JR  16:35, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Edison Welding Institute, user EWI, Ohio State University
Are you by any chance affiliated with Edison Welding Institute, Ohio State University or editor EWI? I noticed that you added a non-public reference to Edison Welding Institute less than half an hour after it was proposed for deletion on August 29th, and you also quickly joined the discussion to try to keep the article. Edison Welding Institute appears to be a consulting firm with some discounts for "members". It's not clear how much in the way of tax dollars is going into this firm directly or indirectly. Many private companies appear to see the need for "membership" in this organization, though apparently a 2-hour "consultation" is the "unlimited consultation" maximum. If you have access to financial statements for EWI, it would help clarify the organization's sources of support. Thank you! --65.78.215.202 02:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

AFD repaired
I just copied and pasted. All the contributions were in the history and all the signatures were with the remarks. I figured that it's just the same as making a talk page archive. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The Penny Battery question.
That was a 'beyond the call of duty' answer - excellent work! SteveBaker 15:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Pokémon test
I was reading the talk page of the Pokémon test, and I just wanted to say that there is a list of Pokémon AFDs: WikiProject Pokémon/AFD history. All incarnations of merged articles have been attacked six times. There are also at least six indivdiual species articles AFDs. Most of it are other Pokémon subjects, mostly characters, with a couple of websites. hbdragon88 04:07, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

"Makedonsko Devoiche"
In the Articles for deletion thread for this article you voted to delete it because it failed WP:N, there were not enough sources to show the notability of the song. However now several very significant sources have been added to the article that show the notability of it. They are::
 * BBC []
 * Sheet Music []
 * Evansville Folkdancers []
 * Soros Foundation []
 * Preformed by famous guitarist Martha Masters []
 * US Government Website []

Please reconsider your decision to delete this song. Several editors have compared this song to epic historic songs. This is what one editor said "It's analogous to deleting Waltzing Matilda, I Still Call Australia Home and The Wild Colonial Boy which are songs well known by Anglophones."

Thank you Ireland101 23:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Zeitgeist (video)

 * A draft userspace article has been created. Please see Deletion review/Log/2007 November 8. Pdelongchamp 21:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 26th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:00, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Edison
Great job on the Edison page and thank you for defending his name on the talk page! I bought an unpublished 1877 handwritten letter by Edison to his friend Bentley about the telephone. Basically Edison explains why the dam thing did not work, and how he finally fixed it. If the temperature dropped a little, the phone would not work and if the temperature went over 80 the inside would melt and not work. Long story short, it was good for nothing until Edison fixed it. It cost me $75,000 but well worth it. I think he was a little God.--Persianhistory2008 (talk) 07:09, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Handbra
An article on which you previously commented has been proposed for deletion again, at Articles for deletion/Handbra (second nomination). You may wish to comment.DGG (talk) 03:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 3rd, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 09:14, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

CETI patterson afd
Hey, I just reread my comment and my phrasing seemed to (erroneously) say that I disagreed with your assessment of the scientific validity of the device. Oops! For the record, I agree with you completely that it's specious science (at best) but notable as per WP:N. My apologies for the miscommunication! St3vo (talk) 17:24, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Interview
Hi Edison,

I sent you an e-mail yesterday about participating in an interview for my thesis, and I wanted to make sure you got it. I'd love it if you could participate, but I understand if you are unable to.

Jkomoros (talk) 14:48, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Mike Huckabee Merge Proposal
Please comment on merging Mike Huckabee controversies into Mike Huckabee here [] Jmegill (talk) 09:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 10th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

The joy of prostates
Hi Edison. I'm a bit concerned about your comment on the Miscellaneous Ref Desk here:. I'm assuming that in asking about age, you were hoping to rule out prostate cancer. I know you were asking in good faith, but we really want to avoid hunting for diagnoses when someone comes to us asking about their symptoms. (If you're looking for the working definition we use for identifying medical advice, you can find it at Reference desk/guidelines/Medical advice.) Even if it's not prostate cancer, there are a lot of bad things that can happen to the plumbing of younger men and women, so we want to avoid giving them medical advice, too. Cheers, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:18, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * If you post on my talk page to complain about my Ref Desk post, please provide a dif to the whatever I posted that bothers you, not to a post by someone else. That avoids the necessity of my spending 10 minutes looking through the Ref Desk history to find my actual post . In that post I cautioned against Wikipedians offering medical advice. In fact, I did not ask the poster's age, and I did not offer any diagnosis whatsoever. I advised the poster that any symptoms which caused concern would be better taken up with their doctor than with Wikipdeia Ref Desk volunteers, and I stand by that advice. Edison (talk) 02:32, 16 December 2007 (UTC)


 * I apologize for copying the wrong diff; I was putting together a lengthy post elsewhere. I assure you, it was my intent to link to your post, and my comment most certainly applied to it.  By all means, if I screw up like that again, let me know so that I can do the digging&mdash;you're quite right that my clerical errors aren't your responsibility.
 * On the topic of your post, I have to admit that I have trouble parsing your meaning. What did you intend by the 'if the questioner is a middle aged or older male' clause of your post, if not to suggest that the symptom would be more worrying if the questioner fell into that category? TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:05, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 17th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 18:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Commen
- I wondered the exact same thing about obtaining permission. So I enquired with an admin:. Basically he said it was fine within reason. Anyways, have a nice day! Scar ian Talk  10:39, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Valley of Decapitated Horses
I have replied to a comment you made here. I was slightly surprised to see an experienced editor such as yourself to make (what seems to me like- please do point out if I am the one who has missed the point) a mistake like that. J Milburn (talk) 20:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I have just realised you have made basically the same comment on a batch of other AfDs. What you are saying is based on no policy (as far as I am aware) and, as far as I can see, is based on subjectivity and anti-contemporary culture sentiments. Should we disambiguate villages that sound like they should be bands? Animals that sound like names? Men with names commonly associated with women? The subjectivity comes from relying on editors to judge what band names/pseudonyms/village names/flower names or whatever sound like. For instance, to ăa heavy metal fan unassociated with fungi, Destroying Angel would sound like a band rather than a mushroom. By comparison, I can imagine there being experts in fungi who would not be aware of extreme heavy metal, and so a name like Moonsorrow would instantly be a mushroom or flower to them. As far as I am concerned (and, to the best of my knowledge, this is the common consensus) page titles should be disambiguated only if the title is needed by another article if it is on a significantly more notable topic, or for a dab page if the topics are about as notable as one another. J Milburn (talk) 20:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, I fundamentally disagree with you, and I am reasonably sure that Wikipedia policy does too. Both I, and consensus, say that article titles should only contain disambiguators when the article is required by something else, not when it sounds like it should be required by something else. Another point you make- why would it be unreasonable for the 'real world thing' to disambiguate itself? All articles are (or should be) written from a real-world perspective, and so even articles about fictional characters should be about the very real phenomenon of the character, meaning that no article is about something which is entirely fictional. I think we could have a very valid discussion about this, but what I currently resent to is you filling AfDs with your suggestions which are completely out of line with policy, which many new users will read and believe should be followed. What you say sounds out of place on Wikipedia, and is more like the kind of policy that Conservapedia would have- while on the subject- the disambiguator would certainly not be "(Band)" but "(band)", as per our policy of not capitalising concrete nouns. J Milburn (talk) 12:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * just dropping by, but its the content of fiction that is important, not the salesfigures. all we need the sales figures for is to show it's considered important. As long a the articlemakes clear it is fiction, that's enough--not all of them do. So that's why I agree with Edison about disambiguation--it should be clear from the title what the article is about. That's what a title is for. I know its been the practice here to do otherwise. Time to change it. DGG (talk) 04:57, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if you feel I have been attacking you, it wasn't deliberate. On the subject of you offering your opinion on AfD- I am just a little uncomfortable with you stating your opinion on matters as if it is policy- a large number of new users will see those comments, and then believe that your idea is common practice on Wikipedia. I have already been involved in a rather lengthy debate on the subject, that time at the Dungeons & Dragons WikiProject and it can be seen in this section and the one below it. We came to the conclusion that preemptive disambiguation was against policy and defied common sense. If you believe that articles should be given the suffix even if the title is not needed by something else, then I think your best course of action would be to attempt to change policy- bring it up at the village pump, or at the appropriate policy page. However, I am pretty sure that you would be unsuccessful- as I say, this seems to be based on subjectivity rather than objectivity (we are relying on editors to say 'this sounds like a _____') and does seem to demote articles about music to second-rate articles- I don't mean to suggest you think that band articles are unimportant, but the idea does seem to imply that articles on music are less important. I don't think either of these will be popular with Wikipedia as a whole. J Milburn (talk) 13:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, it seems you opinion isn't quite what I thought it was (or we are reaching a compromise) but I dislike suffixes altogether- I think they look unprofessional. As I see it, articles should be named in the same way as whatever they are about. Including descriptors in titles, for me, should be a last resort, when two things have names that are exactly the same. Ambiguous titles can be irritating, but, in many ways, they have become part of Wikipedia's culture. I completely agree with you that almost all of the time, it will be the band/album/song that should be banished from the vanilla title, as you put it, but stand by my belief that the vanilla title should stay with the band/album/song, otherwise we can potentially end up with the ridiculous- the vanilla title redirecting to the suffixed one. I do, however, sympathise with you relating to the AfD issue- but we should name our articles so that they cater to the readers, rather than the editors. Let us take the example of the band Enochian Theory, on whose AfD you left one of your comments. If someone wants to know about the band, and comes on to Wikipedia, they will search for "Enochian Theory". They then should come to the article on the band, or perhaps an article on a scientific theory from John Enochian (or whatever) with a line at the top saying 'For the band, see Enochian Theory (band).' Alternatively, they may Google "Enochian Theory", in which case an article entitled "Enochian Theory" will be much nearer the top than one entitled "Enochian Theory (band)" (or, if it isn't, I'm no software technician, they would be more willing to click the former). The idea of searching for "Enochian Theory (band)" would be alien to someone unfamiliar with Wikipedia, and we need to try and be as accessible as possible. Your problem with the AfD isn't really true from a reader's perspective- in an article, the context in which it appears will help to dictate that Enochian Theory is a band, rather than a scientific theory. J Milburn (talk) 20:55, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for December 26th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 13:09, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Persecution of early Christians by the Jews
I noticed you participated in the Articles for deletion/Historical persecution by Jews (2nd nomination) discussion and I thought you might be interested in participating in a similar debate over at Talk:Persecution of early Christians by the Jews. Feel free to come by and contribute your thoughts. - CheshireKatz (talk) 20:14, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Clarification
Hi Edison, could you reply to my clarification questions at Articles for deletion/Czechs in Omaha, Nebraska? Thanks. • Freechild   'sup?   21:48, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for help.
Edison,

Hello. I am not quite sure to how to go about this, as I haven't encountered such a problem before and I am not sure who to ask for help. I have and issue regarding the article Mahmoud Asgari and Ayaz Marhoni and User:LGBTRights123. This individual keeps inserting falsely cited information into the article and misquoting his/her source. I have left a message on his/her talk page and also a lengthy explanation on the article's discussion page, but they keep reverting me and reinserting false quotes (that seem to me to be strongly pushing a POV agenda) into the article. I do not wish to break the 3 Revert rule. Can you please suggest what I may do? Thank you ExRat (talk) 00:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 2nd and 7th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Your note on Video Professor on my talk
Edison, Thanks for the heads up, and for starting that thread; my mind has been on other things, and although I knew a tiny little bit about this, the main thrust of it (that IP addresses had, actually, been released to someone) had escaped me. I've commented in that thread now, and am curious to see what comes of it. I doubt I'm on Video Professor's radar, as I removed more criticism than I added, but there is a certain chilling effect on the entire community anyway (which, I'm sure, is what Video Professor is actually trying to acheive}. --barneca (talk) 23:00, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Warning to anon editor re: personal attacks
I don't have any special insight into his/her behavior; I just started keeping light tabs on his contributions after some problematic edits he made showed up on my watchlist. I issued a final warning regarding personal attacks and will issue a 24h block if I learn that he's ignored it again. I see that you're an admin, so I'll try to help you avoid a COI situation...please feel free to involve me in any noticeboard discussions, etc. that may result from this incident. Dppowell (talk) 04:57, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 14th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:13, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Your altering of my comment
Would you please change the comment I left back to the way I left it, at Talk:Waterboarding? I'd appreciate that very much. Badagnani (talk) 02:50, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

You had confused me. I see now that the comment you moved was originally incorrectly placed under my heading, then you moved it (but without an edit summary, leading me to believe you had removed one of my comments elsewhere). Thanks for clarifying that for me. Badagnani (talk) 02:57, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 21st, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 23:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD
This comment will probably end up being shorter than it should because my computer is slow and your talk page is very large, haha. It sounds like we're generally in agreement of adding sources just being a helpful side effect of AfD. I misinterpreted your comment in the debate, probably. My bad, of course. I'll work on being a little less jump-to-conclusiony. matt91486 (talk) 06:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

AfD Leo J Meyer
Young men, I am sending this to both Trident13 and Edison.

I do thank both of you for your efforts. There are some people in this world, which once having made up their mind will never deviate. The adamant negative exchange sounded like a dressing down. And I hope that was not the case.

I find it strange that only notability rules apply to the article on my father’s friend and former commander, Frederick C Weyand. That was my inspiration and choice for emulation; although I did review the articles on several other NOTABLE officers (one being my former boss, Robert L. Howard). Going back to that Weyand article, I see only two links to source information external to Wikipedia and one of those is just a link to the US Army Center for Military History’s skimpy professional bio, but not sited properly. The other seems to substantiate that an interview was conducted, and the events around it. In my article, I was trying to reinforce information that I had stated. I suppose I should have listed the campaigns which Leo Meyer was engaged in to show actual combat. But I was trying again to emulate Weyand’s write up. I was not going to post an image of his award documents as they include his service number or Social Security Number. Changes to the article after you folks cashed it gave more info regarding the books to include Library of Congress numbers. I was unable to acquire ISBN information.

I am ready to put this chapter behind me and be content to find that hundreds of Wiki administrators contribute to articles from such a wide variety of backgrounds and expertise; and to read interesting articles about computer games such as: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medal_of_Honor:_Airborne (I am a gamer and have ordered this one). I have been in the Web mastering business since 1997 and have received a few Army civilian and military awards for my Web efforts. Today I am relegated to the Army Web policy side and develop no more. And yes I could easily build a Web page, but I thought Wikipedia was the best sort of place for an informative article and do not want to build a shrine. The Wiki article was most interesting to build, and I learned a lot. I particularly enjoyed researching my father’s history and caution anyone to pick the brain of the parents before it is too late, as it was for me.

My hat is off to the creator of Wikipedia. The originators of Wikipedia have created a wonderful tool for collecting and sharing the information of the ages available to all; truly an encyclopedic event in itself. It is a shame that the WP 5P seem to be open to a variety of interpretations. I have removed the information I posted concerning the ‘list’ of 3 time recipients of the CIB because of the removal of the image of the award. That too is a shame, that that information will not be shared except at the US Army National Infantry Museum. And by the way, two of the Army museums have expressed a desire for his memorabilia and uniforms.

If you are predisposed to explore beyond the Wiki world, I invite you to view the entries at the National WWII Memorial registry and the Soldiers Registry at the US Army National Museum that I have posted for Leo J Meyer of NY (at both locations).

I wish you both well and luck in your administrative endeavors. As I have no reason now, I shall not be signing into Wikipedia in the future. I am getting ready to retire from civil service and will be content to focus on the care of our horses, if you wish to communicate with me, please contact me through Trident13.

If you should ever run across a US Army biographer, asking him for an opinion.

Your most humbled public servant Jeff Meyer Meyerj (talk) 00:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC) wanabe historian —Preceding unsigned comment added by Meyerj (talk • contribs) 00:55, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Edison - have you considered taking this to WP:DRV? I think you may have a good case.  I just discovered it because the original editor posted to the help desk.  Thanks --rogerd (talk) 15:50, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for January 28th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 03:31, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Re: Lutheran congregations inherently non-notable?
I could have phrased that better, I think, Edison. =^^=

It was not a bash on Lutherans by any means, but if anything, I think what I'm trying to say is that not many congregations of Lutherans would fit within the constraints of WP:N. As for WP:CONG, it sort of keeps in pace for that I suppose - my thought is that it is not that they can't be notable, but more that they can be notable; I'm left with the impression, however, that an individual congregation of any Christian denomination is left with an uphill battle for this, though, so frankly you won't find very many, if any of 'em. -- Dennis The Tiger  (Rawr and stuff) 22:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Indeed, therein lies the rub. Those who do things notable are those who are pretty much considered notable within their community, but beyond that, there's really not much.  Maybe CONG was rejected, but it kind of hits right on as to how a group becomes notable - usually, that's through some degree of controversy, owing to the nature of the press.  It's sort of lose-lose in this regard. -- Dennis The Tiger   (Rawr and stuff) 05:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The Ballad of Casey Jones
The Grateful Dead's hit song "Casey Jones" certainly does not belong in a section entitled "The Ballad of Casey Jones" now does it? I'm surprised as you well knew the whole "Popular Culture" section was split and then deleted. That was where any reference to the Grateful Dead song would have gone. Homedepotov (talk) 17:35, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I see your point. The spinoff and deletion of the "Casey Jones in popular culture" may very well be a mistake as popular culture was what made him (as opposed to a Benjamin Franklin, for example). But it surely shouldn't be a simple litany of every book and movie and comic book and song he figured in without providing some sort of cultural context. By the way, I changed "heroic death" to "dramatic death" to let the reader decide since there is some controversy on the subject among railroaders. Seemed more balanced an approach. As REB281 said, jumping from a fast moving moving locomotive is no one's first choice. But he certainly stuck to his duty. Homedepotov (talk) 22:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 4th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:53, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Another List of Supreme Court cases has been nominated for deletion
There is a discussion going on here. I though you might be interested in commenting due to your previous comment here.--Cdogsimmons (talk) 00:54, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Requesting restoration of a page you voted to delete
Sir: I have rewritten the page on Retarded Animal Babies. My version meets all the requirementes of Wikipedia. It includes reliable third-party citations and proper formatting and NPOV. Since there are now a number of Wikipedia articles that link to it, I feel that it should be remade.

The rewritten article is temporarily posted here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Hamsterdunce/sandbox

I have only a secondary relationship with the RAB creator. This is being done as a courtesy to him--we feel that he deserves a decent representation on Wikipedia. Your assistance would be greatly appreciated. Eric Barbour (talk) 20:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Penn Singers
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Penn Singers, 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. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. 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. If you agree with the deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add  to the top of Penn Singers. Deb (talk) 17:55, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 11th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Comments

 * ''(Pearl Harbor, 9/11).

PNAC called for a "new pearl harbor" just before it happened. And Shrubs signed the order to attack Afghanistan on 9/10. Is that also a coincidence?


 * ''With the idea that the planes were supposed to crash into buildings, but somehow it also took explosives in the buildings to bring them down, I've wondered what happened to the fourth building (the target for the Shanksville plane. Did workers come in the next day and remove explosives?

WTC 7, maybe?


 * ''In the Towers, what did the office workers think about supposed workmen coming in and cutting building columns, and knocking plaster off colums to install charges? I would have commented on it if it had happened in a building where I worked!

And so did they!


 * ''In the attack on the Christian and Jewish religions (carefully avoiding Islam) some of the stuff about similarities with earlier religions has long been part of comparative religion, and many previous writers have suggested an influence of Buddhism on Christianity. Then it has a lot of pure bullcrap, like saying look how much "Sun" sounds like "son" when neither word was part of the Hebrew or Aramaic languages; their roots are in Indo-European. It also is exposed at JREF for misquoting what early religious texts said and for making up similarities between a number of religions and the Jesus story. I am very doubtful of astronomical claims that the Southern Cross was visible in the holy land and that the 3 stars in Orion were called the "three kings"(by whom?) and that the sun stops its zodiacal movement for 3 days at Easter or whatever, but I will leave it to astronomers to check that.

I also find parts of that being unreliable.


 * ''The diatribe about how there is no law requiring people in the US to pay income taxes is balderdash, and the JREF cites the relevant federal laws.

Have you seen Freedom to Fascism?


 * 'But the stuff about Prescott Bush and the Nazi banking is pretty well established. I kept waiting for the other shoe to drop, to reveal that the film was a product of the Larouchies or Scientology or some such, but no tie to any particular group was revealed. Their website is also pretty vague as to who paid for the great editing job (parts were really well done, like the music and video of violence montage at the beginning, and the use of colorized silent movies of Biblical scenes for comic effect.)

I would also like to know that... i somehow don't belive them to be independant. And i don't trust when there is to good quality, and no reference to who financed it.

Take also a look at this and this.

--Striver - talk 16:02, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: 3RR warning
Please see the page and look at the history. I was not "edit warring" but improving the article, providing sources, and undoing the work of a malfunctioning bot named XLinkbot. Another editor suggested a secondary source beyond the youtube video, which has been added. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ForeverFreeSpeech (talk • contribs) 19:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

List of massacres (2nd nomination)

 * You're missing the point. The list is not a list of "mass killings", it is a list of events with the word "massacre" in their title. As such, it proscribes most "mass killings" in history from inclusion. Ledenierhomme (talk) 01:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for February 18th and 25th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 08:57, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Speaker impedance
Hey, you responded to my reference desk question about speaker impedance. If I wired the speakers in series, doesn't that double the impedance, and wouldn't a double in impedance send the power back to the receiver and fry the unit? Also, wouldn't it make it half as loud as running it in parallel? Is it true that running it in parallel like I have it now could potentially damage something if I turn it up too loud? I'm asking all this cause I really would not like to find out the hard way. NIRVANA2764 (talk) 21:51, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, due to an odd series of events it looks like I'll only be able to use one speaker. Would it be safe to clip the two little copper wire ends of the wire in to the positive portion of the right channel, and the negative portion of the left channel to get the sound from both channels? Thanks for your help. NIRVANA2764 (talk) 22:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Leo J. Meyer
Please have a look at the DRV for Leo J. Meyer (currently seen at User:Meyerj) located at Deletion review/Log/2008 March 3. Its my opinion that the article met the standards for verifiability and notability. I would appreciate your input into the matter. Mrprada911 (talk) 18:24, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 3rd, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Canada and the Kyoto Protocol
I rote the stuff on the above topic, and I have created a separate page for it. It does not belong in energy policy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmbcomm (talk • contribs) 00:15, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I have already restored your edit. Thanks. Edison (talk) 00:20, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions for changes in the WMF privacy policy
Hi, Edison,

I posted some suggestions for changes in the WMF privacy policy at the WMF site:. The gist of the suggestions is to institute a requirement for notifying those registered users whose identifying info is being sought by subpoenas in third-party lawsuits. These suggestions are motivated in large part by a discussion that took place in January 2008 at the Village Pump (Policy) page in relation to an incident where identifying IP data of sixteen Wikipedia users was released in response to such a subpoena. I also left a note about these proposals at Village Pump, WP:Village_pump_%28policy%29. Since you have participated in the January Village Pump discussion, I hope that you will contribute to the discussion of the current suggestions at the WMF website,. Regards, Nsk92 (talk) 12:33, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Black Propaganda
Edison, just to let you know that I have responded to your question (the section in question is about to tip into the archives). Clio the Muse (talk) 23:54, 11 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Edison, I remembered answering a question on that very point. I've now managed to dig it out; so here it is below.  Clio the Muse (talk) 00:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Malicious stories about Roosevelt and syphilis began to circulate before he was even nominated to stand for his party in the presidential election of 1932. In the build up to the Democratic convention of 1928 an anonymous circular was sent to all delegates and alternates, claiming that he was infected with the disease.  "In the home office of every life insurance company in the United States", it said, "there is on file the health examination report of every person holding a life insurance policy...If you will examine the health examination report of Governor Franklin D. Roosevelt you will find that he is suffering from ataxia produced by syphilis.  For almost ten years, however, Governor Roosevelt has been parading himself before the public as a victim of infintile paralysis in order to gain sympathy and hide his real affliction.  Carrying on this deception further, Governor Roosevelt has induced some men of wealth to establish at Warm Springs, Georgia, a sanitarium for the real victims of infantile paralysis.  The most disgusting, vicious and really dangerous thing about this matter is the fact that Governor Roosevelt (with his loathsome and infectious venereal disease) bathes in the same pool with these poor innocent children..."


 * And this poison most likely from fellow Democrats! In response, Roosevelt took out $560,000 worth of life insurance from twenty-two different companies, who appointed a panel of doctors to examine him.  He was declared to be perfectly fit, though the whispering campaign against him, and his suitability for high office, was to continue.  All of the details here can be found Ted Morgan's FDR: A Biography, (London, 1985) p. 337-8.  Clio the Muse (talk) 02:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Judge Crater
your comments at the Village Pump made me go look the guy up, as I was completely unfamiliar :) And I always thought Jimmy Hoffa was the most famous missing man... but that's a location or generational thing, I think :) TRAVELLINGCARI My storyTell me yours 04:21, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Copying from WP:NOTNEWS
Per your village pump comment on my proposed guideline, I read your article, and have decided to lift part of it into my proposal. I shall credit the source in the edit summary, and invit you over to User:Fritzpoll/Notability (criminal acts) to discuss, comment, and edit Fritzpoll (talk) 13:40, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

From awesumpossum
Hi. Sorry but i have been trying to upload a photo onto a page but have been struggling to find how to copyright my photo as instructed so could you please instruct me as to how i can do do? Sorry for causing problems!

awesumpossum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Awesumpossum (talk • contribs) 03:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Kneesthey‎
Hmmm, seems they ended up being a HAGGAR sock or something. Crazy people eh? :) Jmlk  1  7  05:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

New policy proposal that may be of interest
I'm tapping this message out to you because you were involved at the AfDs of Eve Carson or Lauren Burk. Following both of these heated debates, a new proposal has been made for a guideline to aid these contentious debates, which can be found at WP:N/CA. There is a page for comments at Wikipedia talk:Notability (criminal acts)/Opinions should you wish to make a comment. Thanks for your time, and apologies if this was not of interest! Fritzpoll (talk) 15:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for March 13th and 17th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 22:43, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Felipe Garcia
I went ahead and banned the account as a vandalism-only account, since basically all its edits were changing dates or adding misinformation to articles. --Delirium (talk) 05:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, he's gone. You're right, he was probably a sockpuppet of someone else who was banned. I'll help keep an eye out for him. Redrocket (talk) 05:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Purchasing power of US dollar circa 1900
Excerpts from the Humanities Help Desk. Please reply at my Talk Page ... or at the Ref Desk. Thanks. (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 21:55, 22 March 2008 (UTC))

Original Thread:

What was the purchasing power of a dollar in 1900 expressed in terms of a dollar today? F Chiles (talk) 11:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Thus: $25.47 in the year 2007 had the same purchasing power as $1.00 in the year 1900. Conversely, $0.04 in the year 1900 had the same purchasing power as $1.00 in the year 2007.  (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 22:40, 19 March 2008 (UTC))


 * In 1900 you could hire a laborer for $1 a day, but you would get few takers today for $25.47 per day. Edison (talk) 19:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Edison --- why is that? If the dollar values are (theoretically) equal or identical.  Wouldn't the same laborers willing to work for $1.00 (then) be the same group of people willing to work for $25.47 (now)?  If not, why not, given that the dollar amount is the same?  Thanks.    (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 07:28, 21 March 2008 (UTC))

Signpost updated for March 24th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:14, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

umm no
umm well first of all...you do not have the right to go and delete peoples articles just like you did! i don't appreciate it at all  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sam2762 (talk • contribs) 22:08, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Hydroponics
Thanks for the help with Hydroponics.. I was about to go put him up on the vandal report. AnnaJGrant (talk) 00:14, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I used the wrong template haha, also didnt notice your last warning message sorry about that one mate. AnnaJGrant (talk) 00:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Some Suggestions to fight Vandalism
Hey, I was wondering if you had any helpful links or articles on Vandalism and how to fight it. I would love to learn more about it however I have a hard time finding appropriate warning templates. If you could post the links on my talk page that would be great. Thanks, Anna

AnnaJGrant (talk) 00:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

192.160.131.21
This user has been warned by both myself and another user multiple times for continual vandalism, i have posted it under the WP:AIV thing, and it has been deleted on every occasion, i would appreciate it if you could take a look at it. Thanks, Anna AnnaJGrant (talk) 01:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandalicious
No problem, any time. Take care! Redrocket (talk) 04:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Americablog
I also ran into the article at recent changes patrol and unfortunately am not familiar with the subject matter. Obviously we should err on the side of caution with any BLP material. I think reverting back to my last edit is fine. The only thing I would add back in would be "John Aravosis, Democratic activist and political consultant, served five years as the senior foreign policy adviser to United States Senator Ted Stevens (R-AK)." In the current revision there is a link to the scandal with Ted Stevens at the end of the sentence, but I don't see how that is relevant to this guy as the article doesn't mention him. I would then remove the "good friends" part from "Chris in Paris - a "good friend" who lives in Paris, France." I am not sure what this means.

Next, for general cleanup I would be fine with the removal of the "AMERICAblog has courted controversy within the gay community..." and "AMERICAblog has also spearheaded successful campaigns against reductions of gay rights..." paragraphs. They have been tagged as needing citations since February 2007. And source 6 is not working. I believe the criticism section could be removed in its entirety also. The claims made are supported by a passing blog mention and what looks to be forum comments, not very reliable sources. One thing from the criticism section that could be kept would be that "Aravosis has worked as a consultant for Planned Parenthood." This could be added to the short bio of him above as he acknowledges this is one of the articles. After that the links require some cleanup. I hope this has helped. Like I said, I am unfamiliar with the subject matter. KnightLago (talk) 20:50, 28 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No problem. KnightLago (talk) 21:06, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry
Sorry about the Article I made. I agree it is covered better at the main page. You have my regards to delete it. MikeSammons007 (talk) 20:57, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Honduran72
I think there maybe a language barrier with this user, as some of his comments are not written very well, I think his edits were in good faith but he just did not understand what we were trying to get across. I posted something on his talk page but after you blocked him. And i notice that none of us tried to explain to him what he needed to do first before he was blocked, anyways my point is that it might not be a deliberate act of vandalism rather than a lack of understanding of the english language and the need of references and citations. I could be wrong but i would at least like to give him the benefit of the doubt. Cheers mate. AnnaJGrant (talk) 04:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

To further this, I have looked it up on the website [CIA] and the math says that it is indeed just under 150,000 population that is black. So in my opinion it may have been in good faith, may not have been, but i will assume as such, however according to the CIA his edits were not valid.

AnnaJGrant (talk) 04:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me, I didnt notice that he knew he was ruining in a page, must have missed that one. Sorry about that.

AnnaJGrant (talk) 22:25, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

User talk:Hahahahahahahahahahaha
His username was a long repetition of one word, which by itself merited a username block ... the fact that his one edit was nonconstructive made me think he had no intention of editing constructively--hence the hard block. Blueboy96 03:40, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Three times, I'd probably let off with a uw-username note. Four or five times ... time for a block, in my view. Blueboy96 03:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Please
I am a resident in the millbury area and that is a true incident. i thought including it would help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wierdo000 (talk • contribs) 05:03, 30 March 2008 Wierdo000

Signpost updated for March 31st, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Gavin Wims
I added a tag to the article. Which the user promptly removed. I left a warning on there talk page, but before I replace the tag please tell me if the article fits the criteria for speedy deletion. Please respond on my talk page. Thank you Mww113 (talk) 21:54, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Mww113 (talk) 22:01, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

My RFA
Thanks for the support! I will let you know if I have any questions. KnightLago (talk) 18:57, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Re: Username block
Yeah I was going to do a soft block too, but since the account vandalised, I made it a hard block. I usually don't leave a block notice for hard blocks. is done for blatantly disruptive names (especially if it also vandalises). But if you think a newbie chose a name in good faith, but is against policy (e.g. company names), a soft block is more appropriate. Hope that helps! Spellcast (talk) 14:33, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, this could be helpful: New admin school/Blocking. Spellcast (talk) 14:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Paper clip
Thanks for the heads up. I actually noticed, and spent the last ten or fifteen minutes cleaning up the article. Take a look-see and see if I missed anything. Tan  |   39  15:52, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know why I replied to you here and not on my page. I'll watchlist this page, so we can keep any further stuff on one page ;-) Tan   |   39  15:53, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I'll reply here. The page looks better. I read once that in France they are called "trombones." Edison (talk) 15:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

How My IP Address Is Hacked?
Thanks, I will keep it.How My IP Address Is Hacked? (talk) 01:40, 5 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. At that time I will let you know.How My IP Address Is Hacked? (talk) 01:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the laugh
I just had to drop by and leave you a note to thank you for your closing comment in the recent AFD for Your Black Muslim Bakery: "My neighborhood bakery tends not to get nationwide coverage for murder, rape, conspiracy, etc."

Best laugh I've had in days. Damn, I'm still laughing! Apparently, I have a weakness for understated humor. :) Regards, Cgingold (talk) 05:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

April Fools Day
Ack that was aimed at another page, Sorry about that and thanks for taking it with a laugh. SyBer WoLff 16:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Banned user
In Croat-Serb related articles we are having problem with multiple puppets of user:Velebit /User:Standshown/user:Stagalj .He is using different IP address but must popular are: 71.xxx.xxx.xx ( examples: User talk:71.252.101.51, User:71.252.83.230 ...). I am controling all articles for which this user has shown interest and deleting all his comments and adding. You will maybe question why ? His way of work is to create new puppets and then write POV stuff. After few months his puppets are blocked but his text is staying in articles and he is happy. Now I am deleting all his POV writings without any discussion because he is banned user (and not allowed to write) --Rjecina (talk) 06:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * After his puppet is discovered he create new .....--Rjecina (talk) 07:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * And you sir are a looney. 71.xxx.xxx.xxx is the IP range dynamically given to all ADSL Internet users from Serbian Telekom. A "nice" way to delete other peoples comments, and even to make an excuse for it. I have an idea for you: delete all articles from users from Serbia, since they all might be "puppets" of your friend. Your conspiracy theory is dismissed instantly when someone reads my input which you brutally kept deleting, and even addressing me in an insulting manner... "POV stuff"... rubbish. I gave solid facts and sound reasons for my edits, open for discussion, and you simply kept deleting them. 79.101.64.87 (talk) 22:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I just happened upon this discussion, but I can't help but notice that 71.252.xxx.xxx is actually registered to Verizon Internet Services.-- VectorPotentialTalk 22:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Tesla talk page
Hi, I noticed you left a message for User:Rjecina regarding his deletion of other editors' comments on the Talk:Nikola Tesla page. I had noticed this too. I don't have a horse in that race (the Serbian vs. Croatian matter that is), but the comment blanking concerns me, and seems to have been going on for a while. (and I'd thought there were policies against deletions on talk pages.) Could the deleted comments, if not restored, possibly be moved to the Talk:Nikola Tesla/Nationality and ethnicity page? Rjecina's "management" of the talk page seems aggressive to me, and in my mind crosses the line from policing banned users to censorship. J. Van Meter (talk) 10:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Hi. I left a comment on "Rjecina's" Talk Page concerning this issue, so I will not repeat the same thing. The point is that I have never been banned from Wikipedia, nor do I have any other active accounts (beside on in Serbian Wikipedia), nor have I ever committed and/or was accused of committing vandalism. I suggest that "rjecina's" methods be dealt with, since he seems to be using the argument that if someone makes edits with Serbian IP-range, it deserves to be deleted. Again, please see my comments, and judge if they deserved to be deleted, and I to be harassed and bullied that my account will be banned, and all my contributions deleted by him. I offered solid arguments for insisting that Serbian American reference stand in the intro of Tesla's article, and as an answer - I get a deletion. The same with Josif Pancic page. Thanks and sorry for being so persistent, but this really frustrates me and pisses me off. Marechiel (talk) 20:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I have asked checkuser to look Marechiel but in the end it is not important. He has used 3 accounts to edit article Nikola Tesla in only 25 hours ( his words about that ).

Velebit
To show you wikipedia problems about user:Velebit I will show you different links (, , , ...) I can show you 20-30 other IP address which has been reverted by other editors with explanation reverting banned user. If you look for example user:Stagalj you will see that he is banned not because of his checkuser confirmation but because of his editorial style which has been similar to Velebit. Checkuser is tricky because Velebit has with changed IP address with new puppets so editorial style has become enough for blocking.

In my personnal thinking user:Velebit is really needing professional help. I do not see any other reason for Velebit editing !--Rjecina (talk) 06:45, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 7th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 15:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Notability of politicians
We're having a debate over at Wikipedia talk:Notability (people) in which the example of Articles for deletion/Scott Schertzer came up. Some of the participants are trying to get the guideline relaxed to allow people with only local newspaper mentions to be notable. I agree with your eloquent "Delete" commentary, but I don't think WP:LOCAL is about people, nor is it a guideline or policy. Is there another guideline that you were thinking about that would be more appropriate? Blast Ulna (talk) 15:37, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

RFA thanks
Thanks for your support in my RFA, that didn't quite make it and ended at 120/47/13. There was a ton of great advice there, that I'm going to go on. Maybe someday. If not, there are articles to write! Thanks for your support. Lawrence §  t / e  17:56, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Gavin Wims
I trust you've seen my notes on my talk page by now. My apology for the bad tag on the talk page for deletion. I have restored both the article and the talk page. I wanted to discuss it with you - I suspect the article is a farse and should not exist as an unsourced BLP. Whether or not Mr. Wims was the one who blanked it or not, it doesn't seem like a worthy article. Do you agree? Toddst1 (talk) 20:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 14th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

George Washington Caldwell
Just wrote an article on John Caldwell (Michigan State Representative) who was given the name George Washington Caldwell at birth because he was born on the Fourth of July. Appreciate any tweaking you might have time for. Also submitted for DYK. Thanks. --Doug talk 22:50, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Street Light Interference
I also have an interest in electrical and electronic technology, which is my background. Take a look at the article Street Light Interference. I have basically rewritten the article, since this phenomenon happens to me all the time. It really doesn't have any meaning, however it sure has sturred up a lot of contraversy. Do you have any input on this -or- have you even heard of it? I have put several videos on this on YouTube and received many comments worldwide (see first external link). The link on the Web Poll of 1000 "SLIders" I find interesting also. --Doug talk 23:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents
You're an administrator. Why haven't you at least deleted the phone numbers from history as with the first page? If that were my phone number, I'd want it gone as soon as possible. Even if you're not willing to take any other action, you should do that, as I said on ANI. The way, the truth, and the light (talk) 18:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Explained on your userpage that most admins do not have oversight rights. Edison (talk) 20:13, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

ty...
...for the revert and warning you gave the vandal. He must have known me in another life. Cheers.  APK  yada yada  16:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Signpost updated for April 21st, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 16:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Attack page
You're right about that Chad Campbell thing. What threw me off was the username. I've seen plenty of other attacks by single-purpose accounts which echo the name of the victim of the attack. I just saw red when I first saw it and double-checked it against Google after my blood pressure dropped back to normal. There are some sick little monkeys here in cyberspace. Anyway, thanks for the note. Drop by my talk page anytime. :) --PMDrive1061 (talk) 02:59, 3 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm in favor of a non-copyvio article. It just looked to me at first blush like an attack page but a proper NPOV article would be useful.  Thanks for the update.  You sure you're not Thomas Edison?  :))  --PMDrive1061 (talk) 15:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Ball on inclined plane ref desk
Thanks for your contribution. I was having trouble with the other definitions. I even drew a diagram. Then your answer came in and the proverbial penny dropped. Highly appreciated Lisa4edit71.236.23.111 (talk) 05:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

urs's biography
Jecat (talk) 01:03, 3 May 2008 (UTC) I am here by chance, it was seeking information and I came across somebody that I respect and like a lot's biography. In that biography, somebody put lies that reviled his image. Immediately, I tried to edit, but for little experience in edition, I committed some mistakes and the Wikipedia administration send me a message, in this case you Edison. Now, I know how it works, and I ask, please, don't admit that put lies in the biographies. And sorry about "dating" Tania, the source is the official site (http://forum.ildivo.com/viewtopic.php?t=28524). However, it is better not put anything, because "he" doesn't like to speak about his personal life. Well, in other words, somebody edited and ensinuou that he is gay and that he would be dating a lieutenant of the police (man). So, sorry again. XoXo.

Jecat (talk) 01:58, 6 May 2008 (UTC) Thank you Edison for your response. The source of the information "who he is dating" is in http://forum.ildivo.com/viewtopic.php?t=28524, it's a article from Newcastle Chronicle, april 4, 2008. But, as I already said, it is better not put anything, "that" is not important for his career. :)

Signpost updated for May 2nd and 9th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 06:39, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. I think that Blortash is flippin' Hilarious.-godemperorofdune —Preceding unsigned comment added by Godemperorofdune (talk • contribs) 18:33, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Mammothtuna
Sorry, didnt realise AFD was the requirement for that tag rather than CSD. my apologies again! Ironholds (talk) 04:23, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Yes...Please I wanted to creat this site [arumugam]

Signpost updated for May 12th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:45, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

User: Redking7
Administrator Edison. User: Tactac who appears to be an entirely new User on WP (never having edited any page before now) went to my User page and created a page. There was no page at all there until now. I can see you have since edited the page. Thanks for that. I do not want a User page. Can you amend it so that there is no page there at all and my username appears in red as it always has. Preferably, you could permanently block any editing of my Userpage. I'm not sure if this is your job, but if you could help, I would appreciate it. Kind regards. Redking7 (talk) 17:59, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Redking7 (talk) 18:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Re:accessdate in William Kelly (inventor)
To answer your query, yes, there is a specific date format required for the accessdate in a citation reference (I agree that within the main text of a page this is not the date format to use). Reference: Template:Citation. If you compare the two revisions of the article before and after my edit, you will notice that the 'retrieved on' date for the links now displays as a wikilinked date, rather than a redlink. Hope that explains it. Thanks Rjwilmsi (talk) 18:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

John Tyler User: Fellowsoldier
Go to  You should put a reference to this site to show that Tyler as an alive Grandson. I don't know how to do it so you can. I'm new to this —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fellowsoldier (talk • contribs) 03:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Pup-play
I removed the deletion box and started a discussion about it on the talk page. I don't see any grounds for deletion. Voyager640 (talk) 16:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up on the VFD. Voyager640 (talk) 17:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

RE:Mistake in labelling page blanking as vandalism
Sorry for my mistake. I removed the warning. Regards. Oda Mari (talk) 16:48, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Block of User:Jayron23
Impersonator of admin User:Jayron32. NawlinWiki (talk) 16:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I think that I'm in love with you?
MMMM, have some White LiesWhite LiesWhite for breakfast. Yummy! Love ya x xxxx MonorailKXXXK69 (talk) 15:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)XXXX

User talk:Trenfro
Good idea. Regards, ... disco spinster  talk  01:28, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Since you commented on Talk:Pedophilia
Did you notice that there's a RfC at Talk:Pedophilia? I and others would be grateful for outside input. --AnotherSolipsist (talk) 21:05, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Re: Talk:Pup-play
I did here. Regards, WilliamH (talk) 00:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)
 * That's odd, maybe you are seeing a stale instance of the page then. It works ok for me, the template I inserted provides links to both previous AfD discussions. WilliamH (talk)

Signpost updated for May 19th and 26th, 2008.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:31, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Vandilism
Oh sorry i did not read the thing sorry and thanks for notifying me and it will never happen again Salcan (talk) 02:17, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Vandilism 2
ohh ok that should realy help thanks! Salcan (talk) 02:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Behavior, that is
Impressive pickup, Edison, but please note the slight amendment I made to your response on the Humanities ref desk. -- Deborahjay (talk) 21:14, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

And then: "...I have known swayback horses (and humans) who were not averse ..." Indeed this equine or human stance may be a facilitating aspect, but let us not infer a causality nor induce that it indicates an a priori predisposition to such courtship > mating ;-) -- Deborahjay (talk) 03:57, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

...and also: Please know that I really was impressed by your response/s and do appreciate your explanation and accompanying citations. (I'm not so great at that, being more the internal-link sort of Ref Desk contributor.) Exemplary, really, and worthy of note (besides the wink :-) -- Deborahjay (talk) 04:22, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Edison
for your encouragement and for being around – makes all the diff. Best, : ) Julia Rossi (talk) 08:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Why i edited these pages
You just left me a message "Please stop your disruptive editing"

 the user is known as Majstor Mile now

Is it ok for me too change it?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Very easy (talk • contribs) 04:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)