User talk:Elizium23/Archive 1

Editor assistance/Requests
You are involved in recently-filed Edit warring & 3RR and Sockpuppet investigations. Do not worry; you are not suspect in these investigations. Your name was simply mentioned as an involved party. Please review the requests at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring & Sockpuppet investigations/Gerald Gonzalez and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit. Thank you. Taric25 (talk) 09:14, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

October 2010
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Melissa Joan Hart. Users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Kudpung (talk) 23:43, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Please don't change the format of dates without good reason, as you did to Melissa Joan Hart. A religious festival is not suitable as a date of birth  for  a biographical  subject  in an encyclopedia. The tone of encyclopedic articles is far more formal than that  of newspapers or websites. Continuing to  revert  this entry  will  be considered as disruptive editing  or even vandalism, which  will both  result  in  you  being  blocked from editing  the encyclopedia. If you have any questions about this, ask me on my talk page. Enjoy your time on Wikipedia. Thank you. .'' --Kudpung (talk) 23:55, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I did not violate the WP:3RR policy and I did use the talk page to resolve this dispute, nor did I change the format of a date; I merely preserved its format as added by a third-party editor. Please do not stigmatize me by adding false templates to my talk page. Thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 01:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * These warnings were placed in  genuine error and have been retracted. Please accept my  apologies.--Kudpung (talk) 10:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

November 2010 backlog elimination drive update
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of The Utahraptor (talk) at 15:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC).

Hellcats
Accolades should be in prose format, not table. Jayy008 (talk) 19:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Where is the policy on this? I looked in several places, and couldn't find one that said either way. Elizium23 (talk) 19:55, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I will try and find it for you. The user who informed me of the rule (I used to like it as a table), is now permanently blocked, so I can't ask him. I'll ask around for you. Jayy008 (talk) 22:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Seems to be some hints at Manual of Style (embedded lists): Most Wikipedia articles should consist of prose, and not just a list of links. Prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, while a list of links does not. Prose flows, like one person speaking to another, and is best suited to articles, because their purpose is to explain. Therefore, lists of links, which are most useful for browsing subject areas, should usually have their own entries: see Stand-alone lists for detail. In an article, significant items should be mentioned naturally within the text rather than merely listed. Elizium23 (talk) 22:38, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you for pasting that, it's definitely good to know. That should clear up any confusion in the future. :) Jayy008 (talk) 22:58, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Editing on "Skyline (film)"
Thanks for the info on escapes.

I gather that you followed the link but didn't think that it was up to "reliable source" standards.

You're probably right about that, but the WikiPedia article on "A Plague of Demons" is sadly just a bare link and not even a stub.

I'll try to find something else that might rise to the "reliable source" standard. Thardman22 (talk) 01:42, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * perhaps the synopsis from Barnes and Noble's online site might be useful? Thardman22 (talk) 01:48, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I followed the link, and found nothing there that mentioned Skyline, or compared the story to anything else. Please read WP:OR regarding 'original research.' You have to be able to quote secondary sources which say the thing you want to say. For example, a contemporary reviewer may say, "I watched this movie Skyline, and it looked to me an awful lot like a book I have read, A Plague of Demons. Plot point A and plot point B are nearly identical." Then that is published by a reputable news site, and you can use that quote and paraphrase it to make the same point about Skyline. Someone else has done the research for us. This way, it passes verifiability standards. To quote WP:OR: "No original research" is one of three core content policies, along with Neutral point of view and Verifiability, that jointly determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles. Because these policies work in harmony, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should try to familiarize themselves with all three. Elizium23 (talk) 04:35, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Um actually I did see the movie, and I did read the Keith Laumer novel "A Plague of Demons". And I did see the similarities. See also my blog where I mention it in an oblique fashion. But I understand that I can't use my own opinions as "original research". With all due respect, perhaps you might see the movie and read the novel, and do a write-up on a reputable site and get peer-review comment? The movie itself might be a waste of money unless you're easily amused, or not. Your decision and opinion matter! But the Keith Laumer novel (1965) is considered a classic, however dated it might seem to us modern people. I realize you're just informing me as to Wikipedia standards, but I've been through this before. Don't worry, no edit war is forthcoming. But would it be acceptable if I contrasted and compared various reviews of of both. The focus for my comparison is the final minutes of Skyline which are practically point-by-point of the last few pages of "A Plague of Demons", the main difference being that in Skyline there is the added element of defense of a pregnant wife. The brain-transplant into a killing machine/cyborg combat chassis is practically word for word, otherwise. But I realize I can't cite my own opinion. Thardman22 (talk) 04:55, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

GOCE Drive – Final push
Greetings GOCE Backlog elimination drive participant, We are now coming up to the last few days of the drive, the last for 2010. Currently, it looks like we will achieve our target for reducing the backlog by 10%, however, we still have huge numbers for 2009. We have 55 participants in this drive. If everyone just clears 2 articles each, we will reduce the backlog by a further 110 articles. If everyone can just do 3 articles, we will hit 165. If you have yet to work on any articles and have rollover words, remember that you do need to copyedit at least a couple of articles in this drive for your previous rollover to be valid for the next drive. There are many very small articles that will take less than 5-10 minutes to copyedit. Use CatScan to find them. Let's all concentrate our firepower on the first three months of 2009 as we approach the end of this final drive for the year. Thank you once again for participating, and see you at the finish line! – SMasters (talk) 04:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

ModelSheet
Do you have specific suggestions as to how to rewrite the ModelSheet article so it's not considered advert? I already included diverse sources including the largely unfavorable ZD Net review. Thanks. Woz2 (talk) 21:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the Strategy, products and services section is the problematic part. In particular, these changes are completely marketing-speak and a clear conflict of interest for the editor responsible. Thankfully, he's also provided us with good sources. The whitepapers, and any other documentation we can find on the company website, should be plenty to start describing the products neutrally. Overall, we need to cut down on the WP:PEACOCK terms, and just explain why the software exists, and what it does. Elizium23 (talk) 21:54, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! I think I fixed it. Please remove the advert template if it now looks OK. Woz2 (talk) 01:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! Looks good now. Woz2 (talk) 03:06, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Raven-Symoné
Yes. This auto-bot did it, and now users won't stop reverting my edits that took me about an hour to complete. I did look through it, and not much is really nessicary to add. ΣПD!ПG–STΛЯT &#124;  TΛLK  &#124; 06:33, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Nah, the bot reverted to a revision of yours, but the reverts are coming from . I have warned this user once, hopefully he will either get himself blocked, or give up. Elizium23 (talk) 06:57, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I’m not exactly sure how to reply to messages on wikipedia, so I’ll just put it here. You can delete it or whatever if you chose. As far as the Raven-Symoné page I kept reverting the page back because I believed her music and acting career didn’t need to be combined. But I've let that go. I don’t know why I’m being accused of vandalism when the Raven page months ago use to say she died in a car accident and that she was signed to Cash Money Records. And I’m the one who re-wrote 90% of the content that‘s up now im just not signed into my user account. But anyway, as far as my last edit that got reverted that made no sense what's so ever considering all I changed was wrong. Her movie's not called Everybody's Hero, it's called Everyone's Hero. Also her characters name is not Dani its Marti. Also I took out the Debbie Allen play because it's not important enough to mention in my opinion. She did a 24-Hour musical earlier this year that’s not listed. What makes this one notable. Thank You. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.149.214 (talk) 19:12, 28 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I am glad to hear that you have good reasons for your edits. What you need to do is voice these reasons in your edit summaries and, if that fails, start a discussion on Talk:Raven-Symoné about it. Combining her careers is something that could be a content dispute and you need to achieve consensus about whether or not that is a desirable change. Please review WP:RS and WP:V - Wikipedia is built on the principle of verifiability, and this means that statements in articles must be backed up by reliable sources. The passage about the Debbie Allen play did include a source, and removal of references tends to set off alarm bells (although you could be right about notability - see WP:DUE about that.) And I know the statement about Everyone's Hero doesn't have a source. But in correcting that, it would be best if you tracked one down - please avoid using IMDb, because anyone can change it, it is not considered a reliable source. Sorry about the reverts, but as you've noted, there is a lot of vandalism to this page, and it tends to come from anonymous IP editors who aren't using edit summaries, so it can be a kneejerk reaction when I revert stuff that hasn't been discussed in any way. Elizium23 (talk) 19:37, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Instalment
I had no idea that was a British spelling. I thought I knew all of the little spelling differences between American and British. Either way thanks for letting me know. bob rulz (talk) 08:02, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader
Hey there. Just to let you know I've cleaned up and converted the references a bit. I also replied to your request on the talk page. I hope the refs look a bit better now.-- The Taerkasten ( talk ) 21:52, 29 November 2010 (UTC)


 * So far, so good! Thanks! Elizium23 (talk) 23:14, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

GOCE elections
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors via SMasters using AWB on 01:37, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:FILM November 2010 Newsletter
The November 2010 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:53, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

November 2010 Backlog Elimination Drive Conclusion
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 23:35, 2 December 2010 (UTC).

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 22:33, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

GOCE Year-end Report
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 06:17, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

WP:FILM December 2010 Newsletter
The December 2010 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 04:02, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Raven
Duplicate headings look ridiculous. If some obscure style guide says to put them, ignore it. It's an example, not the law. Gimmetoo (talk) 00:55, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's for accessibility, something you don't seem to understand. Please leave them in. Elizium23 (talk) 00:57, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think you have any inclination what I understand. This is an issue of style, and I object to your style change. The table has headers, so it doesn't need any more. Gimmetoo (talk) 01:00, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
 * In case you didn't know, the article had mostly sortable tables, without extra headers, until some changes by an IP editor. Gimmetoo (talk) 17:23, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Rosenvilde videregående skole
Hi there. I have declined the speedy tag on this article as WP:A7 does not apply to schools. Thank you, → ♠ Gƒoley ↔ Four ♣ ← 03:01, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Sarah Brightman Bio
hello! excuse me! but you're adding information that is already in another paragraph

please look this! On 29 January 2008, Brightman released her first album in five years: Symphony, influenced by gothic music.[47] The Title track of the album "Symphony" is a cover of "Symphonie" by the German band Silbermond. In the United States it became Brightman's most successful chart entry and also her highest ranked album on Billboard's "Top 200 Albums". It was also a #1 album on two other Billboard's charts: "Top Internet Albums" and "Top Classical Crossover Albums". The album moved there 32,033 copies in first week[48], according to Nielsen Soundscan. Nevertheless, the album flopped in the Billboard 200 top album chart, lasting only eleven weeks on the list and selling about 145,000 units[49][50] marking Brightman's worst sales in the United States for an studio album in her solo-career period. In contrast, in Canada the album debuted and peaked at #4; in Mexico it entered at #9, where it peaked at #5; and in Japan debuted and peaked at 2. The median success that the album experienced was awarded with Gold x 5 & Platinum x 2 awards and sold only 720,000 worldwide.

sorry if I caused any trouble, have a nice day!

and Sarah now Collected 180 platinum and gold certifacion! Please read my comments in the discussion part! Greetings! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedarkocean (talk • contribs) 03:15, 21 January 2011 (UTC)

CAT:UAA
Hi, I've noticed you've been leaving quite a few templates that populate CAT:UAA. Could I ask you to refrain from using those templates until the user has actually edited? In the case of promotional usernames, we can't block until and unless they edit and they edit something connected with their usernames, so leaving the templates just makes a mess of the category, not to mention potentially scaring of newbies. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   02:21, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I understand and I will not be so zealous in the future. Sorry. Elizium23 (talk) 02:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Zeal is not always a bad thing, but it's polite to give them a chance to violate policy before we start threatening blocks! ;) Of course, if you come across a grossly offensive username, report it to WP:UAA so it can be blocked (most people with such usernames are not new at all or have no intention of contributing constructively). Meanwhile, do feel free to help me clear out the backlog by removing the non-vios so I can find the ones that need dealing with! Oh, and see below! HJ Mitchell  &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   03:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Reviewer permission
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged revisions, underwent a two-month trial which ended on 15 August 2010. Its continued use is still being discussed by the community, you are free to participate in such discussions. Many articles still have pending changes protection applied, however, and the ability to review pending changes continues to be of use.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under level 1 pending changes and edits made by non-reviewers to level 2 pending changes protected articles (usually high traffic articles). Pending changes was applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

For the guideline on reviewing, see Reviewing. Being granted reviewer rights doesn't grant you status nor change how you can edit articles even with pending changes. The general help page on pending changes can be found here, and the general policy for the trial can be found here.

If you do not want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   03:15, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Talk:Dog
btw, it wasn't vandalism, i was previewing a template from my sandbox that i needed to make sure was working properly in the normal talk space... i just accidentally hit save instead of preview, and you got to the edit before i could undo it. :) --&#65279;ΖαππερΝαππερ BabelAlexandria 04:09, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That's fine, when I investigated, it seemed like an honest mistake, which is why I didn't leave you a warning template. :) Elizium23 (talk) 04:15, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Women in India
Excuse me, why are my edits considered vandalism ??? I am posting a picture of an average Indian women which is quite relevant to the article. --- NapoleonARS
 * If you had looked at the description of the image or the other articles which include it, or even bothered to look closely at the person portrayed there, you would know that this is a hijra or intersex person, not a woman. Elizium23 (talk) 01:37, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually you are quite right. My fault. I will try posting a better picture of an average Indian with her true colour. Do you have any other suggestions? --- NapoleonARS

Potash fertilizer
Just to let you know that it turns out the "extremely basic and uncontroversial fact" that K2O = 'Potash fertilizer' is in fact untrue according to US & UK universities and chemical societies, so 66.215.122.173's rant **** you wikitard "CITATION NEEDED" is not appropriate was doubly wrong, first for the attack and second for denying the need to find a source for what turned out to be an incorrect claim. - Pointillist (talk) 00:22, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * LOL, thank you for that. I am ignorant when it comes to chemistry. Flirted with girls in high school and flunked my college course. Elizium23 (talk) 00:24, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Haven't studied it since looonng ago myself, but when I see wikitard in an edit summary I go the extra mile to check, and after a few minutes digging (just at the I-have-a-few-brain-cells-left level) I could see the OP was right to query the claim and the aggressor was wrong. My worry is that this sort of aggression is done by experienced editors while logged out. They have to be called – very firmly – on that. IMO once you have a named account if you edit while logged out you are prima facie a sock puppet. - 00:42, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I couldn't agree more. I am currently dealing with an anonymous editor who was editing all kinds of Catholic articles and trying to rewrite history and I had an exchange on his talk page. Now he's stopped editing and my worst fear is that he's got an account and is using that to edit instead, and that I've totally lost track of him until he happens to tread on my watchlist again. Eek! Elizium23 (talk) 00:45, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Avril Lavigne Twitter link
Hello. You have to read further into WP:EL, but the Twitter link is redundant. There is already a link to the Avril Lavigne official page, and that page has a link to Twitter (I just checked). So it is inappropriate to include a Twitter link on the article. –  Ker αun oςc op ia◁ galaxies  09:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM January 2011 Newsletter
The January 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:12, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

GOCE January Backlog elimination drive conclusion
Delivered by MessageDeliveryBot on behalf of WikiProject Guild of Copy Editors at 15:07, 5 February 2011 (UTC).

Notability of the Shadows (Software) article
Hi, I'd like to discuss the warning you added on my article. This article is about a well known free software that is used by thousands of people around the world. I added references to independant sources such as magazines and web sites of associations dealing with the same subject. I am open to improve this article if you think some parts need improvement. Otherwise, I would suggest to delete the warning on top of the page Shadows (software). Many thanks. Frb ds (talk) 17:58, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I did not add the warning template but I merely restored it when it was removed. Let me remind you that nobody on Wikipedia owns an article, and all are generally welcome to improve and make revisions where we see fit. The relevant policy is available to read at WP:OWN. Secondly, you appear to be the author of the software, which means you have a conflict of interest and you are discouraged from making major changes directly to the article. Your changes appear to be acceptable, however, because they are non-contrtoversial and have improved the encyclopedic value of the article. Now, regarding the article's notability, please see the general notability guidelines at WP:GNG. I believe that this subject has not received "significant" coverage in the cited sources. I would say that "significant coverage" would mean that it has merited an article or at least a few paragraphs in articles about sundial software. However, all the links I followed are merely lists of available software, of which one line each is dedicated to Shadows. However, these references are a good start, and have so far been enough to save the article from outright deletion. I suggest that you stay on the lookout for more coverage of this software and include it, lest the article be nominated for deletion by another editor who is not so lenient as I am. Elizium23 (talk) 19:36, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Use of the Quebec nationality not welcome
Hi Elizium23:

I don't know your origin, but please don't add fuel to the fire. We in Canada are proud of our connection to the French culture. I don't appreciate someone interposing a "Quebec" identity on someone born in Canada. "French-Canadian" is less provocative, unless you are planning a revolution. I am referring to your edit at January 8‎ for "Gaston Miron." I tried to direct you to a discussion on this very topic and the edit summary was not long enough to catch the address. See this noticeboard: Ethnic_war_brewing. --Skol fir (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I was merely following up on a large swath of edits by and the only reverts I made were to match what is asserted in the corresponding articles of the subjects. No identification as French-Canadian or Quebecois => no revert made. Also, I have read the discussion there, and I can't find any evidence of a resolution, an outcome, or a consensus for the subject. Also, that topic is three years old. Elizium23 (talk) 23:37, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * If you need more information, it is all in here: Quebec nationalism. You cannot put Quebec ahead of Canada, unless you are a separatist yourself. For an encyclopedia to take a political stance in such matters is not acceptable. --Skol fir (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I apologize for marking these contentious edits minor. But I am merely making Wikipedia internally consistent. If you wish to regularize your view then please consult all biographical articles referenced in the edits. If you need a central place to discuss it then I suggest Administrators' noticeboard/Geopolitical ethnic and religious conflicts. Elizium23 (talk) 00:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I accept the apology. I sometimes hit the "minor" button when I know I shouldn't! I did not change André D'Allemagne's entry on February 1 (death in 2001), because he was a known separatist nor Marcel Léger's for February 5, because he was a known sovereigntist. I think that if the original biographies emphasize Quebec, when it is not warranted, I suspect these articles were written by someone with a bias, and should have been checked at the source. I made the effort to become fully bilingual in order to embrace the French origins of our nation, Canada. No one forced me to do that. My mother language was not French, but German.


 * I would like to see Quebec recognize its proud and honored place in the history and future of Canada, not pretend to be a nation, when it is not. Whenever possible, I emphasize the Canadian over the Quebec nationality, unless, of course, I am speaking with a separatist, in which case, I keep my mouth shut! :-) --Skol fir (talk) 00:31, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

delete & sources
There are sources there and there are more on other sites in audio form. All the sources are not not subjects sites. For the article Ola-abaza. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kellyrussell34 (talk • contribs) 09:01, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Computer games
I don't see a subset so please made it more clear in the video article. 204.174.87.29 (talk) 00:19, 16 February 2011 (UTC)


 * The burden is not on me to make it clearer. The burden is on you, the editor making the changes, to show that you have consensus for the changes you're making. I disagree and am reverting all your changes. Please work more carefully in the future. Elizium23 (talk) 06:16, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Talkback: IP 204.174.87.29
—  Spike Toronto  20:03, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

February 2011
Please do not remove speedy deletion notices from pages you have created yourself, as you did with The Luminous Empty. Please use the template on the page instead if you disagree with the deletion, and make your case on the page's talk page. Thank you.  ttonyb (talk) 00:46, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I am not the one who removed the template, I am the one who placed the template to begin with. Elizium23 (talk) 03:24, 17 February 2011 (UTC)


 * My apologies, I must have grabbed the wrong name. I have struck out the tag.  Feel free to remove it if you wish.  My best to you.   ttonyb  (talk) 03:18, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

GA review
Hi, just to let you know i plan to review Melissa Joan Hart for GA. Monkeymanman (talk) 14:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)
 * were you planning to make the changes i pointed out? (there were others but i left a list to begin with) You have 7 days and then i will have to fail it.  If that happens i could lend a hand to improve the article if you wanted.  Monkeymanman (talk) 19:21, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * are you even remotely bothered about your GA nomination of Melissa Joan Hart? Monkeymanman (talk) 19:23, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, hi, I am sorry I haven't gotten back to you. I was just kind of taken aback by the number of problems that turned up, and dismayed that nobody else has attempted to help or even commented on the review. I feel kind of alone here. Elizium23 (talk) 21:21, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * No worries. I think i kind of felt your isolation after i left the GA review feedback and took it upon myself to fix a few things. The main problem left might be with the refs and the degree to which the content is expanded.  Just by looking at the discussion page had the article gone through a period of edit conflicts or disagreements? Monkeymanman (talk) 23:46, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The article has been quite stable. The only disputes in the past couple of years have been some sporadic additions of a medical claim that was untrue about her; the gender of her younger sister Mackenzie which I finally put to rest, and that dust-up with Active Banana regarding the Easter Sunday birthday. Nothing really major or protracted and all of those are in the past. Elizium23 (talk) 01:05, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
 * sorry had to fail the article for GA. I have left some pointers to improve.  Regards. Monkeymanman (talk) 19:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your efforts. I appreciate the review and the time you took to fix things. Elizium23 (talk) 19:17, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Something to read
Hi! Please read WP:DOLT, because it is relevant to some of what is currently happening at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard, and your earlier actions. Thank you. --Demiurge1000 (talk) 01:46, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Freedom Through Christ Prison Ministry
Hello Elizium23. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Freedom Through Christ Prison Ministry, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: '''First source provided is enough for A7. Take to AfD if required.''' Thank you. Ged UK  11:01, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Discussion re: Notability: Chris Bateman
Hi Elizium23, thanks for your swift attention to my edits. I responded to your comments on my talk page, but then realized you might not see them there, so I have brought them here as well. (Although I have been a Wikipedia contributor for many years, I only registered recently, and this solely so that my conflict of interest issue would be a matter of public record).

With regards to your comments I did not create the article on myself, and I did not declare myself as 'notable' - my Wikipedia article has been extant for many years. However, it has been stuck at "stub" for all this time, containing information that was old and incomplete. On careful consideration of the issues, I could see no reason that I could not add content to my Wikipedia page in order to help it develop provided that (a) I made it clear that I had done so and (b) I adhered to the moral values of the Wikipedia. I have done both of these things to the best of my ability. It is now up to others in the Wikipedia community (such as yourself) to audit what I have done and ensure that it is commensurate with those values. But if the Wikipedia is closed to contributions of this kind, then it risks valuing heresay over fact, which would be a very strange standard for any reference to adhere to.

It is worth bearing in mind that I could have registered under a fake name and controlled my page more or less however I wished. I did not do this - I did not conceal my involvement, I was open about it. I did not violate Wikipedia's moral standards. If the purpose of Wikipedia is to provide an accurate source of information that is freely maintained by volunteers within strictly maintained standards, it seems to me that what I have done here is within the spirit of those goals. Telling me that "someone will create an article about you sooner or later" is a rather disingenuous claim: either the Wikipedia is in the business of cataloguing verifiable facts or it is not. If it is, then my verifiable content is as good as anyone else's, notwithstanding the possibility of loss of neutrality (which any contributor risks, because one cannot be neutral on a subject that one has *chosen* to edit). Thank you for your attention to this matter; I hope that it can be resolved to everyone's satisfaction. All the best, ChrisBateman (talk) 20:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

WP:FILM February 2011 Newsletter
The February 2011 issue of the WikiProject Film newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. If you have an idea for improving the newsletter please leave a message on my talk page. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 03:12, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Bewitched sources
Dear Mr./Ms. Elizium, Thank you for your contribution to the discussion at Bewitched. I find it amazing that someone who claims that he is an anonymous editor who has been editing for one day is so good at Wikilawyering, and I do not believe his statement that he is not the same as the previous editor in question. In any case I no longer wish to be involved in the article at this time. Sincerely, Njsustain (talk) 08:33, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Article Tahash Timeline
Please look at the article Tahash, and on the Discussion Page: "Consensus on Timeline" give your opinion about the Timeline. Thank you. --Michael Paul Heart (talk) 14:00, 3 March 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm curious as to why I received this personal message. I am a member of Wikiproject Linguistics, I watch the Talk page there for updates; I didn't see any request there for help. Elizium23 (talk) 21:48, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Belshazar reply to Elizium re deletions
You deleted my additions to Writing on the Wall, Soothsayer, Soothsaying, Belshazzar and Belteshazzar for the reason "original research." Yet you leave other explainations of Daniel up that are nothing but original research. You are missing the point with prophecy - there is no such thing as original research. That is obvious when you leave in another person's interpretation of Daniel. The current Wikipedia explanation for Daniel ia all conjecture. There is no research at all.

Prophecy is not an Iron Pit that can be Researched.
This is not an iron pit that I found in India and I am claiming my find as original research. That is something tangible that can be researched. Bible prophecy is anything but tangible, nor can it be researched until it happens. You can research Nebudhadnezzar and Daniel as people or times but the Book of Daniel is all about future events which, by definition, means you can not research them. That is why I added my interpretations as soothsaying and seperate entries so the reader can conpare different schools of thought. But none of it is real. It is all guess work.

There is only one "person" who can make sense of Bible prophecy, the same kind of person that was found by Kind Nebuchadnezzar's administration to interpret his dream - the Writing on the Wall. That was Daniel then,and Belteshazzar, now, at the "dividing of time", or the End.

There are ten horns on "The Beast" plus a "little horn" and then the twelfth "Horn" which is "Belshazzar." Seven of those horns are dead but five are still alive and one is the current ruling "Horn." This prophecy was written 2,500 years ago and it is happening NOW! Now is not the time to delete this information. I am BELTE-SHAZZAR. This is a role I have to play. There is no money or fame in it. I am doing it on Wikipedia because it has to go to everyone on the planet as fast as possible and in an acceptabl manner. Can you imagine a person who people have been waiting 2,500 years to appear? Here I am. No money. No fame. No notice. No name. I even go be a penname. There is nothing in this for me. So, if I fit the profile and you understand the basic premis that in prophecy there is no such thing as research in the normal context, then you can let me proceed at least to a point where my words will confirm my soothsayings. This is bigger than both of us. I don't know what I am doing here. I am not an editor. I just started as a User a couple weeks ago and really don't know what I am doing because I am not an editor. I write soothsayings. I am a "little man" living in the middle of nowhere in the "mountains with three crosses" simply trying to do my duty for mankind. It is up to you to undelete my pages and to get other editors and especially your religion/Christian Wiki project editors to consider my soothsayings. Undelete my pages that explain my writing under the name of Belteshazzar. Then I will write a "Review by my Peers" article to explain the soothing for the 666 and Beast. It is irrefutable. After that, by my words, you can then decide to delete everything I have written. But if you decide to keep it up, then you have to protect it because I can not defend every page all the time against the inevitable vandalism and editing disputes that will emerge.

== Wakeup Call: the Japan Quake. Now is the time for Belteshazzar! ==

The Japan quake is a wakeup call that will turn into everyone's nightmare. You must reconsider your action to delete everything I wrote. You could put up a notice on any page that Belteshazzar soothsayings are on and say the soothsayings are another source or interpretation in its own right that the Wiki editors have read and deemed logical enough to publish as a Wiki article based on its own merit. That means every chapter in Daniel, too. Look at the mess you have for the Book of Daniel now. Nothing makes sense. Only what I have written so far. You agreed with it and then deleted it even saying it was "excellent". Hellow! It is time to get serious NOW. This is the End, the "dividing of time" or the Messiah you don't want to return the real "second" time.

So, to Elizium and anyone else reading this, please go to my user page Beltshazar97.179.37.168 (talk) 20:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC) to read more on this quandry facing Wikipedia over religion and Bible verse, how to interpret it and not call it "original research."

PS. Don't tell me to write a book and then use that as the research background. This is so much bigger than that. This is the last "Horse" of "Armageddon" rounding the final turn and running like a bat out of hell with the "Devil" chasing him to the finish line at The End.

Help: Belteshazzar needs editors to put up and then protect the many article pages that will be effected by 10 Books of Daniel and most of Revelation. Can we talk? Will you undelete, please? Thank you. Cheers, Beltshazar 97.179.37.168 (talk) 20:28, 12 March 2011 (UTC) I put the talk back link here. I hope it is not to be at the top. . Please respond to my talk page re your deleting everything including pages you did not warn about. Major question: prophecy is interpretation and does not fit under the wiki catagory of "original research." Beltshazar (talk) 23:07, 13 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello Elizium23. Just thought I'd mention before you go to the trouble of writing a long response or anything that I have responded to this similar thing at User talk:Beltshazar. – GorillaWarfare talk • contribs 00:43, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

.
 * Am I doing this right with 2 colons? I responded on my user page, too. Should I be writing here if I write on my user page too?

All my interpretations are cited to published writers. A third of everything I have written is in quotes and referenced to other published writers with outside references supporting the Bible verse. Very little of what I write is original. It is all other writer's words. I am no different than a language translater except I translate ancient Bible verse and metaphors into common sense translations no different than any other translater working with a difficult language. Everything I write is referenced to other writers. Beltshazar (talk) 02:34, 14 March 2011 (UTC) {{talkback|Beltshazar} Hi again: I posed a new Soothsayer article page for you to check out. {{talkback|Beltshazar} Beltshazar (talk) 18:05, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Contradiction:
A contradiction has come up re Bible verse as a reliable source for Bible verse, especially prophecy. Cheers, BeltshazarBeltshazar (talk) 16:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

Your friend and mine
I've begun to revert the de-Romanizations of User: 71.50.28.249. I absolutely agree with you that there are many eparchies in New York - the Armenian one is the first one I found. Thanks for the backup. Did you know that he has removed in more than one case the word "Roman" when it's being used to differentiate Roman Catholics and Eastern Catholics? That kind of editing is dangerous, and could even leave the implication that Eastern Catholics aren't really Catholic, which is the kind of non-neutral point of view we have to strictly avoid (as you know). --NellieBly (talk) 05:27, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It is rather sad that he is doing this disruptively, instead of joining the discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Catholicism. In one respect he is right, that it is not always necessary to specifically refer to the Roman Catholic Church. Especially in the discussion on categories right now, I feel that many categories are unnecessarily restrictive by specifying Roman Catholic when they are actually organizations of all Catholics in the communion of Churches.
 * A few months ago I had to clean up someone else's mess, who was deleting references to Eastern Catholic Churches in articles on Orthodoxy. He wanted to deny that they existed at all, or shared praxis with Orthodox Churches. I gave a heads-up on WikiProject Catholicism, and kept reverting him, and he more or less acquiesced. I think I will make a report of this new guy to WP Catholicism so we possibly have some extra eyes watching. Elizium23 (talk) 05:35, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * It's true that sometimes "Roman" is not necessary, but I suspect this editor was not thinking globally and simply didn't think about the Eastern Catholics. BTW, I didn't know Wikipedia had a project on Catholicism; thanks for the tip. Cheers! --NellieBly (talk) 05:53, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Spam on talkpages
If you see spam on a usertalk, just revert it (and let the blocking admin know); it triggered a blizzard of warnings to me from a bot when I removed the speedy deletion tag, and I had to block the bot briefly to get it under control. A userpage wouldn't be deleted under normal circumstances - I'll protect it if it happens again.  Acroterion   (talk)   20:16, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
 * OK. Sorry about that. Elizium23 (talk) 20:23, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Sources on Anna Popplewell
Hi, I saw you reverted Parawhore123's addition to Anna Popplewell with the comment "IMDB is not a reliable source". While this is generally true, are you sure it applies to biographies? The cited page says "You may report errors and omissions on this page to the IMDb database managers. They will be examined and if approved will be included in a future update", which suggests a degree of editorial oversight. Feezo (Talk) 03:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, it definitely applies to biographies. They will accept any old factoid with little checking. The "oversight" is just to make sure that vandalism and obvious hoaxes don't get through in the first place. For example, Melissa Joan Hart's bio - for the longest time it asserted that Mackenzie Hart is her brother, when Mackenzie is female. I see that error is still in there in another place. I have submitted corrections to IMDB on occasion and they were accepted, but the fact remains that they don't check sources when adding this junk and it is essentially a Wiki without references. Elizium23 (talk) 03:18, 28 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I wasn't sure. I've notified the user and made a note on WP:IMDB. Feezo (Talk) 03:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Amy Adams
why can other actors have future films listed in their filmography but not Amy Adams??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derek.Evans82 (talk • contribs) 06:07, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
 * They can't. Please read WP:OTHERSTUFF.

Hi
If I cite that the site (ModelMikdash.com) is in Spanish Would that be OK?Truthful history (talk) 04:08, 5 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That depends on the content of the site. Please read Manual_of_Style_(links) and Elno for guidance on linking such a site. Elizium23 (talk) 04:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

La Sagrada Familia
Deleted my critical edit. My change has been reversed by someone who agreed with your deletions.

Cheers. Amandajm (talk) 13:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Challenging CSD A7 on John Ukec Lueth Ukec
I have challenged your CSD A7 on John Ukec Lueth Ukec. The article contains multiple clear assertions of notability, and I consider them to be credible, which is enough to survive CSD criteria A7. If you still think the article should be deleted, I suggest starting an AFD. Monty 845  18:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, I see that, thanks. Elizium23 (talk) 18:46, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Bonnie Wright
Hey, thanks for helping out in that article! I don't know what's wrong with some of those who delete or ask another reference. I think that YouTube is (at least in this case) a valid reference, too. It's getting pretty ridiculous already with all that reverting and things. It's really good that someone sticks to the facts! --URunICon (talk) 09:22, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of TeenNick's "The 90's Are All That!"
A tag has been placed on TeenNick's "The 90's Are All That!", requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a redirect to an article talk page, file description page, file talk page, MediaWiki page, MediaWiki talk page, category talk page, portal talk page, template talk page, help talk, user page, user talk or special page from the main/article space.

If you can fix the redirect to point to a mainspace page, please do so and remove the speedy deletion tag. However, please do not remove the speedy deletion tag unless you are fixing the redirect. If you think the redirect should be retained as is for some reason, contest the deletion by clicking on the button that looks like this: which appears inside of the speedy deletion  tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the article's talk page directly to give your reasons. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. DASHBot (talk) 06:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

GOCE drive newsletter
Sent on behalf of the Guild of Copy Editors using AWB on 07:18, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

talk page edit
Hi Elizium23, thanks for the note. How can an editor be allowed to make statements that directly demean the person in a biography article, and even insult IMDB.com as not being reliable? At least IMDB is verified by film producers and directors... while here we are allowing people with NO credentials to do the same. How does this rude editor get to leave demeaning remarks in relation to a live person on a talk page? What makes this person worthy of judging what is a "bit" part in a film? Or a CD not being worthy of notability? Those are ridiculous statements and should not be allowed to be made where the general public can read them. I want to be a Wikipedian, but not if I have to continually encounter arrogant envious people like this person. There are no "bit" parts in motion pictures performed by SAG actors. I could go on... but this is ridiculous, no? Who policies these arrogant editors that would demean the personality or IMDB.com? I know Wikipedia very well as a reader... and there are actors and musicians and CD's with far less notability than the article of question makes note of, all with reputable reference citations. What's the use when a hater can smear your work and the people I choose to write about? Just because I am related to the person does not allow someone to demean the content... If I can avoid COI and provide quality references what else can I do? I cannot be asked to meet the subjective standards of someone looking to hate on a person just because a family member started the article. Yes, it raises a red flag, but that's what the community is here for, to edit the work and ensure notability, not develop their own subjective definitions of notability. Otherwise, he should do that to 80% of the biography writers on Wikipedia. This cannot be allowed if we hope to grow Wikipedia with my generation and the next generation to come. Thank you for caring. --Ambercaparas (talk) 22:44, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * IMDb is not considered a reliable source. It is not verified by the film producers and directors, it is essentially a Wiki; they accept user-submitted information, and while it is "reviewed" before updates are made, it is not fact-checked. It is particularly discouraged to use IMDb for biographical information, but I have found factual errors all over - in bios, in filmographies, in quotes, you name it. See WP:RS/IMDB for the currently official word from Wikipedia. As for contentious statements about living persons, they must be well-sourced or removed. Anywhere they are encountered, even on talk pages. However, you can't just blank an entire talk page. It contained maintenance templates and various valid comments as a record of discussion. Offhand, I don't see anything contentious on the talk page that would violate the BLP policy. Please remember WP:CIVIL as one of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia. We must all work together in collaboration to improve the encyclopedia, and you must tread especially lightly given that this is a WP:BLP and a WP:COI for you. Elizium23 (talk) 22:54, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the kind response. But why demean facts in a public forum instead of simply editing them out? Wayne does not need this publicity, just as he does not need discussions that demean his artistic work. I'm very sure he'd rather not be on WP than have anonymous un-credentialed users demean his hard work. This is a flaw in WP. If I had not been a family member, would the article be enduring these subjective attacks? I think not, or else the hundreds of ridiculously un-noteworthy articles I've read here would not exist. Can I simply retract everything I added to the Wayne Caparas article or can we just delete it altogether? He is a man who has impacted this world in lasting and notable ways, and seeks no attention for it. If anyone is to demean him it should be a contributor that has demeaning verifiable facts to offer, not an un-named un-credited user who uses a talk page to demean his work. --Ambercaparas (talk) 23:43, 24 May 2011 (UTC)


 * It is standard practice for all editors to evaluate facts for their notability and verifiability. This is how we determine if they are suitable for inclusion in an article. Discussion is important to collaborative work. It is preferable that things are being discussed, rather than have an edit war where each person reverts the other constantly. It is not usually possible for editors to retract all their work, or delete a page on request. You will see below every edit window a license agreement that says you release your contribution under CC-BY-SA 3.0 and the GFDL. This means that others may restore and reuse your work, as long as attribution is provided (and within one article, it always is.) Article deletion at this point would need to go through WP:AFD and would undoubtedly result in a "keep" due to the subject's overall notability. Elizium23 (talk) 00:13, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks E, and please forgive my frustrations. I'm not a mean spirited person... on the contrary. I simply have little patience for mean spirited people, and I repent for having bit back as I did. Thanks for being gracious and professional enough to talk me off the ledge. ;-) Cheers! --Ambercaparas (talk) 00:35, 25 May 2011 (UTC)