User talk:Gobonobo/Archive 3

Ark of Taste foods
I love that you started that category. Nice work, and let me know if you want any help on anything related. Steven Walling 08:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you and thanks for starting the Ark of Taste article. I wasn't sure whether the article itself was most appropriate place to list the catalogue, but I hope to see a lot of those red links go away. Gobonobo  T C 16:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Glenn Inwood
Hello, I am a WP:OTRS volunteer. We have received, at 2010011610026387, a request to delete the article you created,. While I communicate with the sender, I have flagged the article for needing more sources as required by WP:BLP. I would like to ask you to please provide these sources as soon as possible, or the article may be deleted or the material in question may be deleted. Thanks,  Sandstein   07:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Sandstein. I have been adding sources to the Glenn Inwood article. I was unable to view the ticket at OTRS and better understand why it was requested the article be deleted. Are special privileges required to access OTRS? I'm interested in ensuring that the article abides by all of Wikipedia's policies. Gobonobo  T C 11:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the referencing! Yes, OTRS tickets require separate permissions to view, and they are confidential. There is no need for you to take any other action at this point, but the article may come under increased scrutiny, so additional referencing might help.  Sandstein   17:07, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of SarcMark
A tag has been placed on SarcMark, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, product, group, service or person and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become an encyclopedia article. Please read the guidelines on spam as well as FAQ/Business for more information. You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles - see the Article Wizard.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you.  Teapot  george Talk  22:08, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Danny Glover
I like the new treatment but for two things: I fear we're reaching the point where we're just quoting the entire YouTube video, and I feel that the entire article is a bit sterile. I was attempting to capture a bit of the "off the wall"ness of Glover's political activism, and I don't mean that as an insult or put down of the subject in any way. Aside from his great acting ability Golver's expression of his politics is of great interest and I would like to capture the essence of that if at all possible. I'll probably try to make some changes in that direction in the coming days. Please communicate with me if you think I am going too far. --Angloguy (talk) 14:14, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The media and pundits made a bit of noise about his comments and I wondered whether we should also include something there about the response. I stand by the inclusion of the fuller quote, as it provides context. As far as the sterility of the article goes, I completely agree with you. The personal life and activism section is particularly incoherent and could use some organization. Thanks for following up. Gobonobo  T C 14:35, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Roy Bergengren
Thanks for writing this! I was meaning to for a long time but never got enough information on his life. I see you found the right sources. This article was crying out to be written for a LONG time -- congratulations! Now if someone can just get information on Raiffeisen's life (which all seems to be in German ...)Brett epic (talk) 21:48, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I was surprised that there wasn't an article for him already. It was rather difficult finding sources though and I'm sure there's much more that could be added. Raiffeisen has an article on the German wikipedia, but it doesn't seem to be very comprehensive. Gobonobo  T C 22:06, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Animal cruelty
Hello Gobonobo. I urge you to consider whether the addition of Category:Animal cruelty is appropriate for a number of the articles you have been editing today. For example, neither animal vivisection or animal testing are considered animal cruelty by any legal, objective means. Indeed, in many jurisdictions they a re specifically excluded from animal cruelty legislation. It is obviously true that some people may consider them cruel, but we do not categorize on the basis of opinion (or else we could also add all animal products to the cat too). I would suggest this cat be restricted to articles about process that have been deemed or found cruel by legislation, rather than allegation. Rockpock e  t  22:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Rockpocket. You raise a good point. I agree, of course, that categorization should be appropriate and based on reason and not opinion. What constitutes cruelty is bound to vary between different people and cultures, making this a rather sticky category. I disagree with restricting the animal cruelty category to practices that have been found cruel by legislation. One problem that would arise from such a definition is that laws differ from country to country. Dog fighting, for instance, is legal in many countries, but illegal in others. Would inclusion in the category be warranted by legislation in just one country?
 * My rough criteria for inclusion has been practices that cause unnecessary harm to animals. I would argue that vivisection without anesthesia is a form of animal cruelty. Anesthesia is legally mandated for vivisection in some jurisdictions, so that form of vivisection would seem to meet your criteria as well. Similarly, much animal testing is not cruel when it is necessary for important research and anesthesia is used. But not all animal testing is necessary, so I would say that some forms of testing meet my criteria for animal cruelty. If you take a look at animal testing regulations, you'll see that at least some forms of animal testing meet your inclusion criteria as well. Let me know what you think. Gobonobo  T C 01:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Gobonobo. After I left the message for you I looked through the rest of the articles you added the cat to, and I struggled to justify its removal from any more. I think so long as the at least some jurisdictions consider the subject a cruelty issue (such is the case with dog fighting) then its fine to add the category. The singular reason I dispute both vivisection and testing is that (to my knowledge) no-one has ever been convicted for animal cruelty for any of those practices (The closest has been Edward Taub, and his charges were dismissed on appeal for the precise reason that animal testing was deemed to be excluded from the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals law he was originally charged under. This is a weird anomaly that is common to most animal testing legislation, and is something that understandably infuriates activists). The implication is that testing and vivisection are legally protected uses of animals, its only when one goes outside of these legally protected processes that the use becomes abuse and hence a cruelty issue.
 * Ultimately whether any animal experiments or vivisection is really necessary is a subject of unresolvable debate and a matter of opinion, so I don't consider it something we can use as a guide for inclusion. If you feel strongly that it should be added to these two articles, we can certainly solicit some outside opinions, as it is one of those issues that one could argue either way. Rockpock  e  t  08:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Your edit to Edison Chen photo scandal
In this edit, you tagged it with a new category. Whilst many scandals undeniably get labelled this-gate or that-gate, there is nothing in the article or, if I recall correctly, in any source which has so nicknamed the scandal. Just wondering if there is some mistake? Ohconfucius ¡digame! 04:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I arrived at the page from a link on the List of scandals with "-gate" suffix page titled Sexy Photo Gate. The titles of three links in the Edison Chen photo scandal article refer to the incident as a -gate (a type of snowclone). Here's one from the Wall Street Journal. The category is being considered for deletion if you would like to weigh in. Gobonobo  T C 04:32, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Euphemisms
Regarding your edit, I suspect your categorisation will be treated as a point of view, (rather than a fact), in that I'm sure there are many who have the point of view that they disagree with you. I will sit back and watch with interest! (And, I suspect, amusement.) We shall see ... Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 10:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I was trying to make sure the euphemisms category included all the military euphemisms, as it seemed to be missing a few. It looks like that particular categorization was reverted. My rationale was that (in the U.S. at least) the Department of War was renamed the Department of Defense.  Gobonobo  T C 18:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Jolly good. There's nothing like having some good hard facts to backup one's opinion. However, the US is not the only country with a Dept of Defense/Defence ... Pdfpdf (talk) 22:12, 1 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed. I am less familiar with Ministries and Departments of Defence in other countries. Nor do I know when the "of Defence" naming convention started. Gobonobo  T C 06:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Nor do I. (!) Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (However, if you want / need assistance, feel free to drop me a line. This has the potential to be instructional / informative, as well as amusing, and I'm happy to help. Pdfpdf (talk) 09:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC))

Category:Scandals with -gate suffix
Category:Scandals with -gate suffix was speedy deleted as a recreation from this discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Vegaswikian. I see this category has been proposed on multiple occasions. The discussion for the previous deletion does not appear to address that the application of -gate is a snowclone and not just a synonym for scandal or a way of categorizing by a word's suffix. There are other figures of speech that have categories such as Category:Onomatopoeia and Category:Clichés. I would argue that -gate constructions also deserve a category under Category:Snowclones due to their linguistic significance and ask that you reconsider deletion. Thanks. Gobonobo  T C 06:44, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You should take it to deletion review if you wish to recreate the category. Fences  &amp;  Windows  21:38, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. Thank you. Gobonobo  T C 22:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Military euphemisms

 * Sorry to have reverted some of your euphemisms but military jargon is not always used for that purpose. If we were to tag every controversial label as a euphemism then "peace movement" would have to get one, too.
 * BTW: The U.S. Department of Defense was never the War Department, although that is a common misunderstanding.  The name came about when they reorganized, and put the Army and Navy under the same department.
 * -- Randy2063 (talk) 00:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * And it was very clever of them. I will respond on the corresponding talk pages. Gobonobo  T C 05:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Gobonobo: I looked at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Gobonobo, but couldn't determine where your responses were/are. (Yes, I'm lazy.) Could you provide some links please? I'm interested to follow them. Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 09:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it's just Enhanced Interrogation Techniques at this point, though there were several other questionable reversions of Category:Euphemisms. Gobonobo  T C 02:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Sanitization
Hi DragonHawk. You removed Sanitization (classified information) from Category:Euphemisms. Sanitization is a form of censorship (the words are sometimes used interchangeably). Euphemisms replace a harsh sounding term with one that is more positive. I wondered if you could expand on your rationale. I saw that you said it was jargon on your edit summary, but jargon and euphemisms often overlap. Thanks, Gobonobo  T C 21:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * (Full disclosure: I work in the field.) Hmmm.  I never really thought of sanitization as censorship, but I guess you can look at it that way.  I tend to view sanitization as part of the process of releasing information or material, not restricting it.  To me, the term is not a euphemism because it really is about cleaning up to be presentable.  But if some hold the POV that sanitization is censorship, I'm not about to say that's wrong -- I believe in NPOV.  Go ahead and put the category back.  — DragonHawk (talk|hist) 18:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Hoplophobia
Calling your attention to an ongoing discussion on the Hoplophobia talk page regarding a WP:CAT which you added. SaltyBoatr (talk) 03:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I wasn't watching the page. I left a comment on the talk page. The euphemism category seems to inspire some rather allergic reactions. Gobonobo  T C 04:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Varhene
An article that you have been involved in editing, Varhene, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you. TomStar81 (Talk) 07:29, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Peoplesecoroof.jpeg
Thanks for uploading File:Peoplesecoroof.jpeg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of that website's terms of use of its content. However, if the copyright holder is a party unaffiliated from the website's publisher, that copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider verifying that you have specified sources for those files as well. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged per Wikipedia's criteria for speedy deletion, F4. If the image is copyrighted and non-free, the image will be deleted 48 hours after 16:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC) per speedy deletion criterion F7. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. IngerAlHaosului (talk) 16:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

File permission problem with File:Peoplesecoroof.jpeg
Thanks for uploading File:Peoplesecoroof.jpeg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either
 * make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
 * Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to , stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to .

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Non-free content, use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. IngerAlHaosului (talk) 16:04, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
&mdash; Coffee //  have a cup  //  essay  // 06:19, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Dermatology
Any interest in dermatology? If so, we are always looking for more help at the dermatology task force, particularly with the ongoing Bolognia push. ;) ---kilbad (talk) 16:07, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll try to help out where I can. Gobonobo  T C 19:23, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Do you know about ? I thought it might make your job easier! Smartse (talk) 18:54, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks, yeah I know about it. I was using it for a while, but reconsidered due to the (slight) extra server load and potential for template vandalism. I'm just cutting and pasting anyhow, so it's about the same amount of work on my side.  Gobonobo  T C 18:58, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Fairy nuff, just wanted to check you knew about it. Smartse (talk) 19:47, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

User:Xenobot/R
See the note at the above section. – xeno talk 19:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Are we ready to roll with WikiProject Cooperatives/Categories, then? – xeno talk 22:22, 14 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think it's good to go now. Gobonobo  T C 18:30, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Comm dev banking help
Hey, thanks for saying hi!

I'm working on some articles around community development finance which is a similar area to your interests. I see you've worked a lot of individual FI's in particular.

I noticed we're both interested in cooperatives and finance. I'd like to start an article on community development credit unions, which are really a different flavor from other kinds of |CDFIs. There's lots of room to expand Credit union too.

In the meantime, I drafted a rewrite of the ShoreBank article and wanted to ask if you'd like to give some feedback!

User:Pnm/sandbox

Pnm (talk) 23:22, 12 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Pnm. I took a look at your rewrite of the ShoreBank article and it looks good. I'd move the Origin section just after the lede and be sure not to lose any detail from the history. Looking at the opening, I'm unsure of the use of the term "green bank", as it doesn't seem to have a formal definition.


 * I hadn't heard of community development credit unions before, though I've certainly run across CDFIs. I gather that CDCUs are sort of credit union/CDFI hybrids. According to the National Federation of Community Development Credit Unions' website, CDCUs may only come from the Federation's membership. But I don't see why an unaffiliated credit union couldn't style itself a CDCU. There doesn't seem to be a strict legal distinction, for instance. Regardless, it would be easy to set up an article for CDCUs. Let me know if you set up community development credit union as I think it would not be difficult to have the article featured in the DYK section of the front page.


 * Thanks for your energy in this direction. I've worked with ShoreBank and they're really a class act. Gobonobo  T C 00:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your great suggestions, Gobonobo. ShoreBank says "community development and environmental bank" but I think it's jargon – got rid of green bank. I moved the origin section.


 * I'm curious about the history detail. I incorporated Muhammad Yunus and Bill Clinton into other sections. The Ron Grzywinski bit is interesting but seems like too much detail here (it's in the article on Ron). The "development deposits" and "online savings account" bits sound like trivia; or "advertising" geared toward attracting mission depositors. Is it OK to remove content that seems like unnecessary or trivial detail?


 * I came across a 2003 doctoral thesis with a 50-page narrative starting in the 60s. It's a great story. A summary in a few paragraphs would be nice, someday.


 * Right. A CDCU is both a credit union and a CDFI, or generally a credit union with an explicit community development mission. Many are CDFI-certified and supported by the CDFI Fund. It's a fun topic to write about. Pnm (talk) 01:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Added: I think I can write a sentence about ways to invest in ShoreBank that includes the detail about development deposits and online savings account.


 * Pnm (talk) 19:37, 14 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The article looks good. I tweaked a few things, mostly cleaning up references. I'll try to take a look at the Origin section and see if I can find anything to add to it. Gobonobo  T C 00:02, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Wow, it's amazing to watch the article get better! Pnm (talk) 01:11, 15 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes it is. I just hope we don't have to recategorize it as a "former bank". Gobonobo  T C 08:20, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

;)
Silly me. I should be more careful. Thanks ;) - Josette (talk) 02:32, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Concerning Tracy, California
Hello,

I've protected the Tracy, California article because of an edit war occurring on the article. I suggest that you and the everyone else involved generate a discussion on the talk page to reach a consensus on the content of the article. If you have any questions feel free to contact me. If a consensus is reached, let me know and I'll be glad to unprotect the article. Icestorm815 •  Talk  04:21, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't know anything about Tracy, but it appears you and that IP do, I was only reverting unconstructive editing. Just an fyi —Tommy 2010 12:19, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I've been unable to engage the ip user who is blanking the tire fire section. The user's edits have solely been used to blank that section from the article. From their edit summaries, I gather they don't think the fire happened in Tracy, but they have yet to post on the talk page. I've provided references both in the article and on the talk page. This seems like a pretty clear case of censorship to me. Gobonobo  T C 00:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I've left a note on that IP's page- if the IP continues to do so without rationale I think a block would be in order. Thanks, —Tommy 2010 15:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Helen 'Thomas'
re This Diff, the caption on the photo reads, " 'Mirren' in the...". Were you thinking of Helen Mirren? --220.101 (talk) \Contribs 07:44, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed I was. Thanks for catching that. It's always nice to have another set of eyes. Gobonobo  T C 07:50, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
 * A penny for your thoughts! I'd think of the younger Helen too! --220.101 (talk) \Contribs 09:28, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Alvin Greene
How is this suggestive? It's in the article cited. Blueboy96 03:28, 12 June 2010 (UTC)


 * It invites the reader to connect the dots, effectively implying that he is guilty of perjury. I'm not opposed to some language in there stating that someone is speculating that he is guilty, though. Still, the article is rather full of speculation at the moment. Gobonobo  T C 03:32, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * So maybe restore it, without the penalty of perjury part? Blueboy96 03:36, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think that would be fine. Now that I'm looking at it, the whole section could use some reorganization and maybe some subsections. Gobonobo  T C 03:46, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of File:DanratherGSFC.PNG
A tag has been placed on File:DanratherGSFC.PNG requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I2 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an image page for a missing or corrupt image or an empty image description page for a Commons-hosted image.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Rod Shealy
Hello! Your submission of Rod Shealy at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Thelmadatter (talk) 17:44, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I amended the lede to remove the reference to race-baiting. Were there other parts of the article that you thought could be more neutral? Gobonobo  T C 05:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:17, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Rod Shealy
Terms like "conspired" "racist newsletter" can be problematic plus the emphasis on Shealy being a "diabolically clever and a master of dirty tricks" Remember this is a living person and Biographies of living persons applies.Thelmadatter (talk) 14:11, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay. I've removed the problematic terms. Were there any other sticking points?  Gobonobo  T C 14:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Rod Shealy
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 06:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:Charlesgide.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Charlesgide.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 11:30, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Ian McCormack
I didn't see anywhere in WP:SINGLEEVENT where it suggested the deletion of such articles. WP:SINGLEEVENT referes to whether or not an entry should be written about a person or the event that the person experienced. Ian McCormack falls into this category: "In some cases, however, a person famous for only one event may be more widely known than the event itself, for example, the Tank Man. In such cases, the article about the event may be most appropriately named for the person involved." See my IP address response to your suggestion for deletion on the main discussion page. Thank you

ChildrenOfLight (talk) 14:05, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops. I pointed to the wrong guideline. My mistake. Gobonobo  T C 20:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I dissagree Gobonobo and have pasted appart of my answer below to Peridon: "As far as I can tell the only thing that needs to be varified in a situation such as this is that the person is really who he says he is (Ian McCormack) and that he is somebody of note with exposure. CBN, Sight Magazine, Revelation TV interview, etc verify that he isn't my next door neighbor or a ficticious person; The TV interviews, published book, Google search results on his name, YouTube presence, etc show that he is noteworthy by Wikipedia standards - probably not by Britanica :)). What else needs to be verified? The supernatural aspects of his story? No where does it say in the article that his story is true - it is simply his story that has made him popular. What needs to be varified? Again, that he isn't my nextdoor neighbor, someone I know, some fictitious person that I put up on Wikipedia. Ian's story is not on trial here. That he is who he says he is and who I've said he is, of course, is on trial and that is perfectly illustrated through my citations. All we need to know is that he isn't some fraud who has no popularity or coverage that I'm putting on Wikipedia and who you can't find if you Googled him - who's story you couldn't find if you Googled it.
 * Religious articles on wikipedia that do not stray into politics don't deserve the kind of scrutiny that Pat Robertson has. He has said some very politically charged things that 3rd party, independant, secular, mainstream media has covered - is that the only way a notable Muslim, Buhdist, or Christian speaker can be accepted on Wikipedia by your standards? To say some nasty things about people so that CNN will tune in and then we all get a mainstream secular source for the article? I certainly hope not because it isn't very Wikipedian." Thanks for the ammend, and really, this should not be an exercise in editors sharpening their swords on some new guy. It seems like you guys are really going the extra mile here to make this endangered animal extinct.  The article is innocent and unpolitical.  Think of it as a cute little rabbit or a majestic wolf that some vicious Sarah Palins with guns are trying to blow away :)  ChildrenOfLight (talk) 23:16, 21 June 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ChildrenOfLight (talk • contribs) 23:15, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * The Palins with guns/rabbit analogy cracks me up. Don't let yourself be dismayed at the deletion process (I know it can be brutal). Personally, I would say you have one reliable source in your references at this point. Of course, we all interpret reliable differently, and that's one of the joys of deletion discussions. For me, organizations like CBN seem to blur the line between news and evangelism. A search like this one might turn up some good sources. Happy hunting. Gobonobo  T C 23:48, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay everybody, I deleted all references to medical certification of death and time period for death and doctors doing anything. I think it is now entirely in Ian's mind without reference to others. His story as it is doesn't need any sources other than himself (unless I've missed something) per Smith Wigglesworth "believed that God had cured him of hemorrhoids". All the other sources establish his notability and the fact that I'm not putting up my buddy or youth pastor or whatever and that this article isn't a prank. Let me know how you feel - I totally see Hekerui's point and maybe this is what you all have been saying all along. I think it reads a lot better and makes more "encyclopedic" sense. Thanks
 * Comment

ChildrenOfLight (talk) 01:21, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Conway image
Hi! It's great that you received a specific permission. It's no problem that you uploaded the image right away, I know from experience how long it takes for a permission to process even after the license was properly explained and everything is sent. I have made myself a kind of standard letter for asking for permission (have done that quite a few times already) that re-uses much of the (not so) informal image formulation from the example requests for permission page. And then I ask a copyright holder to sent in the Declaration of consent for all enquiries, so no one can later tell me they didn't know what they were doing - which is what happens often apparently, since I've come across many deletions by now for "only on Wikipedi" etc. Well anyway, I will replace the image tags on the Commons image with a new pending, but of course you could have done that too. Best wishes Hekerui (talk) 22:57, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Your insight is much appreciated. Thanks. Gobonobo  T C 23:09, 21 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Wow, that was done fast! Good. Hekerui (talk) 09:44, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

File:Rachel corrie.jpeg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Rachel corrie.jpeg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. 386-DX (talk) 23:57, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the Rachel Corrie image
Appreciated. NickCT (talk) 15:50, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Civility
Hi InaMaka. I see that the discussion became a little heated over at Sodapaps' talk page. When you called Sodapaps a "nubie" that was a violation of our policy against making personal attacks on other editors. Also, your comment that she is a liar broke our rules on editing and discussing in a constructive and civil manner. These policies, also known as WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL, are important core policies in the Wikipedia community. I understand that you suspect this user of being a sockpuppet, but I'd like to encourage you to resolve disputes without resorting to name calling. Thanks, Gobonobo  T C 14:46, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me help you out. When someone states something that is untrue about a living person it is a lie.  Now, that lie violates BLP and several other Wikipedia rules.  I explained to Sodapaps in various ways that his on-going edits to the article that defames a living person must be stopped.  Now, you come along and berate me for making sure that a new editor stops violating BLP.  I reviewed your contributions and it is clear that you have NOT attempted to stop the new editor from engaging in his personal attacks on a living person's article.  It is clear that you have decided to take sides and you are NOT helping the situation, but only making it worse.  You CLAIM to be a cooperative, but your actions belie your statements.  If you really wanted to properly assist Wikipedia then you would work with me to get the new editor to stop engaging in personal attacks in the Kristi Noem article.  But clearly that is not you aim.  I have reviewed your comments and I reject them. Have a good day!--InaMaka (talk) 15:51, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I took your advise and I opened a sockpuppet investigation. You can review it here: Sockpuppet Investigation of Sodapaps--InaMaka (talk) 17:41, 26 June 2010 (UTC)