User talk:GreenJoe/Archive 1

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! FellowWikip e dian 17:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Kim Ponders
You're about a day ahead of me in calling for the AfD. :) I asked about her notability on the talk page to give some of the other editors a chance to respond, but they can address that in the AfD just as readily. —C.Fred (talk) 16:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Ottawa Project Templates (Gatineau area)
Hello! I see that you have deleted several of the Ottawa Template on many Gatineau articles. Just to remind that the Wikiproject Ottawa template specifies that it includes just not the city of Ottawa, but also its surrounding region. The National Capital Region (Canada) article specificies that it does includes the city of Gatineau and suburbs such as Cantley and Chelsea, Quebec. Thus, the templates for at least the Gatineau articles would have to stay. --JForget 18:59, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Canadian Postal Codes GA review
Have posted to article talk page Orderinchaos78 05:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Ottawa Wikipedia meetup
-- Earl Andrew - talk 21:31, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Danica Patrick
You recently removed the book cover image I had just restored. The problem with just removing it; is that users viewing the article would not know the image had been there, or that its fair-use was disputed. What about keeping the image (with a note on the top of the page, like a merge tag would work) until the issue is settled?

For Example: This article’s fair-use of the book cover of Danica Patrick’s autobiography is currently disputed. More details can be found at Image:Danica Patrick.jpg —MJBurrage • TALK  • 20:29, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Vserda.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Vserda.jpg. The image description page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use.

Please go to the image 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 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 23:11, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello. I notice that you tagged my user_talk page. I have been reverting vandalism by another IP address in various political pages, because an individual continuously is reverting without even stating his/her own viewpoint or any evidence on the associated talk page. I would appreciate it if you would attempt to at least mediate a solution, or use your advanced wikipedia skills to place appropriate tags on the articles recognizing that there is controvery involved.

In some instances, I reverted outright libelous comments on pages such as Dave Batters, and they were restored by the vandal.

70.73.4.197 00:43, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

finnerty gardens
I don't quite understand your rationale for wishing to delete this page, There is no original research involved, Finnerty Gardens is a garden of multimillion dollar value in Victoria, BC. If you could let me know on my talk page how to save it (apart from just removing the deletion notice) that would be appreciated. Thanks. Imapwnu 05:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

RegisterFly
Thanks! I think I'm done now, low on time, beyond tweaks (and I think I'm out of news sources about the controversy itself) until more pop up later in the day. I'll take down the inuse, all yours for more passes at it. - Denny 20:33, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi... I may be very short on time to help out the next 3-5 days or so. If any more developments worth noting come up with this article can you just add the news links to the talk page (mine or the article's) if you may not have time to integrate it? Thanks. The total looneyness of that situation and the incredible amount of info being made public could make for a good article. I want it to stay npov but... I'm having trouble finding positive stuff to add in. - Denny 06:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Register.com
I took down the prod... they're really notable (thats just recent/current news). If you want to AfD them, though, that might be a better idea... - Denny 21:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Saskatchewan Party
If you read the citations on the material that was removed, you will see that it is merely an editorial from an individual who does not have, nor claims to have first-hand knowledge of the events in question. This type of source, which just amounts to rumour and innuendo, is not appropriate to include in Wikipedia, and if it it appears again, it will be reverted.

70.73.4.197 17:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

The column within the leaderpost is an editorial. It has about the same reliability as a blog, in other words, its opinion, and for the most part, mere repitition of political smear. 70.73.4.197 17:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Joe. Thanks for the welcome. I was hoping to find more concrete articles on what's happening with Go Daddy's ability to handle the DST change. --EveBelos 18:58, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Domain kiting
There's no consensus for the mess you have made. GreenJoe 16:38, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia naming conventions are very clear that we pick the most common name, which is domain tasting... I was only cleaning up the mess others made. DreamGuy 08:12, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

NDP Senator
Hi Joe. I noticed your edit to the NDP article and I just thought I'd let you know that the issue has come up a few times in the past and was always reverted back to zero. Apparently Sen. Dyck identifies as a New Democrat but the party does not recognize her because of a policy against appointed senators. Personally I don't really care but if you want the edt to stick you're probably going to have to justify it in the talk page. --JGGardiner 22:20, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

RegisterFly clean up
Thanks for getting that! I readded ICANN's site, though... it's pretty central to the story/article, and non-commerical/impartial so it should be fine to link... - Denny 05:31, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

GA Candidates
Can you explain what you are doing? I had just finished reading Parsifal which would pass in my opinion and found out that you failed it after having looked at it for approximately five minutes. I look at the edit-history and you have been mass-failing several articles within just an hour or so. Also you seem to have removed (moved?) several articles earlier. Is there something I don't see or can you explain this?--DorisHノート 17:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmm, no that's not what the criteria say. On the top of the GAC-page it specifically states that you should mark articles that are longer than 32 kb, and add them to the list. That sentence would not be there if you can automatically fail long articles. So according to the guideline text we have length alone is not a criterion. And I think it should not be at the GA-stage. Length is a criterion much better suited for FA. You would have to give some kind of other justification for failing the article than just length, as you did on some of these talk pages, see WP:WIAGA. Is it ok if I revert at least Parsifal? The other articles we can still decide later.--DorisHノート 18:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Ultra Vires (UofT newspaper)
I'm really not sure why you're giving me a prod warning on this article. Looking back on my contribs, I did nothing but move it into a more appropriate name and tag it with wikify. I have absolutely no connection/opinion on whether it is kept. (|--  UlT i MuS  22:26, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Green Party of Canada
The article Green Party of Canada you nominated as a good article has passed, see Talk:Green Party of Canada for eventual comments about the article. Good luck in future nominations. Douglike 17:50, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Innappropriate use of warnings
I see you have left a warning on my User Talk page. This warning was completely innappropriate response to an edit to a page that was made in good faith, was made in accordance with Wikipedia policy, and met technical standards of wikipedia. In the future, please do not abuse the ability to place warnings. 71.17.55.111 04:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

RegisterFly and the ICANN blog
Hey Joe, I posted a thread Talk:RegisterFly/Archives/2012 on the talk page, if you'd like to weigh in. I think the ICANN blog is an OK source for this matter, FWIW. :) - Denny 13:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

American chopper bike prods
Next time please notify me, the clear author of esesntially all of those articles, when you've prod'ed a large quantity (or even one, for that matter) of articles? Staxringold talkcontribs 19:20, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Junior's Dream Bike
Thanks, but I didn't create the article in question. I may have added to it, but I honestly don't remember. I'm not attached to the article by any means, but I don't see any reason to delete it. There are a number of articles on OCC bikes. I may take a look at the AFD, and give some input. Thanks again for informing me. Wavy G 07:26, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Sick Kids
I disagree with you, however I'm willing to discuss. I have partially reverted to my other version to restore some of the other edits I had made which I believe make the article clearer. I have kept the three "SickKids" uses within the body, however. The article could still stand some cleaning up. Flyguy649talkcontribs 05:44, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Userbox ULC
Thanks for the information, I'll add that. :)

KV(Talk) 19:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Same here. Thank You.--NavyHighlander 01:50, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

ULC
Thank you for your show of good faith editting. I was really loathing having to report you for the 3RR by not following the previous decision on the ULC Talk page on the subject. It is considered a good idea when your posts are reverted and you are orginally referred to the talk page, to post your reconsideration question on the talk page rather then not show good faith editing and attempt to start a revert war.

131.10.254.61 21:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Casathious Jones
Dear GreenJoe,

I am writing in regards to the page "Casathious Jones". I have taken your concerns into mind and I have truly tried to edit the page to make it more acceptable for Wikipedia's standards, because I do not want it to be deleted. I added reliable references, and if you will permit me, I will be adding more verifiable references in the coming days. I therefore would appreciate it if you would remove your request for its deletion. I assure you, none of the information is false or a hoax. I earnestly beseech you to believe me and have mercy and to accept my improvements to the article, and suggest to Wikipedia to keep the article.

Sincerely, Casey Costello —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.69.116.41 (talk) 00:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

Casathious Jones
Hello Again,

First allow me to apologize for the long-windedness of my comments, but I feel they are necessary. I am somewhat unsure as to what you were suggesting. One of the complaints about the article "Casathious Jones" is that the link to the Last .fm profile did not turn up with anything, which is erroneous. If you click on the link (please try this), you will find the artist profile of Casathious Jones, showing he has multiple listeners and showing corroborating evidence proving the existence of his Christmas albums. Another complaint was that the IMDB profile was not significant enough, albeit official. It is true that the listed film credit "Checkout" is not a cinematic masterpiece, but it is nonetheless a film credit for Casathious Jones. The main points of the article is the musical career, and the forthcoming albums. Also, the Church works are a big point. I am not attemting to write an autobiography; I am by no means the only contributor to the article either. I really am doing my best to cite references, eliminate questionable material, and create an unbiased, informational profile. One problem I have which is leading to an impasse on this article's status is the fact that I do, indeed, have other references, however they are physical artifacts to corroborate information that may not be on websites. For instance, I have a letter from the Salvation Army in recognition of Casathious Jones' (Me) help with their Red Kettle Campaign because of the Christmas album that donated its profits to the Salvation Army. I also have a Certificate of Ordination and Letter of Good Standing from the Universal Life Church to prove the statements about Church works. In addition, I did sing to Debbie Reynolds, and as proof I have our conversation taped. Therefore, I am somewhat upset about this situation. I feel there is a Catch-22 of sorts, because you want me to put ample references up to verify the information, but you do not like my references, even though they are from ligitament sources. I truly am trying to resolve this without the removal of my article, and I also really am coming out with another album very soon. In fact, I would like to do another benefit album for the Salvation Army or another worthy cause and I really think the article helps my credibility. The only other option I can think of is for you or one of Wikipedia's administrators to contact my attorney and/or the local Salvation Army in Rochester, New York. If I knew how to put those things as references online and in my article I would. I could send you some sort of affidavit saying that everything is true if necessary. Therefore, again, I ask that you do not try to get my article taken down. I have many actual, official people you may contact to verify my information if you so desired, one such person being the Director of the George Eastman House in Rochester, New York. He is a notable and affluent person in the cultural society of Rochester who would be happy to vouch for my article and career. If you so desired, I would be more than happy to call you on the phone and sing to you to at least eliminate all doubt that I am, at least, a singer. Or, I could send you a complimentary copy of my Christmas CD as well as my next CD (upon its completion).

The bottom line is, I am willing to do whatever is necessary to keep the profile up. If it was just a hoax or a mere self-promoting page, I would not persue keeping the article up. However, I feel that in the coming months, more references will start to appear naturally online as my next CD comes out, but even until then, I feel that the article should stay up, as I am by no means its sole contributor, and I continue to erase invalid information. In fact, it was not I who started the Last .Fm profile for Casathious Jones nor was it I who put the link to that site on the Wikipedia page for Casathious Jones. As you will see on the Last .Fm site, multiple people have listened to my songs, and you are free to do the same. That is why I feel the article deserves to stay on Wikipedia. I bear no malice toward you or any other who doubts the article, its validity, or my motives in keeping it up, but I truly do entreat to you, in good faith, that you will not persue its removal. Feel free to contact me, if you have any other questions, and please try not to speak surlily to me, since this is already upsetting enough to me, and it is causing me a great deal of angst.

Thank you, Sincerely Casey Costello —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.69.116.41 (talk) 02:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC).

Sask Party warning
As I have already stated to User:Tearlach, look at the revision history of the document. I am more than willing to discuss the matter, the anonymous user is not. I'm not willing to have my edits reverted for no reason with no discussion. Please feel free to initiate any dispute resolution mechanism that is applicable. P.S. Why exactly did you feel you should just revert the page with no stated reason, and no discussion? —T. Mazzei 05:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Elizabeth May
Explain how it is biased. That is what Layton and Broadbent said, with more specifics than simply "criticized". GoldDragon 00:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Casathious Jones, Again
Dear Mr. GreenJoe,

In rebuttle to your last comment, on the contrary, it is not I who is engaging you in an edit war, but moreso vice-versa. With all due respect, it was not I who searched you out on Wikipedia and edited your material. In fact, I am merely trying to salvage my article, in good faith. Again, as you have said, this three-revert rule prohibits a user from making more than three reverts. However, by re-reverting them, is that not the same thing that you are doing? I am not engaged in an edit-war. I do not wish for conflict. You suggest the talk-board, which I am utilizing. However, just minutes ago I saw that there was a comment on the board in favor of leaving my article up. Then, suddenly, it was gone, and I was given a warning that I may be blocked from editing if I continue to revert, when it was not I who made the recent aforementioned comments. Dear Sir, I truly feel this indignation is misplaced. I am at a loss for words, because I am doing my best to edit the article so that it is mutually acceptable by everyone, and I am meanwhile trying to form a consensus among people who share the belief that the article should remain. Your last comments to me said "use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors", which is exactly what I am trying to do. To me, this seems to add insult to injury, because the comments that were there supporting my article are now gone, and have been replaced by the comments "Start a website. Wikipedia isn't free webspace. GreenJoe 02:51, 20 April 2007 (UTC)" by you. I will gladly agree not to revert any acceptable changes, but I can only agree to such changes if you also agree not to replace any comments that could benefit my cause. I took your advice into mind and read all the rules and regulations that pertain to my article, and still feel that the article has the right to stay. Also, I plan to take your advice about purchasing my own charitable website domain. But this does not change the principle of the issue or my opinions on it. I hope you do not take this the wrong way, as one thing that was reiterated over and over in the rules was good faith and civility, so I am doing my best to resolve this as "let's agree to disagree". I certainly feel that you have a right to your own opinion, and to voice this opinion on the message boards. But please, allow me the same courtesy to voice my opinion, and to let others who share my opinion to voice theirs. This is all I ask. At the end of this Inquisition, one side or the other will have likely formed a consensus. You do not need to reply to this message, because the purpose of this is simply to clear the air. As long as we understand each other's stances, everything will be fine, without the need to respond to this.

Thanks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by R.h.c.afounder1 (talk • contribs)

P.S.- I assure you that I am not operating under multiple accounts; I strictly edit using only my one account. Therefore, if other people are posting comments in my favor, I cannot be held responsible for their content, and I would appreciate being left out of anything pertaining to comments made by another user or IP address.

École Polytechnique massacre
You opposed this article's promotion to featured status on the basis that there was too much untranslated French in the article's photo captions. I believe this issue has been largely resolved. Could you possibly take another look at the article, and if your major issues have been fixed, consider striking your oppose? Thanks. Dina 18:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

ULC
The source needs to be in the article not in the edit summary. If there is no source in the article then it needs to be removed. This is especially true for the living people as per Biographies of living persons. I have nothing against the church and until someone put Paul Macartney in the category I hadn't even heard of it. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 22:10, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Semantics (Casathious Jones)
You scolded me on my usage of the words "my" article when describing the article Casathious Jones. Perhaps, albeit about me. I simply found it easier to use the word "my" when referring to the article in question (that happens to be about me) then to say "the article in question." We need not argue about semantics. Henceforth, to appease you, I will not refer to it as "my" article. However, I also know this: if it is not my article, though it is about me, then it is certainly not your article, either; thus, you do not have carte blanche to judiciously remove copious, significant parts of the article simply because its presence causes you undue annoyance. I, of course, realize that every Wikipedian has a right to edit any article to better it, but your edits of late have been solely detrimental to the article (e.g., removing the entire section on Church and charitable works), and I thus consider them simply vandalic, which, as you have said repeatedly, is unacceptable. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by R.h.c.afounder1 (talk • contribs) 00:19, 22 April 2007 (UTC).

Wrongful Accusations of Single-Purpose Accounts
Well, I write yet again. Your latest edits to the talk page for article Casathious Jones were to add alleged single-purpose account tags to users who had spoken on my behalf. Had you looked at their contributions, you would have immediately seen this is not so. Not one of the accounts which you tagged had only edited Casathious Jones; they had all edited many articles. Such users included: Oct14, Sajbmz, and R.h.c.afounder1 (the last one is me). Collectively, the number of contributions of the aforementioned users to pages other than Casathious Jones is in the dozens. Therefore, it is an impossibility that any of the users could be single-purpose accounts. Saying such things about people, in err, is slanderous. --R.h.c.afounder1 02:02, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S.- I see that you have reverted the changes that I made regarding the above matter. You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits.

ULC Talk
It's not a matter of WP:AGF in this case. If discussion is to be generated, it would be done through the AfD tag on the article's main page. There's no need to go any further. Thewinchester (talk) 00:18, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Elizabeth May GA failed
I have reviewed the article for Elizabeth May and have decided to fail it according to the criteria. Please see the talk page of the article to see how to improve it. If you have any questions, please let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 06:39, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Casathious Jones (Please, Read This)
Please read this whole email and please respond to this email. Please keep in mind I say this in the nicest possible way, I really do. If I come accross rude or anything I assure you, it is unintentional; I am merely frustrated and unhappy. If necessary, we can talk on the phone if you want. We need to clear up some issues. You have been deleting my comments which I have insisted are not vandalism. In fact, the only things I have written are cited. I only have added a few words, and for whatever reason, you keep deleting them and make me out to be a vandal, and I do not appreciate it. And I truly feel that I am right in this situation, and on the principal of the issue, I will continue to revert changes if I feel they deserve to be there, and if they are not blatant vandalism. I understand that you seem to think they are vandalism; though why I am not sure. However, I do not think they are. Since you are one person, and I am one person, we both have equal merit to post material. Therefore, simply because you do not like a comment, this does not mean it is vandalism. And I really get upset when you say "stop vandalising", because this is exactly what I wish to say to you. I may not make a career out of moderating Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean I can't add comments I feel are valid to articles.

As I have said before, my article is gone; I only wish to be left alone. Any more things that you change of mine is, in my opinion, simply knit-picking, and unconstructive; pointless. What can be accomplished by doing this except upsetting me? I am not trying to be rude, but this is very upsetting. I simply cannot understand what it is you have against me. I only wish to post a few comments, and you will not allow this. What authority do you have to decide this?

As I pointed out before, many people do not have their own articles, but they still have mentions of them on certain pertinent articles, yet you do not go against them. It is only me. I am feeling harrassed and beleaguered by you, and I am asking from the bottom of my heart that you please stop it; it has become a full-time job for me just doing damage-control to articles to which I have contributed. I beg of you that you leave alone the other comments that I have made; not only because I request it so earnestly, and certainly not because "they do not harm" (I am well-versed in that and many other policies by now), but the reason I ask is because the comments genuinely have merit where they were. If there comes a time when the comments I have made no longer pertain to the article, then they will be removed by another user, and I would not protest it if it was warranted. But what you are doing now, and then writing me and telling me to stop "vandalising" is simply not fair, and it is very hurtful. I realize that often a message cannot convey connotation as well as if we were speaking in person, so that is why am being so candid. I am speaking as a defeated and saddened person who only wishes to be left alone, and left with a little dignity after the deletion of the article about me. All I ask is that you please leave alone the very few comments that have been made about me on other pages; I implore you with the utmost sincerity. If you look at my other contributions, you will see that I am not a vandal, and that I make quite a few helpful additions (articles, edits, etc.) so it does hurt my feelings to be called such things. (In fact, today I created an entirely new article that has nothing to do with Casathious Jones that I am very proud of; see Italian Street Song).

And I do apologize about the comments I made earlier today, but I am upset, and, all policy aside, who can blame me. Whether it be for better or worse, the Casathious Jones article is gone and it is a big blow to me. Now it just seems that you are trying to erase all traces of me from the internet, unnecessarily and unwarrentedly. This brings me to my next point. For example, you erased the comment from the List of United Life Church Ministers, and said it was "vandalism", even though I have a citation that proves I am, in fact, a ULC minister, as well as a singer. Just because I no longer have a Wikipedia entry, does this mean I am no longer a ULC minister? Does this mean I can no longer appear on the list of ministers? I have the documentation and proof, and many other people on the list do not have their own articles, either (such as David Campos, Wendy Joubert, J.D. Lewis, etc.), and yet you have not removed their names and accused their contributers of vandalism. Therefore, I am naturally offended by your comments to me, and your removal of my my comments. If, after reading this entire letter, you still feel they need to be removed, you can take them down, but I may put them up if I feel they need to be there; it's a matter of principle, and I feel that I have a right to put them up if they are pertinent and not vandalism.

I really pray that you listen to these comments and that you can see why I feel this way, and can agree, and sympathize, with me. Such little of me remains now, (both in text and in spirit), and it means so very much to me, and while I have not intended to make that the sole reason I think the comments should stay, I do want you to at least take that fact into consideration; whatever is left now, to me, is like the Last of the Mohicans or Napoleon's Waterloo. I really hope you can set aside whatever you may personally feel about me and listen to my reasoning: these last statements are not my rationale for them to stay on, as I have said, but I want you to please think about them nonetheless.

Sincerely, Casey Costello

GA Review
You passed Marquette Building (Chicago) for WP:GA last month. It is up for WP:GAR here. Please give me your opinion. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 14:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I think this may be retaliatory because I have been a recent active critic at WP:FAC and WP:FAR. Let me know what you think. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 14:19, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh jeez, gimme a break man. IvoShandor 17:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the ULC tag Joe! Ph33rspace 02:16, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Universal Life Church members
Please read Citing sources and Biographies of living persons. Not one single person has a reference or source to say that they are ministers in the church. The sources must be in the articles and not as you said on my talk page "I put the source in the summary line." Here are examples of how Michael Newdow and Susan Block showing how it should be done. I have removed the category until such time as you can provide sources in the article to indicate that they are members of the church. This is directly from Biographies of living persons. Because Newdow and Block are now sourced I have added them to the List of Ministers of the Universal Life Church. I find it odd that people like George Harrison and Hugh Hefner are not in the Category:Ministers of the Universal Life Church when they are sourced as being members. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 07:38, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "...instead of just putting in the citation." There wasn't a citation to put in the article. I spent 15 minutes finding the correct/best link for Susan Block and even longer getting the List of Ministers of the Universal Life sourced correctly. The link above has a sentence that says "The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia, but especially for edits about living persons, rests firmly on the shoulders of the person who adds or restores the material." Now, because of the way the church creates ministers it could be contentious to some of the living people who see that in their article. So it must be removed unless sourced. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As no doubt you saw from the links above the sources must go in the article. The thing is that after time the edit summary may be more than 500 edits away form the current version and very hard to find. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:24, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I have just removed these links. Even though they may appear in the lists of the Universal Life Church I believe they are still spam. There is no indication that any member of the Beatles studied or even expressed a desire to be a member, but that it was simply bestowed upon them. It cannot be proven that the individual is aware that they are members, or that they would agree if they did. Since there is no reason why any group or organisation can not make any person an honorary member, it is a spurious title and there is no reason to link to any of them. I am copying this to CambridgeBayWeathers talkpage. LessHeard vanU 18:55, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * The Beatles, collectively and individually, were made members, officials, officers, and whatever, of very many organisations, associations, clubs and various other groupings. Very often membership was conferred without consultation or subsequent notice, and with no request by the individual(s). Even if it were notified there is rarely evidence that they accepted nomination (and absence of refusal cannot be taken as acceptance).
 * It is not POV to remove links to such sites. If one site is allowed, then so must all the rest. This makes the article unwieldy, and is contrary to WP policy on the matter. Only sites with an established link to the article subject are acceptable. If you insist on reverting on the issue I will make a thorough investigation of the site. Should it not be an appropriate link I will notify you and request that you desist. I would rather really not go down that route, so you might wish to be certain of your position before reverting. LessHeard vanU 21:22, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Please don't put references to the Church to which you belong into articles of members of the Beatles, or anybody else, unless you can provide evidence that they themselves enrolled. Thank you. LessHeard vanU 22:34, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * As the originating editor the onus is on you to prove that they did. I am requesting the evidence for the information you provided. I tried looking on the site, via the WP article link, for the enrollment dates of illumni. I am particularly interested in finding when Lennon joined. LessHeard vanU 22:39, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, be serious! If you are unable to provide good reasons for your edits ad hominen tactics will not help. To recap, you placed your edits on the opening paragraphs of articles but there is nothing in the later text referring to it. The fact that the subject is a Minister of a Church that provides free ordination, without study or requiring any belief system, over the internet and that they themselves did not necessarily request ordination, is not noteworthy in respect of their impact on popular Western culture. Ultimately, it is trivia. There is an article entitled The Beatles' miscellanea which may well be appropriate, but having the info on each member simply clutters up already large articles.
 * Specifically regarding the 3RR warning you issued (since removed by GreenJoe, see belowLessHeard vanU 23:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)), it is the first warning of any kind that I have ever received in over a year of editing and I have never previously been threatened with any warning. You may find making such suggestions a little tricky to stick. However, in response, I would comment that, all things considered, my mam is bigger than your mam. Now, when was Lennon ordained? LessHeard vanU 23:13, 28 April 2007 (UTC) (edit conflicts) ps. Comment Er, you just reverted an Admin and called him a meatpuppet... I suggest you try some cyclic breathing exercises and calm down!
 * The link should now work in the para above. Please note that the article was moved into Project space since it was repeatedly being AfD'd (and failing and taking up valuable article writing time), however it is a valid article.
 * If you are agreeable to removing the 3RR warning on my page I will remove my (incorrectly applied) spamlink warning from yours. Or we can just do our own pages on a mutual basis. Yeah? LessHeard vanU 23:36, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, well - it enlivened what may have otherwise been a dull evening! Cheers. LessHeard vanU 23:50, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
 * It is an article, although it exists in Project space as a resource for members of the project and to stop zealous editors from AfD'ing it. The link I gave you is a redirect from the main article space where it used to reside, so anyone seeking Beatles Trivia (another redirect) will find it. Re the ULC article if you link, as an example, to the source you provided for the Beatles articles then you will provide an interested reader with the connection. A mention about what you have done on the talkpage, with a link to the Beatles miscellanea, should keep everyone happy. LessHeard vanU 00:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)