User talk:IPSOS/Archive 2

Caduceus edits
Thanks for your help tidying this up! Owain.davies 12:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I've just changed on of your edits as the article was already referenced as an in-line citation. I've also moved the others down to 'further reading'.  When i get a chance i'll go cak and make them all in to inline citations Owain.davies 12:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

I award you...
a minor barnstar! For excellent work on the repetitive and sometimes tedious business of tidying pages up.

Banned user editing Copt
Hello IPSOS! Thanks for opening the case on the recent sockpuppet activity in Copt. You should know that this is a known banned user. Please see my note on ANI. — Zerida 21:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Wanted to update you that most of the accounts have been blocked. Thanks for keeping that article on your watchlist. Cheers, — Zerida 23:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Help Request
Hello IPSOS I am hoping you may be able to offer some assistance. I recently created an article that was marked for speedy deletion by an editor citing recreation of deleted material. The article had the same name as an earlier one which had been deleted (albeit admittedly quite rightly in that case) last month by a certain someone that I suspect is not entirely unbiased in their opinions. Perhaps not surprisingly the same editor is involved in instigating the current deletion process. I am seeking help of some sympathetic and non-biased wikipedia content editors to assist me in better understanding the review process and perhaps assist by offering their time to review and comment on the deleted page. Any assistance would be greatly appreciated. Yogidude 14:01, 12 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your input to the Speedy deletion discussion. The article made it through the Speedy Deletion process, but has been tagged an AfD. The original nominator for speedy deletion was again very prompt in providing his input to the AfD. I am now in a position of having to canvas further support. The detractors are citing a lack of evidence of notability and in response I have added references of coverage from mainstream media here in Melbourne Australia. I would appreciate it if you could spare a few minutes to review the updated article and comment on the evidence of notability.Yogidude 12:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * For your very prompt and efficient assitance, thankyou. Yogidude 14:41, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Sahaj Marg page
Dear IPSOS,

THANKS for your keen attention to the Sahaj Marg page. My heart began to sank when I saw everything from the stub began to be changed again and I was glad to see your edits.

Please note that the Sahaj Marg stub was meant to describe a meditation practice, and the Shri Ram Chandra Mission page, was meant to describe the two groups. So instead of the disambiguation page, I think this page already exists for that purpose.

(Both are actually called the Shri Ram Chandra Mission, and the Sahaj Marg Spirituality Foundation is a subset of one. Also, the court case Mr. Pandey refers to has been won in lower courts by the Shri Ram Chandra Mission of Chennai (the one he's against) and the SRCM-Shahjahanpur is appealing that verdict (you'll see we didn't specify that in the article, we just said neutrally that there are court cases).

If possible, I ask that the page be reverted to the July 12th edition, or, just leave your first line stub, which is fine too.

Thanks, Renee    --Renee 19:32, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Dear IPSOS,

Thanks for your note. I guess they could be called:

Shri Ram Chandra Mission - Chennai

and

Shri Ram Chandra Mission - Shahjahanpur

Will you delete the Sahaj Marg Spirituality Foundation site then?

Thanks again for your work on this.

Renee   --Renee 19:37, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * p.s. Also, please note that a proposed stub for the Shri Ram Chandra Mission page is under discussion that will replace the text on this page.  --Renee 19:46, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Message
Dear IPSOS,

I saw your message on my page -- please let me know which page lost the wikilinks and I'll go back and fix it. Sorry! Renee   --Renee 20:13, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Please look at Sahaj Marg page
Dear IPSOS,

Please take a look at the Sahaj Marg page. Mr. Pandey is doing the same thing here as on the SRCM page (using primary sources or biased sources and then drawing conclusions and interpreting information). Advice would be appreciated.

Thanks, Renee  --Renee 21:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Chennai group - SRCM
Dear IPSOS,

Please note that the world headquarters of SRCM-Chennai is in Chennai, hence the name. (See bottom of this letterhead for proof. ) Mr. Pandey has stated on his user page that his purpose is to "expose" this group as a "cult." (He was later asked by an administrator to change this page and he did.)

He has reverted both yours and Jossi's edits today with selectively chosen text to support his POV. (This after I pasted in Vassyana's excellent explanation of why primary sources are not valid on Wiki, at end here from Sethie's User Talk page.)

I have reported him for vandalism after exhausting pleading with him, having admins plead with him, trying to ask him to engage in discussion before edits, etc. Also, this article is supposed to be a stub and he's gone right back in and pasted old text.

I am at a complete loss as to what to do. Advice appreciated.

Best, Renee   --Renee 21:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * This explanation was given to Shashwat to explain why primary sources are not reliable (From Sethie's user talk page):
 * Brief explanation. When using only primary sources, it is very difficult to build an article without including original research by drawing conclusions from the information. Secondary sources allow the sourcing of conclusions about primary sources without engaging in original research. A good example of this is the meaning of religious texts. As an example, Jesus says it is better to cut off a hand than to sin. This would be easily presented as Christian scripture encouraging severe self-mutilation if only the primary source (the Bible) was used. However, that is not an accurate presentation and not supposed by reliable secondary sources. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask. Vassyana 23:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
This is for the work on the Sahaj Marg page:

This is for your work on the Shri Ram Chandra Mission pages:

Yog's Law
I have replaced the speedy deletion tag you placed on this article with a proposed deletion template, because the article was not patent nonsense. Patent nonsense is limited to random strings of characters or collections of words that make no sense in any language, for future reference. I do agree that it should be deleted though.  Leebo  T / C  14:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Rfc
Dear IPSOS,

Sethie and I talking about filing an Rfc for user Shashwat Pandey. We have a month to work out agreements before the protection of this Sahaj Marg page is off and given the past history of this user (huge amounts of OR and POV text dumps with immediate reverts) we would like to head off any problems up front.

The pages that you finalized are such a pleasure to read and we'd like to keep them neutral.

Would you be willing to join us? I can do the leg work on it. Here are some diffs from Saturday:

    .

Please let me know.

Thanks, Renee   --Renee 11:56, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Would you mind a pointer?
Hi there, I've blocked the new vandal account you noted and protected the article. I was just looking through your edit history, and it's quite impressive the areas you've worked on so far. I don't know if you have any aspirations within Wikipedia for becoming an admin in the future, but if you wouldn't mind a small piece of advice? There is a little check box in preferences that give you a reminder when you don't leave an edit summary. It's nothing serious but it does stand out a wee bit when you look here. All the best Khu  kri  15:22, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's the little things that get picked up on. I tend to have my own code, rply, type, cap, + for the minor edits. It also helps the guys on vandal patrol, it's usually the first thing they look for is an edit summary, so you save them a bit as well. Khu  kri  15:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep it up and if you do get more interested in expanding into other areas don't hesitate to give me a shout for help. I'm sure we'll talk again in the future. Khu  kri  15:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Response to your message
Dear IPSOS,

You are right that mine is a single purpose account, but after reading the sockpuppetry, I can say that it is not one. I am new to Wikipedia so I am sorry if I have violated some guidelines. I have been practicing Sahaj Marg for last 8 years (Chennai group, as it is classified here) and have been part of its web development team. I had been watching the development on SRCM pages since last feb and when the information there started to become unbearably polarized and untrue, I felt as my duty to sign-up and contribute. Looking at the way the article was, a few days ago, I was of firm opinion that it should get deleted, not so much because I wanted to hide certain things but because I really hadn't imagined a cleanup could be possible the way it was going. But that was my human limitation and you guys have proved it incorrect. To my good fortune, only a few days after I signed up, good Wikipedians like you and some others have turned it around amazingly, which to me is nothing short of divine intervention. So, keep up the good work!! I will certainly be available to provide more facts and references as needed and as they become available. Duty2love 13:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC) (talk)

Hinduism
Would you mind reverting your recent edit to this article ? I see your point, which is already under discussion on the talk page, but a lot of work has gone in in adding references, combining stubby sections, improving prose etc to the article in recent days especially by User:Dwaipayanc and your revert undoes all that useful labour. If it is decided to recombine the Citation+Notes section, it will be much easier to do it by hand (and I even volunteer to dos so!), than by reverting all the intermediate edits. I don't want to revert your edit myself and start a needless edit-war, especially since all the editors involved are highly experienced and well-meaning. So I request you to undo it yourself and drop a note on the talk page marking your objection. Regards. 01:10, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks; I have reverted to the previous version. Please see this section on the Hinduism talk page, where the issue is being discussed and add in your opinion. I think it would be better discuss and reach a consensus on what format to stick with, so that we don't flip-flop between the different styles. As I said above, I will help in implementing whatever format is thought to be preferable. Cheers. Abecedare 01:21, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, the style is non-standard, but it is not unprecedented. FA articles/list such as Rabindranath Tagore and List of Harry Potter films cast members use something similar. Note that I am not arguing for this style since I have no developed position on this issue yet. But in User:Dwaipayan's defense (even though I know he can speak for himself), he did announce his intentions on the talk page from the beginning and stopped the conversion at the first sound of objection. So while I always support robustly argued (good faith) opinions, I think he deserves our civility and respect too. I am not trying to characterize your edits here! Only suggesting that a polite discussion is called for. Abecedare 01:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Splitting notes and citation in Hinduism
In contrast to your perception, it's in accordance with WP:LAYOUT. See WP:FOOT (which is a daughter article explaining in detail the WP:LAYOUT]]) for understanding. As a shortcut, you can see my comment in Talk:Hinduism and SandyGeorgia's comment here in the same talk page.--Dwaipayan (talk) 05:12, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, both your previous and this comment in my talk page urge me to remind such an experienced editor as you of Civility. Let us remind ourselves that me or you or anybody else do not own any article. And one or two persons do not make any consensus. I started to change the notes method after about 3 days of declaring my intention to change in the talk page. I have replied to your comment in Talk:Hinduism as well. Please see. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:50, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Rfc/user for Shashwat pandey
Dear IPSOS,

Users Sethie and Reneeholle have filed an Rfc for user Shashwat pandey.

Because you have contributed to either the Sahaj Marg page, the Shri Ram Chandra Mission page, or both, we would appreciate it if you could provide your comments of this user at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Shashwat_pandey

Here are the guidelines for responding :

* Other users can endorse a view (under 1.7), by adding their signature to the list after that view. Along with their signature, they may wish to offer a clarifying comment of one or two sentences, for example if they agree with all but one particular part of the view. Longer responses than that should probably go into their own "View" section. * Anyone can endorse any view, regardless of whether or not they are outside parties, inside parties, or even the subject of the RfC. Ideally, there will be some view(s) that both sides of the involved parties can endorse. * You may endorse as many views as you wish. You may also endorse the original RfC statement (under section 1.7), and/or the subject's response (under section 2).

Thank you for your time. It is greatly appreciated! 18:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks IPSOS. And, thanks again for getting these articles in such great shape and finding the newspaper resources -- they add a lot as do the other readings. Renee    --Renee 00:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Query
Is there an editor who is anti-atheist, who was encountered by you and Khukri, who may feel hostile to you? User:Atheismfailed recently added a link to the Atheism article (warning; have popup blocker enabled) which leads me to wonder if this is worth checking into. Thanks much! KillerChihuahua?!? 00:01, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Settlements
I'm sorry to see that you think i have revert warred, when I have made four different proposals as to what to do with the disputable setence, and have been met with four exact reversions by the same editor. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:14, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If PMAnderson had made his proposal on the talk page, established that he had consensus, and then applied his changes, I, for one, would not have reverted him. --Serge 20:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Canned warning about canvassing
Thanks for the warning, and the links provided in the message. However, the cross-postings were done only after the article was edited even before a consensus was reached. Two of the most regular editors (Abecedere and Buddhipriya) opined, and no consensus was reached. In fact, in the talk page of Buddhipriya, I told that since no consensus was built, we should wait. Probably my wordings there was misinterpreted.

I posted messages on the talk pages of the users who had considerable number of edits. This I figured out from. I messaged those contributors who has more contributions than I (me being an irregular editor). You were not in that list, so I did not message you. I used a timespan from 2004-01-01 to 2007-07-21.

Anyway, thanks for the message, and let's wait for the consensus. Although my cross-postings, in my opinion, is in the "accepted" range (per Canvassing), I should not perhaps done that. And also, you should perhaps have waited for a consensus to build. Regards.--Dwaipayan (talk) 17:09, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes I admit RfC is the correct way to get more input. But one resorts to the RfC only after sufficient effort has been done to get a decision/consensus without RfC. Yes I need to show consensus for a proposed change, and lack of consensus to make the change in the first place is sufficient reason to revert to the long-standing presumed consensus version. But it takes time to get a consensus. You hurried off towards reverting, without giving proper time for discussion among regular users. The discussion took off on 18 July. And 3 days is a moderate time (I won't say it is very little) for a consensus to build. Anyway, the article at present needs more work, and I am trying to edit whenever possible. Hopefully, with good contribution from everyone the article would be much improved and will be taken for FAC one day in near future.--Dwaipayan (talk) 18:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Prem Rawat references
Hello, IPSOS. Not that it matters much in the great scheme of things, but why did you feel my deletion of a reference which confirmed only that the subject had four children should be reversed? Just curious, really. Rumiton 15:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I think we have made considerable progress lately in getting past the tendentious and obstructive editing we have seen in the past, but perhaps we are not entirely out of the woods. I feel as if the article has been held to ransom by these practices, and suffered accordingly. The rules of Wikipedia, diligently applied, show the way forward. I'll leave it for a bit longer to see if we have stability. Rumiton 15:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks again for your even fuller explanation. I guess I find the proliferation of super-texts a bit off-putting, they seem to point to something a bit over-polemic, or even schizoid in the article, but I do take your point. Thanks. Rumiton 16:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

U.S. city naming guidelines
Your efforts to compel folks to at least make a reasonable effort to establish consensus on the talk page before making changes on the project page is appreciated. I believe the only way to enforce this is to revert any changes made without discussion and establishment of consensus. Thanks. --Serge 19:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Serge's proposal of his new text, which he (and he alone) has been pushing since January, was immediately followed by this dissent from Vegaswikian. The conversation then veered to the general question of having exceptions at all; there was no consensus on that either. Serge attempted to gather consensus, but he failed; and then proceeded to insert the text anyway; if he had abided by the tule he proclaims, we would not be having this conversation. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 20:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * All I can say is that I thought the edit warring on articles was bad. The edit warring on guidelines is currently worse. And it appears to me that while both sides claim consensus, neither side actually has consensus. I see no way short of a poll with input from an RfC or other mechanism to get any idea what the Wikipedia-wide consensus might be. I see several very small factions all wanting to dictate their own view as the official guideline! I also see not possible reason for not mentioning current major exceptions except that you wish they weren't. So go change the exceptions so they can't be mentioned. IPSOS (talk) 20:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Please read the archivesl we've had polls; we've had RfCs; there has never been consensus; and there is no consensus to mention the exceptions beyond the mention in the guideline tag. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Your note
Yes, I fully agree with you. Hopefully this will die down once they realize that they are in a small minority. Your own comments there are very apt and very much appreciated. Thanks, Crum375 16:25, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Good for you! And thanks again. Crum375 16:34, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Brahma Kumaris World Spiritual University
Thank you for stopping by. However, it is exhausting to see admins come and go; give their 20 cents of advice and leave. Plenty of admins have done that and very few actually made a difference by giving their time. Please take a look at the real issue besides the reverting of the article; the "real" ongoing problem. We have gone already through arbitration and the individual who was banned keeps coming back with different user names, IPs, sockpuppets accounts and perhaps even meatpuppets, disrupting the article. That is the problem. Is there a solution for that? We have plenty of evidence if you need it. Hope to hear from you. Best, Avyakt7 | Talk 01:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC) Ps. On a second look; not sure if you are an admin or not. If you are not, never mind. Avyakt7 | Talk 01:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I see the file you delinked is a candidate for being moved to Wikisource. I did not upload the file but can you tell me which violation is happening here? Can it be linked to in Wikisource, it is certainly in the public domain.I am going to make an effort to take this matter seriously and present myself well as these two are out to make a case against me.

I think the article is comprehensive and is formatted well now ,which I will defend. The BK followers like Avyakt7 have had a hard time adopting to complete openness and the anomalies in their teachings that it raises. Normally the process of induction to "The Knowledge", and the stuff about channelling and mediumship, is slow and subtle. Good to see your interest in the occult..........welcomeGreen108 08:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

thanks re pdf note.Green108 04:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Ha
I see from your edit history that you are a frequent target of this friendly chap. I was going to welcome you to the cabal after that edit, but apparently you should be welcoming me...--Isotope23 talk 15:06, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes it absolutely was. My apologies... too many windows open on too many conversations at once!--Isotope23 talk 15:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If I knew where he was I'd send him a copy of Cosmic Trigger I: The Final Secret of the Illuminati...--Isotope23 talk 15:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Lucky you! I would have greatly enjoyed meeting him.  That book and Coincidance were what initially got me interested in a whole slew of topics & authors... Illuminati, James Joyce, the Church of the SubGenius, Flann O'Brien, Gurdjieff, Crowley, Sufism, quantum physics... the list goes on.  My world got a little bigger after I read a few of RAWs books... plus he was part of why I picked the username I have.--Isotope23 talk 15:25, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Revert to given name infobox
I see that you reverted the removal of the external links to the given name revised infobox. I have been trying to generate discussion regarding the inclusion or exclusion of these links and I would greatly appreciate it if you would add your thoughts and get others to participate. Remember 20:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * I tried adding the wider attention tag, but I must have screwed up because it didn't work. The last time I tried, but I shall try again. Remember 21:00, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Could you please help me. I still can't seem to get the wider attention tag to work so no one is looking at the issue regarding EL on the template and DreamGuy keeps on removing the example and saying that since I have no consensus that his view prevails.  I don't care that strongly about this, but I would like to have input from some other editors so the issues resolved in a fair way. Remember 13:07, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV Tag
The issues I had were already on the Talk Page - the "Moral and ritual practice" section, instances of obvious plagiarism or non-encyclopedic tone, and calling it "Christian Gnosticism", something that seems to me an oxymoron. I put up the note so that editors who visited the page but not the talk page would know that there was an issue, but if you really want me to put in the redundant section, I can.KrytenKoro 14:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Don't template the regulars
Look, please don't put templates on DreamGuy's talkpage, for instance like this, this and this. Posting "Welcome to Wikipedia" and "Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia" on a long-time contributor is simply provocation and trolling. You shouldn't do stuff like that and then complain that he replies rudely. I would reply rudely too, and perhaps you yourself also? *I* would like to assume good faith on your part, but when you post deliberately inflammatory stuff on his page and then complain on ANI that he ought to be blocked for the way he responds, I really, really can't. I hereby urge you in the strongest possible terms to not post on his page any more. You've been trolling him. In the circumstances, I consider it userspace harassment to just keep posting despite how obvious it is that he doesn't want you there. Bishonen | talk 00:02, 29 July 2007 (UTC).
 * Please see Don't template the regulars also. ElinorD (talk) 10:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Re: Green108
Although I'm getting scalded too here I am actually quite relieved you called. I am willing to hold off editing but please understand that I also need a solution that doesn't involve just caving in when an editor chooses to force his view by warring. I tried waiting for two months and the result was a misleading article full of OR, bias and grossly misused references. I am open to suggestions and will accept guidance.

I have already tried the AMA but the advocate had to go on a long break and the AMA have just ceased to be :-( I am presently preparing a user-Rfc because I don't think arbcom will look at this case again until I've tried lower forms of dispute resolution. That was the last advice I got from Fred Bauder. Also check out the list of blocks and bans at the end of the arbcom case and you will see what we are up against.

Please advise on how to proceed.

Thanks & regards Bksimonb 14:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the constructive advice. I "neutralised" a heading that Green108 already created on the discussion page and place the link in question next to it for reference. I see Vassyana has protected the page for 48hrs which will certainly help.


 * I would actually rather have the 1885 date than any statement saying there are several possible dates as in this edit. Do you suggest giving up or parking this issue for the time being and just go with the 1885?


 * Appreciate you taking the time to help out. Regards Bksimonb 18:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. I've received some responses on Talk:Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University but I have to say they seem somewhat challenging. I would appreciate any advice you have to offer on how best to respond or any direct input since the atmosphere on the talk page is something I would very much like to see improved. I believe it has a chilling effect on participation of other editors as evidenced by Rumiton 's last post. Obviously whatever I have tried to date hasn't worked hence the request. If I don't hear by 16:30UTC then I will attempt to respond as best I can.


 * I realise changing the heading from "Bkwsu's Internet PR Team Removal of the Child Sex Abuse paper" to "Inclusion of E.Romain's website as an external link" may have been interpreted as being provocative but it didn't seem an appropriate heading to request and Rfc on and seemed a justifiable change on NPA grounds.


 * Thanks & regards Bksimonb 06:51, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I misunderstood the procedure. I thought that the rfc would come if no consensus was reached on the page rather than preemptively. I have now filed an rfc to the heading on the page. Thanks for your input and support. Bksimonb 12:45, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * And thank you for weighing in on the Rfc. This experience has really inspired me with regards to the Wikipedia community. I appreciate your guidance. Do I repeat the process with the other outstanding issues one by one now? I haven't seen any other article appear on the Rfc board with one issue after another so I'm not sure what the acceptable etiquette would be here. Regards Bksimonb 18:52, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

re: Kathmandu Valley - Boudnanath Stupa
I am not trying to argue with you, but the UNESCO site is vague as to whether to call it a stupa or not. See. It is my believe (and I am certainly willing to yield to you on this point) that given no other meanings for a name a river should be called a river, a stupa should be called a stupa etc. We have had many mix ups about this in the past on the India pages and in those cases it resulted in less confusing outcomes to do this. A place name could me the city, the district, the temple etc. in the India articles. As I said, I defer to your judgment on this issue. Sincerely, Mattisse 17:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * P.S. I too have argued for using the name as spelled on the World Heritage Site (and lost sometimes). My issue here is that the site seems to be called a temple and a stupa (depending on the article or source) when in actuality it is a stupa and, as far as I can figure out, purely a stupa. Sincerely, Mattisse 17:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand what you are saying about place names = stupa. I am thinking of the broader audience who may not distinguish between temples, stupas, and places. In fact, as far as I could determine there is not even a category for Stupas in Nepal, while India has its country's categories for everything. Sorry. Sincerely, Mattisse 17:38, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Again I defer to you. However I am not persuaded by Google's view. In India a temple would be named after a town and so the article would be written. Then the town would have  be named after a district which was named after a river and they all used the one name. Eventually, these entities wanted their own articles; now India uses river, district, temple etc. as qualifiers for clarity.  Further, I guess I see this as one of education. After writing dozens of Indian temple articles, I still did not know what a stupa was and I certainly would not be able to identify one by location name only. In fact, even this stupa at issue is called a temple in places. I would like to see Nepal get it's act together like India has! Sincerely,  Mattisse 17:50, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Spam
I don't know about you, but I'm getting a bit tired of the Illuminati spam, so I blacklisted www DOT illvminati DOT org.--Isotope23 talk 18:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * If it comes to that I will... this is my first blacklist though so I'm starting out slow.--Isotope23 talk 18:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

My RfA
Hi, IPSOS, and thanks for your participation in my RfA. I've withdrawn it, and will be writing up an "analysis" of it, which will soon be available at User:Giggy/RfA/Giggy when it's done. Please come around when you get the chance, and give me feedback on how I can improve. Thanks again, Giggy  UCP 04:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)