User talk:Isotope23/Archive 3

Would like to edit the Gianna Jessen article
I just visited the Gianna Jessenarticle. I bumped in to Gianna through a forwarded email and just felt that something was not right about the story. I then went out and did my homework. The abortion Ms. Jessen claims her mother had at thirty weeks (seven and a half months) pregnancy in California is illegal in that state unless the mother's life or health was/is threatened and saline abortions are done in *hospitals* not free standing clinics. I left my evidence in the discussion. I am not sure I am allowed to edit the main page. I am not sure where evidence such as what I've found belongs. I also agree the article should not be removed, but it does need conflicting evidence.

Medievia Afd
So if you would be willing to change your vote on the Medievia page I would be willing to do a speedy keep as being the nominator and therefore having no delete votes. Tearstar 09:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
I do agree with you that they did not give very good arguments (I don't think they understood any of the reasons I gave for putting it up for deletetion) and I think they thought it was the Subject of the article I wanted deleted as opposed to the content of the article, but I'm tired of debating it, and it looked to be a lost cause. I do want to thank you for your comments, your vote, and recinding you vote. You're truely a wikipedian :). Tearstar 15:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Lakeshore catholic highschool on WP:RFI
The simplest thing to do in this case (or future similar ones) would be just to link to a particular version of the page from the AfD page as a comment. Saves filling a request for page protection where the 'correct' version is not always chosen (that's not what page protection if for). Hope that helps, and thanks for trying to make the AfD fair! Petros471 20:08, 4 April 2006 (UTC)


 * No problem :) Petros471 20:15, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Soggy biscuit
Hallo- I noticed that you posted a 'Delete' vote on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Soggy biscuit (2). I have recently posted some new material that I feel satisfies the requirement for WP:N and WP:V- hopefully you may feel the same. In any event, best wishes and apologies for the intrusion. Badgerpatrol 01:02, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 22:40, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Jonathan Williams Page Deletion
Here you go, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Jonathan_Williams_%28pastor%29_%282nd_nomination%29 you said delete last time hopefully this time we can make it stick.

Mike Murdock
For the sources you might want to look at.

[] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] [] []

Stub Sorting
Thanks for the message. I really have nothing much better to do at work than to refresh Category:Stubs constantly. Pretty sad, eh? Amalas 17:05, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge Vote on Ultraviolet map
Hi I was thinking about taking this whole merge discussion in an entirely different direction. Instead of merging the info on the poorly named Ultraviolet map into the unfocused The DHARMA Initiative. How about we expand on Silentplanet's idea and create sub sections on known Hatches?

Remember the "The DHARMA Initiative" article is supposed to focus on what it is. Adding more information to "the Swan" only shows that this hatch should be expanded upon in another article. The title of this article after all is not "The DHARMA Hatches." To me it looks like we should put in some information about what exactly the DHARMA Initiative is. We should give some history on it maybe include the information on the film and then some brief information about the hatches and what they are. Hatches that we know more about like "The Swan" should have its own page that would then contain information such as "the Map", "The Timer", etc... I think that this is a more reasonable solution and would also make it a more logical solution as an encyclopedia article. Please let me know what you think (in your talk page)! And if you do agree please note that on your merge vote! Thanks -- UKPhoenix79 04:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion/Kurt Cobain's Suicide Note
Hey. You said you had transwiki'd this to Wikisource, but I can't find it. I don't want to close the AFD and delete the article until this has definitely been transwiki'd - could you provide a link? Proto   ||    type    11:04, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Scott Sigler
Hey, I saw your edit to Ancestor. I had the same idea, to go through SS' contributions. Do you think he's notable? Should I write a bio-stub plus bibliography for him, and finished? Or is this all beneath scope? Your opinion is appreciated. Thanks - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 17:56, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * StoneMojo?? LOL. No, just one article for everything. Move EarthCore to Scott Sigler. Short bio with bibliography, like I made for James Hynes. What do you say? - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 18:18, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, so I am giving him the benefit of the doubt on WP:BIO and withdrawing my nomination. What's the procedure? Do I just remove the AfD tag now or do I wait for an admin to close it? And you can add Mojo info later :) - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 18:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Oops! I was busy working on a clean version all this time! - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 20:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
 * One of his homepages. The Amazon one, actually. Why not. Thanks for your good work. - CrazyRussian talk/contribs/email 20:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Monicasdude's recent incivility, etc.
Hi there Isotope. I've been asking around among possibly interested users to get different opinions on how I should handle this, so here goes.

I saw that you were involved with the Monicasdude dispute and many AFDs in which he is making his opinion heard, so I figured you might be a fair place to ask for a little advice on the current situation I've been drawn into. I've been trying to mediate between Monicasdude and Eusebeus by making each see the other's argument and keep both user's heads cool. However, as you might have expected, this has proven difficult, and has evoked nothing but malice from Mdude, who cannot seem to assume good faith. In the case that I'm talking about, Eusebeus had made an argument against Monicasdude. Monicasdude replied in a snotty way and blanked most of his argument, claiming it was a "personal attack". I re-inserted his arguments and reminded him not to delete other's comments from his page unless it could be shown that they were a personal attack, and to assume good faith. In response, he left me a vandalism warning on my talk page and claimed that I "could not make those kinds of edits on other users' talk page." If you could give me any advice on how I should handle Monicasdude as every time I attempt to Mdude understand that Eusebeus may indeed be acting in good faith, I am rebuked uncivilly, or refer me to someone that can, I would appreciate it immensely. Thank you, Kuzaar

GODDESSY
Just refer user GODDESSY to admins showing the Talk page for : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Stephanie_Adams

She'll be banned.... AGAIN

hmmm
She REFUSES to let people add verified information to her "private Wiki" as she puts it. She DENIES ever selling Tarot Card reading, which MULTIPLE people have proven, even a few admins.

She claims to have lesbian lovers and names them by names, yet they could very well be just libelous comments, in fact, the person who made this wikipedia article might just be a 14 year old kid having fun.

No where on that page should ANYTHING that CANNOT be verified be posted. SHE might be notable to an extent, but her personal life is not, her "lovers" are not, and her "business" to which most of the wiki is about is NOT.

She has done numerous personal attacks against me and others and NO ONE will do a THING about it. Get the hands out of the pants and follow the Wikipedia rules...

JuliannaRoseMauriello 21:14, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Stephanie Adams & GODDESSY
Hello and thank you for your efforts to resolve this matter.

Threats about banning GODDESSY (as listed above) should not be made by someone who cannot do so, but that is not the issue.

GODDESSY is not Stephanie Adams personally (we can verify that because we are not Stephanie Adams), so stop making false statements and stop taking this all too personally.

The person causing this commotion claims to be Julianna Rose Mauriello, who is in fact 14 years old (birthday coming up in May) but she did not create this article about the Playboy playmate and she has no valid reason to be causing such a frivolous commotion.

Verification about what should be on the Wikipedia site can be found by visiting: www.GODDESSY.com/PressInformation/MediaCoverage.htm and clicking on the link that says "the latest".

THE END.

-GODDESSY

Yea Hi, um, people start articles all the time on Wikipedia that are edited by many many many different users. In fact when you write an article it tells you it will be edited by other people, and if you don;t like it to NOT post it. ANYONE is free to edit ANYTHING they want on Wikipedia. Thats what makes it Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:OWN

JuliannaRoseMauriello 00:54, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment
My comment was to Goddessy and what she had written here, not to you, sorry for misunderstanding.JuliannaRoseMauriello 08:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Ivana
Ok. I believed she was probably Croat too considering that her brother's name is Tomo, but there had been some controversy on the talk page. The thing is however, that terminology is very important. She's not of "Croatian" descent because "Croatian" is typically used to reer to something specifically tied in with the state of Croatia (i.e. Croatian Serbs, Croatian citizens, etc.). She is obviously not "Croatian" because she was born in Bosnia. The proper term is "Croat", which is used to describe the ethnic group regardless of what country the person is from. Anyways, feel free to edit the page in some way that you see fit, although I'd ask that, if possible, Bosnia is mentioned in the introductory sentence - I am under the impression that the Milicevic's are proud of their regional origin. Live Forever 21:33, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

RE: Thanks
You're welcome. Cheers TigerShark 00:39, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

False Tag
We are writing to you because User:Voice_of_All placed a tag in a discussion claiming that we (User:GODDESSY) are the subject (Stephanie Adams). This statement is false and has to be removed.

Regards,

-GODDESSY

Curious
Where do they eat chinklich in pitta bread with mint and cucumbers for breakfast? It sounds nice, I might try it... Palmiro | Talk 14:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * What's lamb ghallabeh? And have you tried kibbe nayyeh (i.e. raw kibbe)? Excellent with araq! Palmiro | Talk 11:58, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

RE: Totalise
Thanks for the pointers you left on the article's talk page- could you post the template for the other deletion request either here or on my page, please? I cannot see it anywhere in help at the moment...I've used Wikipedia for almost a year (despite only registering recently) and never had to use it before!

Thanks in advance,

EvocativeIntrigue 16:19, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks- I remember it now I see it again! Thanks also for the quick reply, much appreciated! EvocativeIntrigue 16:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Detroit neighborhoods
Hello. Thanks for the note. One thing I would suggets is that there's an article page Neighborhoods and projects in Detroit, Michigan that right now just has a lot of redirects. If it's possible, can you move the materials from the individual articles into the neighborhood ones. That way there will be one article that has all the neighborhoods in it (in other words, a Merge and a PROD of the individual articles). Jtmichcock 18:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, Jtmichcock got to you first and pretty much answered your question. Indeed, I am in full agreement that some of the articles should be merged (given that the articles I looked at are on average about a paragraph in size with no external links, references, or categories). PentawingTalk 02:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

General wiki eagerness to quickly delete new articles
Thanks for your comments here. I've also been guilty of some of that behaviour in the past, and I'd also like to see some of that behaviour change. It was encouraging to see those comments made in a deletion discussion. Cheers, Colon el Tom 23:16, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

AfD
Thanks. That was a mistake. I originally put it on AfD, but something happened with the wikiengines and I didn't come up. Then I decided it was really a speedy anyway, so speedied it. I hadn't realised it was still AfDed, because I couldn't see it.

Thanks again. Skittle 18:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Eyüp Sabri Kartal
Some of your changes to this page require translation into more Standard English... please visit the talk page at the article before you revert it. I'm willing to work with you to get the text into a form that is readable by a native English speaker.--Isotope23 18:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. I have noticied it now.--3210 08:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

RfCU
It is pretty common to make mistakes in setting up a RfCU, the new system has only been in place for a short time. I only know how it works because I set it up! Prodego talk  20:49, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The debate over Joseph White
I was wondering if anything ever came about from the accusations you made towards me. I have nothing against anyone on this website, and agree that people can debate about what goes up, but these attacks and accusations on me and the new people that side with me have to end. It is extremely pointless (though I would like for this "investigation" to go on to prove my innocence, continue that, but end the allegations)

-NYC2TLV

on the What really happened AFD
Het is there anyway to get the page protected from IP editors for a little while? Aeon 18:14, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't worry I will stay cool. The only reason my stress level went up is becuase of some user page vandalism form one of the IP Meatpuppets that is it. Aeon 18:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * yep! most of mine come from Anti Vandal Efforts on my part. I'm going to stay away from this AfD for the rest of the day and go read one of my favortie articles Happy Editing Aeon 18:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Notability for Gabba AFD
Hello. Re: Articles for deletion/Gabba (band)


 * This to inform you that several "evidence of notability" (including All Music Guide and one CD) have been provided after your nomination and vote, which you may want to reconsider.


 * Also, I didn't understand your comment "the historical section needs to be rewritten as it is lifted from their MySpace page": I'm the one who recently beefed that article and section, and I didn't cut-n-pasted nor "lifted" anything, it's my own writing summarizing what I read, I had even left a big hidden HTML comment explaining that, so there's no copyvio there.

Regards, -- 62.147.112.67 00:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

P.S.: A large batch of sourced evidence (including screenshots of articles from Mojo and Melody Maker, and photos of BBC sessions) has been added since. -- 62.147.113.247 05:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Christoph Gruber AfD
Thank you for your help on this. Chris 14:10, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Nazarene Prophecy
I rewrote the above-referenced article using information from the old Catholic encyclopedia. I deleted unsourced information and, therefore, also deleted the template you had applied. I added an template and stub templates because of my over-reliance on one source. I have not, as yet, found anything else that qualifies under WP:RS for inclusion in the article. I kept the template pending input from any editor other than me. JChap 15:25, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

1-800-GOT-JUNK%3F
Hi, I fixed the sources the previous anon attempted to add, and edited the article a bit. I'm not sure if it was the source material that was unsatisfactory or the sloppy inclusion but the links work now. Can the tags be removed? --Roccyraccoon 17:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

AfD notice on Savanna Hypothesis
Hello. Just got a rather aggressive message from you saying that I should not have removed an AfD message on the savanna theory discussion page, and threatening me with the charge of vandalism. Why should JPotter have more right to post an AfD message than I have to remove it? I thought that the AfD message had been posted before any discussion in the discussion page, and it was posted rashly. Would be grateful if you could explain wikipedia policy on this to me, and why JPotter can post AfD and I cannot remove it, and who you are to decide these things. Nicolharper 14:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * All editors have the de facto "right" to nominate articles for deletion. This isn't a personal offense; it's simply one editor's viewpoint.  Keep in mind that the deletion policy must be followed, which means that any editor can chime in and make recommendations based on criteria they point out in their recommendation.  From the looks of things, your article looks like it's going to be kept.


 * Once an editor starts an official process, deleting it doesn't make it go away, even as if someone starts a civil case against you, you cannot simply ignore the court's instructions to you. Just as you may be perfectly innocent and not responsible for any damages and still have to at least respond, so here you should respond to an official action, and not try to "just make it go away" because you disagree with it.  It's not against you per se; it's just that some editor doesn't understand the importance of the article.  In an academic setting, the burden of proof is on the one making the assrtions, not the one questioning them.


 * Please read more about this on Wikipedia's guide to deletion. In the meantime, please continue to be bold and make contributions.  Happy editing! - CobaltBlueTony 14:49, 4 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi CobaltBlueTony, thanks for the reply. Savanna Theory is not my article and I don't care in any personal way if it deleted. What I objected to was JPotter's high handed way of putting the article up for deletion. I now understand that he is an editor and has certain privileges. What I object to more is Isotope23's aggresive post on my dicussion page, threatening me with the charge of vandalism. A simple explanation would have been much better, without the use of threats and an officious manner.Nicolharper 15:00, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * That is a standard template used to warn people. Doesn't matter why you removed the AfD, you still get the template, and if Isotope hadn't, someone else would have. Just policy -- Brian ( How am I doing? ) 18:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Webcomic Authors and WP:V
You may want to make a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Webcomics. –Abe Dashiell (t/c) 13:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

LG15 and Notable YouTube users
This may be something to bring up, but I am actually looking into creating a subcatagory (Users) or (Notable users) under the YouTube parent catagory. The reasoning is this: 1)Obviously the users are notable or they wouldn't pass WP's standards. 2)They are all famous or notable for their videos on YouTube 3)The page is only there to link users that have pages here at WP so what is the difference between this and a Catagory?  A catagory would make it easier for people to traverse between each userpage as well and make things neater. It would also end these kind of arguements that "'XXXX' deserves mention because they are notable on YouTube."... Now, 'XXXX' needs to have an article before being included in the catagory and if they have an article, it can be debated in a consenus of editors if the article truely stands up to WP's standards.  Thoughts? -- Brian  ( How am I doing? ) 18:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)