User talk:Itsmejudith/Archive 5

Notability of Palestine Solidarity Campaign
A tag has been placed on Palestine Solidarity Campaign requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article 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 article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this.  Horologium  (talk) 17:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Dissent
Tried to defend your revision. Pointless. Am off, again. -- Relata refero (disp.) 22:04, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Hkelkar
Sindhian and Hkelkar are not the same, unless Hkelkar has relocated to South-East Asia. There are some clear differences in style also. What i pointed out is that several sections that Sindhian has reintroduced were written by Hkelkar during the midst of an ugly edit war. --Soman (talk) 20:51, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Solar energy mediation
Please don't forget to sign the agree to mediate section here. Apteva (talk) 05:59, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Controversial partisan politics California
Thank you for your feedback Judith and I have gone through and tried to make adjustments to the articles as to not support a conservative bias, your critique of my work is quite welcome, apologies over the misunderstanding. I would be very happy if you would check the changes that I made and see that I am conforming to what Wiki policy dictates. Have a great day.

Image from new user Mlino76
Hello Stifle

You left a welcome message and another message on the talk page of the above new user. Would you be able to advise any more about the image that he created and wants to see used on an article? The position is that he authored it and he says that it appeared in two leading scientific magazines. What else needs to be done in regard to proper attribution of the image (if it is used in the article Solar energy)? Thanks very much. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:00, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
 * You might want to re-read the message I left. It explains why I have not deleted the image from Wikipedia. Attribution etc. does not come into it. Stifle (talk) 10:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

answer
answer from your comments.
 * well, you do not understand what i said. I do not misunderstand what reliable sources are. I DO NOT SAID, THOSE SOURCES ARE NOT RELIABLE SOURCES. I JUST POINTED OUT THAT THOSE SOURCES HAVE SEROIOUS POV PROBLEM AND STILL FRINGE THEORY.(eg. USA belong to Africa?)
 * and I already found counterpart sources by an academic press or an article in a scientific journal.
 * AND I ALREADY SAID, "However, These fringe sources are ALREADY USED as source in main Article. so, This is worthless discussion." reliable or non-reliable... this is not important. those sources are ALREADY USED IN ARTICLE. so, there is no need discussion about this.
 * problem is.... JJL continually rv. various user's edit. and he keep claim that ONLY his sources are ABSOLUTELY JUSTICE. OTHER SOURCES ARE ABSOLUTELY INACCURATE. He keep a this stance, and he keep opposed counterpart academic sources. Manacpowers (talk) 11:16, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

fringe. According to WP:RS says,
 * fringe is views held by a small minority, in direct contrast with the mainstream view in their field
 * yeah, his sources are fringe view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manacpowers (talk • contribs) 11:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Well... His source have a serious POV problem.
 * 1. No TKD orginization admit it. Karate POV.
 * for example, Authors are karate affiliated.
 * 2. No scientific data. it is assumption and personal opinion.
 * 3. That is not mainstream history.
 * 4. still dispute it accurate in many way.
 * 5. TKD OFFICIAL site do not say so.
 * Last, His stance problem, he keep claim that ONLY his sources are ABSOLUTELY JUSTICE. OTHER SOURCES ARE ABSOLUTELY INACCURATE. Many user already mediate this topic. Afte that, we conclude that it remain a reader's choice.
 * finally, We make conclusion like this,
 * "Some believe that these schools taught martial arts that based upon Traditional Korean martial arts Taekkyon, Subak.[6][11] Some believe that these schools taught martial arts that were almost entirely based upon Japanese karate.[12] Some believe that these schools taught martial arts that were based upon various martial arts Taekkyon, Kungfu, karate.[8][9]"
 * I still disagree this expression. However, this is limit of moderate edit. there is no need further change.
 * However, JJL try to keep a 'My source are ABSOLUTELY JUSTICE. others are NOT' stance. I still disagree his source. but no one complain that sources are violate WP:RS.

Manacpowers (talk) 11:46, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

"User talk page exchange copied here" this is no need. because, i already posted this sentence above. so i delete it. Manacpowers (talk) 12:09, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Marburg72
I have just filed an RfC about user Marburg72, whose edit you recently reverted. If you would like to add any comments, under the headings "Other users who endorse this summary", or "Outside view" or in the "Users who endorse this summary:" at the end of Marburg72's "Response" section, please do so. David Trochos (talk) 21:27, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Does your bot work for fixing spelling errors?
I was wondering about using a bot for this, which I have never tried before. Let me know if it is a possibility, otherwise sorry to have bothered you. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Judith, sorry for the delay in responding. Real Life got in the way of my wikipedia activities for a while. My bot doesn't do spell checking in the normal sense of the term, since it's too dangerous/ambiguous an activity to do in an automated fashion. For example, you have to deal with words that are English misspellings, but valid words/names in other languages ("Teh" being one example); also you have to recognise cases where misspellings are deliberate, or have a functional purpose (eg linking to an image with a misspelling in the filename). For these kinds of reasons, the bot guidelines strictly forbid an automated spellchecking bot.


 * My bot has a few strategies to deal with this. One is to do a simple search and replace for a large number of common words that are highly likely to be misspelt. I've built up this list over a couple of years by looking at real articles and doing manual spellchecks on them, and continue to amend it as time goes on. The list I use can be seen here. Another is to use a list of regular expressions to handle more complex cases (eg 'mesures' is usually wrong, unless it's part of the phrase 'poids et mesures'). A third is to use a set of ad hoc pieces of code to handle various fixup tasks, such as stripping some of the junk out of Amazon URLs, fixing common mistakes in external URLs (eg starting with 'http:///' rather than 'http://'). Of course, none of these changes are guaranteed to be 100% correct in all cases, so I have to supervise the bot and manually confirm the changes if they're correct, and add them to a list of articles with exceptions if they're not.


 * I hope this answers your question. Cheers, Cmdrjameson (talk) 14:01, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

removal from talk page
Itsmejudith, I don't understand why you have removed my comments from the cold fusion talk page. It does not help resolve the dispute. If you disagree with what I said, why don't you exlain it there ? Pcarbonn (talk) 12:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Your answer only explains why you removed the edits from Steve Krivit, not mine. Pcarbonn (talk) 12:28, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I would prefer that you make the correction yourself. Pcarbonn (talk) 12:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * No problem. I was able to recover my comments. Pcarbonn (talk) 15:38, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate you removing my address and my name. My name isn't a secret, as my personal website is linked from my user page. However, I don't actually post my name for obvious reasons. Google indexes Wikipedia and I don't want my name floating out there. Can you please send me an email of what information was posted? I certainly wouldn't want my address posted. -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 15:37, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks! -- Nealparr  (talk to me) 15:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Personal details
I'll deal with it; thanks for bringing it to attention. Best, PeterSymonds (talk)  12:19, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

represent the view of the "average scientific lab" or from published papers ?
Itsmejudith, thank you for your efforts to calm down the dispute. I'm puzzled by SA's statement that the article should present the view of the average scientific lab. What's your take on it ? Would it be helpful to have an RfC on it ? I think that resolving this would go a long way towards solving the dispute. Pcarbonn (talk) 17:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comment. This is recomforting. His defense of the average scientific lab is driving all his edits, and should be strongly countered, in my view.  Pcarbonn (talk) 10:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Spelling error for your bot
"Companian" for "companion". I changed a few. Hope it is OK to notify you of these. I'm somewhat in awe of those who can create a bot, Commander, Sir! Itsmejudith (talk) 16:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi Judith. Thanks for the suggestion, I went through enwiki and found 13 articles with Companian/Companians. It's not a problem at all for you to make suggestions like this, in fact I welcome them; keep 'em coming! You'll get a quicker response from me if you make them on my CmdrObot talk page though, as I'm logged in more often as a bot than as a regular user. Cheers, CmdrObot (talk) 18:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Offer of archiving assistance
Hi, I noticed that the archive bot isn't triggering on your page... I'm pretty sure that I know what the problem is, so is it okay if I look "under the hood" and make the necessary adjustments to get it going again? --Elonka 20:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Okay, I cleaned the sparkplugs and changed the oil, and everything seems to be working again now. We'll know for sure in 24 hours to see if it "catches" on the next pulse. I'll keep an eye on it, and if you have any trouble, let me know ASAP.  :) --Elonka 20:55, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

actually this solution won't work.
''It would be great to see the edit warring come to an end, but actually this solution won't work. There clearly is a struggle in the real world about some aspects of Tibetan Buddhism, and it is notable to a certain extent. What is needed is short, sharp, purely-factual articles and not too many of them. Please feel free to propose article mergers and come to the noticeboards as often as required: neutral point of view noticeboard for unbalanced articles, reliable sources noticeboard to ensure that unreliable sources aren't used, biography of living persons noticeboard if there are potentially damaging statements about living people, and fringe theories noticeboard if views that are neither science or religion are being pushed as truth.''

Why will this solution not work? So, if not, what is needed is a completely unbiased admin with years of experience, tolerance of a saint, and weeks of time on her hands to assist and guide in the training of editors and balancing of articles. The current contributors and editors are far too involved in the issues at hand. The article list is long. Time is precious. Here is the article list that I know of: New Kadampa Tradition Dorje Shugden Dorje Shugden controversy Trode Khangsar Kelsang Gyatso Western Shugden Society Manjushri Institute Kelsang Lodrö Kelsang Khyenrab Samden Gyatso Thubten Gyatso (NKT). You cannot expect the current group of interested individuals to deliver short, sharp, purely-factual articles and not too many of them, with individuals proposing article mergers and coming to the noticeboards as often as required. Why NOT? because it has already happened repeatedly for more than four years. Nothing changed. Sometimes the pro-NKT got their way, sometimes the anti-NKT got their way. The process needs outsiders to sit on the articles for quite some time. Or they need deletion with moratorium. (20040302 (talk) 10:04, 14 July 2008 (UTC))


 * Judith, thanks for your speedy comment. I would like to concur, but I feel that I cannot. Yes, the topics are notable. But who is willing to give time to steer the large number of random editors, most of whom have their entire religious views invested in these issues, consistently, reliably, and for many many months?  I am not convinced that the time required to sort this matter out is worthwhile the value of the noteworthiness.  Topics that are notable are only of value if they remain encyclopaedic, and informative.  Otherwise, it's best to ring-fence them, let the real world come to a conclusion, and then have another attempt.  I AM frustrated.  I  worked with User:kt66 two years ago, helping him to learn how to be a good wiki editor. He learned to be fair, and find good cites, and to limit his own views to his user page, and the occasional rant on a talk page (nothing unusual there).  He retired last month, because of the continual subversive pressure of random, shifting accounts, sock puppeteering, proxy ip accounts, and so on that are used by the pro NKT lobby. They have an active, and aggressive marketing stance, which is well known in the real world.  I hate the idea of deleting articles that reflect truth - or even contextualised published opinions.  I see no value to ongoing editwars that span half a decade, with no product, but the same biased views - either pro-NKT or against it.  I believe that if deletion isn't an option, then a long engagement with a long term admin, who can then lock the article for some cool-down period, and keep a strong eye on the issues for another half-decade, is about the only other option available.  It isn't funny, it's not cheap, and the issue will not go away. (20040302 (talk) 12:16, 14 July 2008 (UTC))

Mediation Case
The Mediation Case involving Solar energy has been opened, I will be mediating the case for Medcom, please review Mediation Policy to understand the intent of this process and then post an initial statement at Wikipedia_talk:Requests_for_mediation/Solar_energy. Thank you.  MBisanz  talk 22:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I spoke for you in regard to a picture so you might want to chime in. Mrshaba (talk) 00:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you think we're getting anywhere with the mediation case? Our mediator seems to have a full load of RL stuff going on so I can't blame himher but I'd rather like to get on with things and this avenue doesn't seem to be leading anywhere. Mrshaba (talk) 23:37, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd like to take this situation to an arbitration committee and settle it once and for all. I honestly think Apteva and his many identities should be banned from the energy pages altogether. He's doing a lot of damage by arguing against good editors and stringing together redirects in a misguided manner. For a fellow that claims to be an engineer and physicist he's got a poor understanding of energy principles and statistics. It's amazing to me that this can go on for so long against so many people. The SE page and its 250,000 hits a month make it just about the top article in the Engineering and Technology section and one of the most viewed pages among all those in the Science section. You'd think the page would have a priority over the latest Nintendo game or even Pluto for that matter. The SE page has gone down hill over the last while as we've debated minutiae and this frustrates me. The situation is a bad example of how WP should work. You know I've worked hard to develop the page against what's been more than enough unnecessary gibberish.. I could cuss and swear oodles. I've reviewed all the major encyclopedias and I know WP tops them easily... I can't complain about this but I want to improve the page further and I don't want it to be uphill any longer.


 * Do you think this should go to arbitration? Do you think we should try another RFC. I'm impatient but curious. Cheers Mrshaba (talk) 02:08, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

You've had enough dissent?
Considering your reception on that article, I think you've acted very well. I notice you are ensuring quality across a large spectrum of articles, so your time might be better spent elsewhere rather than being reverted there. In any case, I found your input extremely competent. Thanks, Merzul (talk) 20:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I also want to thank you for attempting to add a voice of reason and balance. Your appeals to quell the incivility obviously fell on deaf ears and blind eyes. Perhaps it is enough to let the blind follow the blind. -- DannyMuse (talk) 21:08, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

If you want to discuss the problems with your behaviour, that's great. If you don't want to, then don't. Of course, what you did on my talk page is a perfect example of what I was talking about - jump aggressively, and then delete your own comments. If your aim was to make life here unpleasant for other editors, I'd say your succeeding quite well. Otherwise...not so much. Guettarda (talk) 19:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Project talk page tagging for WP:VIET
 Blnguyen  had requested me for the service of TinucherianBot to tag articles in the categories in WikiProject Vietnam/Categories for the WikiProject Vietnam. I request the members to kindly have a look, carefully verify ALL the categories and remove all the possibly wrong categories. Please Dont misunderstand by being cautious here, as we have faced many issues with such huge scale bot tagging earlier. Once I get the final go ahead, I will start the bot with the final list. Thank you for choosing TinucherianBot for the project,. It is a pleasure working for this project...I have also left a note at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Vietnam and request your comments there. You are receiving this message as you are a member of the project. Thanks --  Tinu  Cherian  - 06:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

FA-Team Mission 5: Solar solicitude/solidarity
A proposal to help Solar energy reach FA status has been taken up by the FA-Team. I believe you are interested in this article. If you'd like to help, please add your name to the mission page. One of the goals is also to improve the very loosely related article on Scattered disc. Your help there would also be appreciated. Geometry guy 16:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

'The Jew of Linz' talk page
I would appreciate your having a look at the talk page of 'The Jew of Linz' on the topic of the Bethmann family's Jewishness. I have obviously aroused the ire of an administrator who feels I have unreasonably tried to direct development of the entire article. Should you agree, I would accept correction. I respect your judgment, but I would appreciate, as it were, a second opinion either way. Please advise as to what (if anything) I should do. Kimberley Cornish (talk) 07:40, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Sukyo Mahakari article
I should have read all the discussion page before asking you about this. I think I understand your concerns now that I have read it. You are probably right that the past approach of trying to edit down the article was not working, so it would be better to build it up. I'll work with that approach (you can ignor my earlier questions/comments). Vontrotta (talk) 12:18, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

History of education in England content
I'm a bit concerned at the way you have ripped practically all the content from Raising of school leaving age in England and Wales to supplement the content for the History of education in England. I understand work submitted to the encyclopedia is under public domain and anyone has a right to use it however they please (even internally within wikipedia), but you have effectively made the Raising of school leaving age in England and Wales article redundant by duplicating it's content in an article which I assume is intended to not deal specifically at the school leaving age raising (which, by directly ripping content, it effectively does).

I do feel inclined to do major reverts on the article History of education in England. Brief mentions of the leaving age raising would be sufficient (with links to the appropriate Raising of school leaving age in England and Wales section), however it seems maybe you have been too lazy to properly author an article yourself.. Bungle (talk • contribs) 10:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I can appreciate that an article on this subject is appropriate and indeed necessary. My concerns stemmed from the fact that this information was added in June (just over 2 months ago) and I hadn't noticed in the article history any serious attempt to properly integrate it into the article without making other articles with similiar information redundant. It such frustrated me primarily that I had spent a considerable amount of time on the ROSLA article and felt somewhat dissatisfied when I saw it duplicated here (and internally within wikipedia of all places). It's nice to hear that you do have extensive plans for more constructive building of this article and as well as taking my own comments aboard, I do hope it reaches the level you are endeavouring to achieve. Bungle (talk • contribs) 19:49, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Crozant
Thanks for your comments. I spent a day there with friends that live nearby, so I couldn't let the opportunity pass by to take some pics and then write it up when I got home to England. There's a lot of stuff on the French pages that, as usual, I've ignored. They tend to do a lot of "legend has it that" and lots of superstitious stuff that I cannot justify translating/copying over. Cheers Dickie (talk) 11:20, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: Harvey Milk
Hiya IMJ. You mentioned the NPOV noticeboard for the Harvey Milk issue; do you think they'd be more likely to feel that this was their baby than the OR noticeboard? I kind of wanted to know if they agreed that there are OR/SYNTH issues. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 03:28, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm curious too. I'm completely slack-jawed at an editor who cares so little for quality. I am beyond comprehending. --Moni3 (talk) 04:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know if they'll take it up enthusiastically but it's worth a try. Or a second RfC. Anything you can think of to bring more people in. Moni, I take it you don't mean me??? Itsmejudith (talk) 08:55, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Honestly, how much good will another RfC do? Mosedschurte has exhibited five months of not caring what more experienced editors think. I could take this to POV, OR, Synth, and 10 other boards to get the same response I've gotten. I'm at my wits end here, judith. This guy does. not. care. Look, I'll do this procedure in order to find some course of action. Just... tell me what to do. Please. --Moni3 (talk) 12:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Bring in more people, but not just to fight this battle. Time to start getting the page to FA. I've got some comments that I'll make on the talk page. We had some similar problems on Solar energy, a very different article but long-standing differences of opinion, not necessarily resolved yet. It would be great if you could have a look in its talk page archives. Itsmejudith (talk) 12:34, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you
 Hello Itsmejudith, Your help on Alfred de Grazia is really appreciated. I know we may have sparred in the past, but generally I find your contributions to this encyclopedia to be very good. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC) has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Go on, smile! Cheers, and happy editing! Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Offer renewed
Seeing as I got Doug through so easily, are you sure you won't reconsider your refusal of the RFA offer I made you back in April? Moreschi (talk) 20:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * My 2c to Judith: I think anyone who has had the pleasure of reading your insightful contributions could not help but feel that you would be just the kind of admin that Wikipedia needs.John Z (talk) 01:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Come on, Judith, please? It doesn't really hurt (although maybe a bit scary at first). You'd be good at it. John Z's right. Doug Weller (talk) 11:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Blogs as a Reliable Source in re David Berlinski
Judith, we're having a bit of a dispute about the appropriateness of blogs as a Reliable Source in a BLP article. Since you contributed to this discussion previously and are well versed in the WP-policies related to this issue I was wondering if you'd take a look and perhaps make a comment. Thanks. - DannyMuse (talk) 23:48, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Judith, thanks for commenting. - DannyMuse (talk) 15:33, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Translation request
I was wondering if you might be interested in a little back-and-forth French/English translation? I'm involved with WikiProject Films and one of my counterparts on the French Wikipedia and I wanted to interview each other. The problem is that his English is lacking and my French is ephemeral! :) Would you be interested in helping us out? If not, is there anyone here that you might be able to recommend? Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much - we both greatly appreciate it! I'm not so worried about the English>French side of things, since that's his native language, so I assume that any minor deficiencies will be addressed by him. Many thanks again, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to let you know that I left you an email - since the Wikipedia "email this user" doesn't allow me to see your email, I'm going to need a reply before I can forward you the correspondence. Thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 22:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:RS
Hi, since you're the last person to comment at WP:RS, I wonder if you would mind having a look at the entry on the Manhattan Institute and leave a comment?

WP:RS/N

Thanks, lk (talk) 15:13, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Debito Arudou
Hi, Judith! Regarding Debito Arudou there is a response here by The359 Talk:Debito_Arudou and I will post to get further opinions about whether the source should be used. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:51, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Check it out
Images and media for deletion/2008 October 3. ScienceApologist (talk) 16:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Edits in the paranormal
Thanks (: I don't have time right now to check it out, but if SA has troubles with my recent edits, it might be because he was trying to force changes at the Psychic article.  I explained the problems with with the edits on the talk page.  Or, he may have a problem with edits like this.  The latter is something we went through a whole ArbCom to decide, so I don't feel that much more discussion is necessary.  SA and his friends have never accepted that ArbCom, but I maintain that Arbitration is the last step in the dispute resolution process.  If they want to bring it back to ArbCom, they should, but till then they are bound to accept it.  For background, the whole ArbCom on the paranormal is relevant, but especially this this and this. For the Psychic article, it's relevant that the "Three layer cake with frosting" part of the ArbCom specifically refers to parapsychology as "a scientific discipline of parapsychology which studies psychic phenomena in a serious scientific way." Thus, I don't see why people are still trying to imply that all scientists reject psychic phenomena (that isn't even true of members of the National Academy of Sciences ), unless they are just saying "if they believe in psychic phenomena they aren't scientists." I'm really getting tired of the POV pushing which causes us to go over and over the same things even after an ArbCom decision as clear as this one. You notice I'm not even insisting that Wikipedia go with the scientific consensus on these issues, which is defined as the consensus within the relevant scientific discipline (and which WP is supposed to follow). But implying that a parapsychologist cannot be a scientist ipso facto is too much. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 20:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Re the dubious tag on Psychic, SA was warned before by the ArbCom about abuse of that very tag, when he used in a way which was in fact much more justifiable , as in that case there was actually some intellectual question, especially as the Paranormal ArbCom itself was not finished. —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 21:00, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Response on my talk page (: —— Martinphi    ☎ Ψ Φ —— 22:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Be bold?
Being bold might earn an editor a fair old bollocking these days. So rather than rush in at Solar energy, I'd appreciate your comment re my opinion that the first fundamental of a wiki article is to establish what the subject is. Currently the lead says "Solar energy refers to the utilization of the radiant energy from the Sun. Solar power is used interchangeably with solar energy........". Rather than not say what it refers to, shouldn't we define what it actually is, by more accurately saying "Solar energy is energy radiating from the Sun. Solar power is used interchangeably with solar energy......."Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 23:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC) (forgot to sig earlier)
 * Yes, you're quite correct. Itsmejudith (talk) 08:14, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Hmmm... I tweaked the intro not knowing you were considering doing the same. I know you came up with the "radiant energy" phrase but I've always preferred the "heat and light" phrase because while less "smart sounding" it leads more easily into the technologies. Switch back at will. I'm not so much concerned with the first paragraph as the second which is a new summary of the various technologies. If you think it's dirt you may bury it.


 * What do you think of the sock-puppet issue? Do you have anyone in mind to present the info to? Mrshaba (talk) 23:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
 * This discussion belongs on the article talk page. However, there has been a lot of discussion of the inappropriateness of saying "solar energy is energy from the sun" (sun energy is sun energy...). Apteva (talk) 20:04, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - Favor?
Thanks for helping out with Chris Heimerdinger. Serves me right for trying to help with a BLP/COI/SPA/OWN/N dispute. I think we're making slow progress though, and your help is very much appreciated.

Since I see you commenting in RSN quite often, if you don't mind could you look at Reliable_sources/Noticeboard? --Ronz (talk) 18:06, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 19:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

McI
Re - are you sure, and if so what is your source? William M. Connolley (talk) 23:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

The Howshua Amariel article
I missed out on the discussion that you noted to me about the deletion of the Howshua Amariel article. Why did you delete this page based upon notability and third-party sources when there were enough supplied on the page? There is something very wrong with this decision.Saverx (talk) 12:03, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

-

I saw the discussion but you were the one who proposed such a debate. Besides, the article had a great deal more third-party sources than was discussed or is implied by you. It's seems that you overly focused on the 18 links associated with Amariel rather than looked at the 28 that were not. The deletion of this page was completely unjustified, if someone had a problem with the 18 links they could have been removed long before a discussion about deletion of the article came up... especially under an issue of notability???Saverx (talk) 08:23, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of EJJP
Hi Judith

I thought I should let you know that an article you created, and to which I also contributed, European Jews for a Just Peace, has been nominated for deletion on the grounds that the group "lacks notability". The nominator (who has been battling to remove references to EJJP's views from Anti-Zionism, did not see fit to notify us. You may want to take part in the discussion at Articles for deletion/European Jews for a Just Peace. RolandR (talk) 19:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Category sorting
Just a reminder that the DEFAULTSORT magic word is used with a colon, not a pipe: thus, not. —Paul A (talk) 07:22, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Admin nomination
I hope you are still thinking about this. I'm sure you will sail through, looking at recent RFAs it should be pretty painless and you'd be a great help. dougweller (talk) 08:49, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I contributed to the hummus discussion
How do I get my free plateful? --Ravpapa (talk) 07:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Multilevel modelling
A tag has been placed on Multilevel modelling requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

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 article 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 article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Terrillja talk  16:11, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Ignore the above, he did it to a faulty redirect and that's already been fixed -- which User:Terrillja should have done. dougweller (talk) 16:20, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

hello judith.
I love your page. thanks for your comments yesterday on the neutrality issue on the osho page. my experience there has left me a bit frightened to edit anything! they are in a constant state of squabble, pop over there if you ever get any time ..they really need mediation. that is what I would enjoy I think... helping with independent mediation, So as well as the osho page I'm looking to learn all the principles of wiki and looking to expand my interest here. thank you for the welcome. (Off2riorob (talk) 17:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC))

Barry Chamish
In case you miss it, I wanted to draw your attention to my comment at Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. RolandR (talk) 18:48, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Help me find reference
Judith,

Not long ago you wrote this comment in the discussions on an article about Chris Heimerdinger:

''Just to explain what I'm doing here, I came originally in a response to a message on the biographies of living persons noticeboard. I've got a fair amount of experience in editing biogs of people who have been controversial in one way or another. I am continuing to watch the page and want to see a neutral well-sourced article. If you disagree with any edits I have made I shall be pleased to discuss them here or perhaps on my talk page. Itsmejudith (talk) 17:30, 1 October 2008 (UTC)'' Here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chris_Heimerdinger

My question is this. You made "response to a message on the biographies" a link to the referred notice. But I can no longer find the notice or complaint that you referenced. I am very sorry to bother you. I looked in archives and thought that I had found messages from Sept and Oct of 2008, but I did not find this reference. Could you help me to locate it? Specifically, I need the comment itself and the IP address of the individual who posted the complaint. I could really use your help. Please email me at cheimerdinger@gmail.com.

Chris H. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.202.23.178 (talk) 07:22, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Danke she
Dear ItsmeJudith. I just wanted to thank you for your comments at NOR noticeboard and elsewhere regarding the Hummus issue, as well as your generally fair and even-handed approach whenever you have intervened in conflict areas. I don't think I've said it before, but your comments are appreciated, even (and especially) when they differ from my own. Just wanted to pass that on. Happy editing.  T i a m u t talk 12:14, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

CARMA as source for estimate
Hi, Could you have a look at this again, please.  I and another user have checked the references provided by Gnangarra and don't believe they have actual emissions of GHGs or CO2. The NPI only shows CO1. In the circumstances I believe that CARMA can be used for estimates saying something like:START CARMA estimates this power station emits 4.33 million tonnes of greenhouse gases each year Kogan Creek Power Plant: Plant overview. Carbon Monitoring for Action. Retrieved on 23 November 2007 The Australian Government has announced the introduction of a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme commencing in 2010 which is expected to impact on emissions from power stations. END If official figures were to become available I agree they shoud be used. Thanks dinghy (talk) 12:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC) Phanly.
 * I have reviewed your comments and have updated with the relevant information. In summary, the criticisms you found were based on a previous version and are now outdated and second, the stature of the board of the organisation CGD of which Carma is an initiative, and the efforts of CARMA to update it's figures warrant it being accepted as a reliable source for an estimate of Greenhouse gas emissions. Could I ask you to review the additional information and your conclusion? dinghy (talk) 12:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC) Phanly
 * Thanks for reviewing this further and your updated opinion. dinghy (talk) 21:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC) Phanly

"Fobbing off"
Sorry you objected to my addition about this in the article on the Peasant's Revolt. I'm pretty sure I can find a source as I'm sure it's true. Would you object to me putting two pence worth back in if I find a reference?

regards  SmokeyTheCat    •TALK•  14:49, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Kingdom of Humanity
You've stumbled upon quite a hornet's nest; I'll post at RSN. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Done. Cheers, JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 21:29, 14 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Dear Judith

Thank you very much for your sage intervention in this mess. It seems there was a very serious spat between JeremyMcCracken/AllGlorytotheHypnoToad and at least one IP, I think there was good reason for the IP sentiments if not the actual actions. Now, finally, it looks as if the Spratlys articles are in good shape, and fantasy geopolitical anomalies are labelled as such. This has restored at least one person's faith in Wikipedia. I do wonder why some people have been so terribly arrogant, though.....89.243.157.110 (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say arrogant but perhaps hasty and perhaps good faith was not assumed of IPs. I think just because we get so much vandalism and it is easy to see it even where it does not exist. Itsmejudith (talk) 11:31, 21 December 2008 (UTC)


 * If you want to leave it that's fine, but this is a stalker that's been bothering me for some time. Don't make it easier for him. JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 19:59, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Stop
Stop editing Shannon Olympics page! They are my soccer team but you keep deleting what I write. I bet you have never even heard of them, so why do you keep editing the page? STOPEmilewilliamivanhoeheskey (talk) 18:15, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

2nd Request
Judith,

I need the info because we are trying to track down the source of the IP to fulfill a legal request. I would very much appreciate it if you could track down the original post that brought you to the article. I remember seeing the IP at the time, but did not write it down. If you are reluctant, please tell me your reasoning, as I would think it's a rather simple request.

Chris H.

Hello Chris. I removed your email address as we don't post them on WP for security reasons (you don't want to get hate mail). I don't really know why you want to know this IP's address. We post stuff on WP in good faith, to help the encyclopedia. I'm afraid your court case isn't any of my business. You can find the IP's address anyway by looking through the history of revisions to the article. The helpdesk will advise you on how to do this. Any official requests should be directed to Wikimedia, not to one individual and anonymous editor. Best wishes. Itsmejudith (talk) 16:30, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Check again
I think you need to reread the google book link. As I pointed out, she says that it is "often" referred to as such, then uses the own term to define it as a reaction to Neoclassicism, which came out far after Ariosto's death. Furthermore, the same book cites "Romantic epics" as being written by Byron and Blake. They are Romantic poets, which is a group that came out far after. I would ask you to read a whole source before making judgments upon what is correct or not. Ottava Rima (talk) 23:06, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Copyvio problems on the Roman/Han article
His recent changes make things worse - between copyvio and plagiarism I'm wondering if we should strip out any possible copyvio and fully protect the article, what do you think? Oh, and we need some editors to nominate for Admin, it seems. :-) dougweller (talk) 15:41, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I've got to cook dinner right now, will get back to the article after that. Quiet New Year's Eve for me, a nice meal and some tv with my wife. dougweller (talk) 17:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Requests for adminship/Itsmejudith is now up. This is not a "live" RFA; I have not transcluded it to WP:RFA and will not do so until you indicate that you want to (usually done when you've finished answering the questions). Doug, if you want to add a co-nom please go ahead; it's fine to do so procedurally. And Judith - thank you for changing your mind. Cheers, Moreschi (talk) 22:43, 31 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Not really. All that you mentioned sounds pretty good. Oh, I don't know, it might be a good idea to vaguely mention something like possible WP:SANCTION enforcement further down the line - your brain is too good to waste on boring old AFD closures - but what the heck. No one ever actually does what they say they'll do at RFA: you can't know what chores will or won't take your fancy until you actually have the buttons. Moreschi (talk) 23:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I can co-nom you or vote for you, your choice! :-) dougweller (talk) 22:00, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks fine, shall I send it live? Though you might like to have a look at the line near the top starting "Candidate, please...". Moreschi (talk) 19:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA
See ,


 * Gee thanks, dougweller, for getting me all excited at the opportunity to voice support for an editor whose voice of reason I respect and admire. Seriously - take this live soon (well, as soon as you are ready). Good luck! - Eldereft (cont.) 21:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Live we are! Moreschi (talk) 22:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Judith, any idea what Moshe is talking about? If not, I'll point out his apparent crassness at WP:BN so they can factor his vote accordingly. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 21:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

What I meant
The crux of the joke was that it was somewhat ambiguous. When first read it sounds vaguely sexual but this is not quite clear. In short, it was pure genius :) . It was really just a spur of the moment joke, sorry if it caused offense. I'm actually a pretty friendly person and tend to joke around too much.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 03:10, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Dorje Shugden
Thanks for your comment and forwarding it to the WikiProject Tibetan Buddhism, this help is much appreciated. What do you think about the blog inclusions? There is so much spin that I would prefer only to use neutral academic sources. --Kt66 (talk) 20:46, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I would be also interested to know what your opinion is with respect to the links. They seem to be unbalanced on the number and list some anonymous site while no rather neutral source. I added three links to scholarly papers: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dorje_Shugden&oldid=264738389 what do you think about this inclusion? As WP:link states:

thanks --Kt66 (talk) 21:15, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.
 * 2) Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.

All apologies
I'm sorry for causing all this drama. I'm still baffled by it and to tell you the truth I'm eeehh.... let's just say not happy. Best, Pascal.Tesson (talk) 03:11, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

RFA
User:Dank55/Admins. Please consider running again in a few months; my guess is that it's very likely that things will go much better next time. - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA unsuccessful
I just closed your RfA as unsuccessful. Although you had considerable support, the opposition was sufficient enough not to be ignored. Consensus was not reached. Your supporters championed your article writing abilities, noticeboard contributions and positive consensus-building activities. You were often described as trustworthy. I imagine if you address the concerns of the opposition (policy knowledge and admin-related experience) you will fair better next time.

You are a valued member of this community, and I hope you continue to work hard on the Wikipedia project. If you have any questions or concerns, please contact me on my talk page or via email. Sincerely, Kingturtle (talk) 22:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Commiserations. You really should have been promoted. This is yet more evidence that the RfA process is badly broken and the main reason is the existence of a self-selected group of "RfA regulars" who only want admins in their own image, i.e. unimaginative pedants. Anyway, it's more Wikipedia's loss than yours. Cheers. --Folantin (talk) 22:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Usually, when people aren't promoted after a bruising RFA like that one, all they want to do is get away for a while, without being pressured to explain what it all means, declare pro-RFA or anti-RFA loyalties, etc. Your concern is entirely valid, Folantin, and it's worth discussing at WT:RFA, but let's just give her a pat on the back and a shoulder to cry on and leave her in peace for a bit, shall we? - Dan Dank55 (send/receive) 22:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Cry in peace? I don't think we take RFA as seriously as all that, and I don't think anybody should. Moreschi (talk) 23:44, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, you do things your way and I'll do things my way. I'm not pressuring anybody to explain anything. I merely vented my frustration with an unsatisfactory state of affairs. I avoided expressing this frustration earlier, on the actual RfA, for fear of upsetting the outcome further. If you want to argue with me, do it on my talk page. --Folantin (talk) 23:02, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry. I fucked this one up badly. I had no idea the collective vanity of the RFA crowd was so massive they would vote down the nominee of anyone who tried to deflate the bastards a little. I fucked up here, but those clueless bastards have fucked up more. We need admins like a fish needs water ATM, and they shot down a wonderful candidate for petty and dumb reasons.


 * Still, it was desperately close. Come May and we'll have another go, eh? I did something very similar and second time around I walked it. Might need someone else to nominate, though...Moreschi (talk) 23:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Same, my first was similar to yours, but my 2nd one was a walk in the park. OhanaUnitedTalk page 03:21, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Itsmejudith, I hope you aren't too dismayed by the outcome. As Kingturtle says, I think you'll be successful if you want to try another RfA, and I hope you will. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to see this fail but I take comfort in the fact that although it appears I inadvertently managed to get you extra "oppose" votes, Moreschi fucked up way more than I did. :-)  Bad outcome but for anyone screaming here "RfA is broken", I'd like to note that a) the b'crat deserves a part of the blame and b) failing good candidates will happen no matter how RfA is structured. Although it's frustrating for the candidate (I should know) we shouldn't be obsessed by the occasional false negative. The real sign that RfA is broken is that we almost gave a mop to this charming man (and I'll bravely resist the temptation to comment on who supported who...) Oh and I suppose I now have one more "shared page" with Itsmejudith and Moreschi. Both of you should come and have a beer at my place, like you do every Sunday night... Pascal.Tesson (talk) 04:32, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * All things considered I don't think you should be too bothered, although the bad faith accusations of canvassing may leave a nasty taste in your mouth for a while. A lot of good people expressed considerable confidence in you, and I have no doubt that a 2nd RfA will succeed, especially if you do go down the adoption road. No doubt at all. Email me sometime why don't you? dougweller (talk) 05:42, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh guys, what can I say. Let's try and cadge a free Leffe from "WP:SPA" (check the contribs) User:Mrshaba. He's been known to dish them out before on talk pages. Itsmejudith (talk) 10:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I voted for you (with verbosity and sloppy phrasing that made me cringe when I read it the following morning) because I thought you were ... well, you know, I said and I'm not going to bore you a second time around. But what I didn't know then was that you also have fine taste in ale. As it's pretty cheap hereabouts, I'm going through a Chimay white label phase right now, but Leffe, yes, Orval, yes.... (burp) -- Hoary (talk) 16:33, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I normally hog all the beer for myself but here you go. Mrshaba (talk) 23:24, 19 January 2009 (UTC)Leffe99t.jpg

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gwen Grayson
Ironic this should come just after I supported you in your RfAd, but I think your nomination of this article failed to consider the alternatives to deletion in WP:Deletion policy. DGG (talk) 22:00, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA thankspam
I simply created User:Dendodge/RfA thanks then use User:Denbot (my bot) to send it to all participants. If you'd like me to do something similar for you, I will happily do so. Den dodge  Talk Contribs 22:02, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I knocked something up at User:Dendodge/Itsmejudith RfA thanks. Feel free to suggest any changes (or make them yourself) before I send it out. Den dodge  Talk Contribs 22:17, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It will send it to all talk pages linked from the RfA (unfortunately, that can cause occasional problems - mine went to Jimbo when he didn't contribute - but they're relatively minor). I'll send it out now. Den dodge  Talk Contribs 22:31, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ - unfortunately, the bot isn't clever enough to notice people big red "I HATE THANKSPAM!" notices, so direct any complaints to me (I'll get the ducking stool ready =P ). Den <em style="font-family:Bradley Hand ITC;color:red">dodge  Talk Contribs 22:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA thankspam
Denbot (talk) 22:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

RfA thankspam
Thanks for the message. I'd point out one of the disadvantages of using a bot is that you missed the words 'Please note: RfA thankspam and mass-mailed messages are not appreciated. ' written clearly at the top of my page. Ironholds (talk) 22:47, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh well, just trying to be polite, but it's not always easy. Itsmejudith (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I hope you give it another try (RFA, not politeness. You certainly didn't fail the latter). ---Sluzzelin talk  00:20, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes; keep the chin up and give it another go whenever you can stand the heat again. This project needs volunteers like you. Tan   &#124;   39  01:19, 22 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Ditto. But sheesh, what a task this unreferenced project is! Just for you, however, I've already done one :) Best wishes, Novickas (talk) 02:29, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, this is my first ever thankspam, so I don't mind :). (It's probably because I rarely vote support in RFAs--yes, I'm evil that way). You got a bum deal, Judith; it should have been a pass. I'm sorry. Please do consider running again after a while. You will get through next time, or I'll eat my shorts. Heck I'll eat my husband's shorts. Aunt Entropy (talk) 16:51, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Sorry you didn't get through btw. It looks to me that there was a certain number of people that expected you to act with more deference to the admin rite of passage and punished you for not doing so. No justifying it. I'm sure you'll get in next though! All the best, Deacon of Pndapetzim ( Talk ) 05:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Solar energy
Hi Judith, there is a new user who is making some silly edits to Solar energy, and I thought you might once again bring some good sense to the page... Johnfos (talk) 04:08, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Judith for Admin
I have reviewed your edits, and if you ever run again for Admin, I'm gonna support you next time. If I had looked closer, I would have supported you last time :( Jim boon (talk) 04:13, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Having a break
Hi Judith, thought I would buy you a coffee... Johnfos (talk) 19:25, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Judith, Thanks for a most enjoyable breakfast :) And for educating me in the ways of the English!


 * No doubt you would have heard about flagged revisions by now.  I think it's a good idea that will enhance the quality of the encyclopedia.  But it will require established editors to do the flagging... Johnfos (talk) 06:27, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Lydia Caruana
Hi, thanks for all your work copy-editing and formatting this. Alas, it as well as my previous attempt at it, have been for naught. See: Talk:Lydia Caruana. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 12:04, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Forunately, things seem to have calmed down. Let's hope it stays that way. I've finished the formatting etc. and for my sins wrote 2 more short articles (Sona Ghazarian and Malta Philharmonic Orchestra). I can't stand to see red links.;-) I removed the other red links, as I don't think they're likely to be article-worthy for a while, if ever. Best, Voceditenore (talk) 10:29, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Platine War
Well, it´s a complex issue, I think.

It´s not really part of the Uruguayan Civil War as it lasted only until 1851. And he Platine War convers the War between Brazil and Argentina. You could say that the Uruguayan Civil War was the main reason, or better, the causus belli for the start of the Platine War. The truth is that it´s something like a "South American Cold War". Brazil and Argentina would fight each other indirectly like the USA and Soviet Union did from 1946 to 1989.

Although the War itself began in 1851, we could argue that its start was in fact in 1849, when Brazil began its aid to the Uruguayan government. We could say, nonetheless, that both the Uruguayan Civil War and the Platine War are part of a bigger event, but they are not the same.

And more, the Platine War article does not focus and goes in great detail about the Uruguayan Civil War, as it was only one of the causes.

The Platine War, as the Argentina-Brazil War (1825-28), the Uruguayan War or Uruguayan matter (1864-65) and the War of the Triple Alliance (1864-70) are part of a long dispute for power between the nations of the platine region. They inherited from Portugal and Spain, it´s a fact.

What I suggest, and that is something that it is trully missing, is an article about this dispute. In Brazil we call it "The Platine matter" (A Questão Platina). The last true war realted to the Platine matter was the one fought between Bolivia and Paraguay at the begining of the 20th century. It was an indirect continuation of the War of the Triple Alliance. As I said, it´s a complex matter, but I must tell you that we cannot mix the Platine War and the Uruguayan Civil War. I´m open for suggestions and ideas! - --Lecen (talk) 16:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, if were able to change the text to make it smaller without taking the vital information, I see no problem at all. The original text was much larger but I´ve managed to make it smaller as it is now. The issue is that this "South American Cold War" is so complex that is quite hard to write it in a few simple sentences. But as I before, if you want to, you can change it. All help to make it better is always apreciated!---Lecen (talk) 17:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi! I´ve just translated a section about the Brazilian Navy of the Imperial Era. Would you be interested in checking it out to correct any grammar or spelling mistake for me, please? The link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_of_Brazil#Imperial_Armada Thanks a lot! - --Lecen (talk) 16:47, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

linking
Hi, thanks for your additions to the Eye–hand coordination article; however, please consider going easy on the linking of dictionary-type words. I see a few, such as "sporting" (totally unnecessary link), and probably "typing". Tony  (talk)  12:01, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem, and thanks for your reply. I was aiming my comment at, perhaps, your general formula as you wikify, thinking that an adjustment might be easy. Cheers. Tony   (talk)  11:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Nice work
Nice work on Catholic theology of the body. :) You got there quick too - I just put the wikify tag there. Regards, -04:33, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Multicultural education
I've done that move for you! Pedro : Chat  12:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Gerardo Vallejo (filmmaker)
Yes, I was on the translation page when I saw your post and decided to check it out. And, of course, you were right. Your instinct was dead on. Cheers. — Cactus Writer |   needles  23:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Bror Geijer Göthe
Bearing in mind that I am not familiar with Göthe, I have taken a look at this article and made minor changes. I have not had occasion to look at the sources (and hesitate to do more without doing so), and the original author has forgotten to included full titles of two (considering the specialised topic, these can probably be identified without too much effort once one starts to look into things). If you have any questions that may not be obvious to a Swedish reader, it would be useful if you specified those on the talk page. --Hegvald (talk) 18:03, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

copyvio at New Life Baptist Church?
I saw "sorry forgot to subst" on an edit to New Life Baptist Church. More importantly: sorry forgot to state source of copyvio! I see no reason for keeping the article but it should not be deleted for spurious reasons. &mdash; RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 10:14, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Copyright problems, thanks & a request
Hi. I've noticed you've been doing some good work in locating and addressing copyright concerns. Since I dedicate a lot of my time to WP:CP, obviously I find this important. :) I did want to request that when you tag an article for copyright problems you notify the contributor when possible with the generated notification. I know that you do sometimes notify (ala User talk:YoavD). But I realized that you did not with two that came current today, Wisp Ski Resort and New Life Baptist Church, and just wanted to stop by and point out why it matters. Administrators are not supposed to delete CP listings until seven days after the contributor has been notified at his or her talk page how to address these concerns. We usually don't view listings until they come "ripe", seven days after listing, which means extending the CP process seven more days when contributors haven't been notified. Sometimes I will omit this step myself if the material was contributed by an IP editor some time ago; often such infringement is "drive by", and the contributor is long gone. It's also less important when there is "clean" history before the infringement than when it's the article's creator and the listing may lead to deletion.

In case you're wondering with the two I noticed today, the former was already cleaned; I skipped the clock resetting with the latter as it was essentially a G12; the only edit before the intro of the copyvio was a link. That would have met WP:CSD. Since there was no assertion of permission anywhere that I saw, I notified, but did not wait. If the contributor verifies permission in the future, the text is routinely restored.

Anyway, as I said, I do appreciate your work there. Thanks. :D (P.S. I'm one of those watching your page for a few days in case you want to talke about it people.) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. :) There are always going to be cases where that's not possible or even "bitey" in itself. See for example today's lovely subsection: Copyright problems/2009 February 26. :/ --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)