User talk:Lumos3/Archive 7

Archive of comments from September 2008 to September 2009 of Lumos3's Discussion page, placed here 25 January 2010. Lumos3 (talk) 13:22, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Please take a look
Comments, updates, corrections, and additions on this spirituality-relatd topic would be gratefully accepted.

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Beverley Sisters LP cover.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading Image:Beverley Sisters LP cover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Aspects (talk) 01:17, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Max Bygraves.JPG)
 Thanks for uploading Image:Max Bygraves.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Aspects (talk) 01:32, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Penguin Cafe Orchestra.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading Image:Penguin Cafe Orchestra.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Aspects (talk) 01:34, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Plastic Penny.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading Image:Plastic Penny.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Aspects (talk) 01:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Thenjericho bigarea.JPG)
 Thanks for uploading Image:Thenjericho bigarea.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Aspects (talk) 01:38, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Stanley Holloway CD.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading Image:Stanley Holloway CD.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Aspects (talk) 01:39, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Date linking birth and death dates in articles
Hello, I noticed that after I delinked the birth and death dates in articles, you restored them, citing MOS. I see we have differences on opinion over what should be linked and what shouldn't. You had precedence over me in the date linking, so I won't revert you. However, I wanted to say that as of right now, there is nothing in the MOS that says to link birth and death dates, and that there is no consensus in the discussion over whether that should be done or not. Thanks for your understanding, Dabomb87 (talk) 13:05, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The status quo on Wikipedia, until now, is to link significant dates only. These have been generally understood to be birth, death and dates of historical significance. Until a consensus is reached on a guideline you have no mandate to remove date links and are seriously damaging Wikipedia's usefulness. Lumos3 (talk) 19:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Please use correct reasoning in your edit summaries: "Wikipedia's policy is to link significant dates. Birth and death in a biography are significant" There is no such "policy" to link significant dates. Another thing: linking dates in Featured Articles (Isaac Newton, William Shakespeare and Featured Lists is definitely against consensus; see the featured article criteria and the featured list criteria, which specifically say to follow all style guidelines. Additionally, there is a clear consensus on both FAC and FLC to not link dates. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
 * For another reason why not to link dates, see your edit to Alexander I of Russia. Before you—against MOS—linked the dates, there were inconsistent date formats in the lead. The least you could have done was fix them to be the same format. Instead, you linked those dates. If I had not unlinked and corrected the formats, who knows how long our IP readers (who make up the vast majority of our readership and cannot use autoformatting) would have seen those inconsistent date formats, which would have gone unnoticed by many registered users because of autoformatting. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * See also my post @ "Date linking" below, which makes much the same point. --  JackofOz (talk) 04:37, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Book cover
This is to let you know that I've orphaned the fair use image Image:Framley Parsonage Penguin cover.jpg, and replaced it with Image:Framley Parsonage serialized.jpg, an image in the public domain. For more information, see the book cover replacement project. Thanks.Chick Bowen 03:46, 7 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Nice work.Lumos3 (talk) 16:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Date linking
Hey Lumos3, I noticed that you've been date linking years on articles. This form of linking is strongly discouraged, per WP:OVERLINK, as is the old 1 January 2000 style links, per MOS:UNLINKDATES. Blue-Haired Lawyer 11:35, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you have misread this . Only auto formatting of dates has been deprecated. The linking of significant ( not all) dates in an article has always been part  of Wikipedia's style and provides a useful  chronological orientation to the reader.  It allows the cultural placement of one event with what else was happening around the same time in other fields. There is an active group on Wikipedia trying to ban date linking but not consensus has been reached. Lumos3 (talk) 11:41, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well here's a quote:


 * "Wikipedia has articles on days of the year, years, decades, centuries and millennia. Stand-alone chronological links should generally not be linked, unless they are demonstrably likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic. However, links to articles on a topic in a specific chronological period, such as 1441 in art, 1982 in film, and 18th century in United States history can add significantly to readers' understanding of the current topic." (my emphasis)


 * How exactly am I misreading this? Given that you agree autolinking dates has been depreciated, how do you explain this edit? Blue-Haired Lawyer 11:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I only link dates that "deepen a readers understanding of a subject". So pivotal dates in a person's life or the dates of major events in a topic's history. This has long been, and remains, standard practice thought Wikipedia. I disagree with tentative proposals to ban all date linking starting with birth and death dates in biographies. See the discussion Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers) Lumos3 (talk) 12:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The proposal clearly appears to be to link such dates rather than ban such links. You have written "Support" beside you post. The proposal to link these dates kind of under-lines the fact that linking isolated years has been depreciated for much longer that the autoformatting debate, as per the quote above. In any case "a useful chronological orientation to the reader" would only be achieved if Wikipedia had pages on specific dates (1 January 2000) and not just dates of the year (1 January). Blue-Haired Lawyer 14:28, 11 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Historical orientation is best given by reviewing other events of that year. Events coincidental on the same day have little meaning. Lumos3 (talk) 22:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * This is exactly what I was saying. This is was the current linking method on Wikipedia (23 May 1960) makes no sense. Blue-Haired Lawyer 23:22, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Linking of years gives historical orientation. Linking of calendar dates gives human interest - Witness the widespread use of "On this day" columns in the media including Wikipedia main page. Lumos3 (talk) 01:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Can you explain what this adds to the article please? Thanks in advance. --John (talk) 01:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Linking of significant dates ( note I don't say all dates ) in an article allows the reader to quickly orientate to events in the world at the time giving context and deeper understanding. In a biographical article the vital dates are significant, they show the world into which the individual entered at birth and how it was when they left in death. Linking the calender date (day + month) of significant events as well as looking better, satisfies a wider human interest demonstrated by the widespread "On this day" columns in the media, including Wikipedia's main page. There is no Wikipedia policy saying dates must never be linked although I see you have personally taken this to be the case. Perhaps you can explain how this benefits Wikipedia? Lumos3 (talk) 09:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you specifically say how the articles at 17 April and at 1622 enhance the reader's understanding of Richard Hawkins? Can you provide evidence that this is the case, or is it just your own opinion? Failing that, per WP:CONTEXT, these should not be linked. This benefits Wikipedia by focusing the reader's attention on links which actually go somewhere useful, as described in the guideline I already linked you to. If you are unable to properly answer the questions above, I think you should undo your edit, unless of course you were doing it just to make a WP:POINT, which I'm sure isn't true. --John (talk) 13:39, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I have just stated clearly my reasons. These apply equally to the birth and death dates of Richard Hawkins as they do to any significant date in any Wikipedia article. Are you accusing me of editing in bad faith? WP:AGF. I repeat significant dates in an article enhance the reader's understanding by giving historical context. Anniversary dates are interesting, we might well see Richard Hawkins on next April 17 in the "On this day" feature. People are widely interested in anniversaries even if some see them as trivia. Lumos3 (talk) 14:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Assume the assumption of good faith. Please provide evidence for these two statements you made above:


 * 1) "significant dates in an article enhance the reader's understanding by giving historical context"


 * 2) "People are widely interested in anniversaries..."


 * If you are able to provide evidence that these statements are true I will certainly take your argument a bit more seriously. Failing that it remains just your opinion, and of course the onus is on you to demonstrate the necessity of these links. Failing that, I am free to remove them again. This is how we work here.


 * I see this practice as needlessly duplicating the "On this day" feature, which I agree is a worthwhile thing, at the cost of adding many low- or zero-value links. In closing, have you even read these articles you are insisting on linking to here? --John (talk) 15:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I would hold both 1 and 2 above to be self evident to anyone. I should not need to justify retention, it is you who are promoting change. The linking of dates argument  (Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)) is still in progress and you have no mandate to begin wholesale de-linking.Lumos3 (talk) 16:11, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Got you. I see now that this preference is merely your own opinion and thus has neither consensus nor any other justification behind it. Per WP:CONTEXT, the onus is on you to demonstrate evidence that these links benefit our readers. As you are unable to do so I shall assume that any further edits like this are merely point-making. I note also that you did not answer my question about whether you read these articles which you consider so vital to link to. --John (talk) 16:18, 31 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with John. Lumos3, your recent edit summaries are saying "Wikipedia's policy is to link significant dates. Birth and death in a biography are significant".  That is not what WP's policy says at all .  It says: "Stand-alone chronological links should generally not be linked, unless they are demonstrably likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic".  If knowing what other events also happened in the year or on the date the subject was born or died is necessary to deepen readers' understanding of the subject, then those events should be, and usually are, discussed in the article itself.  Those who are interested merely in "On This Day"-type information can get it independently.  This is the only rationale you've provided for linking vital dates, and it does not demonstrate a deeper understanding of the topic.  I suggest you need to refrain from re-linking dates that have been de-linked, unless, in any particular case, you can find a better reason than the "On This Day" argument.  Such an argument would apply only to the subject at hand, and not as a blanket argument to link all vital dates in all articles.  --  JackofOz (talk) 00:12, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I can only add that you are wasting your time by re-inserting the date links. Those that are not removed by editors will all be removed by bots anyway. Hohenloh +00:08, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Lumos3: can you provide examples of how the date links or date-fragment links provide useful information that deepens the readers' understanding of a specific topic? I'm intrigued. Tony   (talk)  05:35, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

dates
Re your edit at Handel. Please note that the date autoformatting mechanism is now deprecated on WP, and has been so since August. Tony  (talk)  04:10, 13 November 2008 (UTC) Yes, I agree; and I reverted your edit to the Handel page. My problem with it is that the significance of the dates in question is to provide the reader with direct information about Handel's birth and death, but not for whatever else happened to have occurred on those dates. For example, you've linked Handel's birth date as 23 February 1685, but due to the way WP date-linking works, the 23 February part becomes separate to the link on 1685. Now I'm sure you're not suggesting that anyone could possibly be interested in finding out what happened on 23 February throughout the ages, so the only possibility left is that you are offering people the opportunity to find out what else happened in 1685. As I said in my revert comment, the (I believe tiny percentage of people) who might be interested in finding out what else happened in 1685 can easily type 1685 into the provided WP search box on each page. The disadvantages of linked dates are well documented, and I won't bore you with an already over-covered (and concluded) debate. Thanks for taking an interest in the Handel page.  HWV 258  05:19, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The rationale for linking birth and death dates dates in biographies is being discuissed at the Rfc at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). There is no mandate for wholesale amendment of these by bot or script until this is settled. The status quo should remain. Please continue this discussion there.


 * Briefly the rationale is:


 * Linking years
 * provides a reader with quick route to the historical context of the era in which the person lived.
 * Saying a reader should use search does not advertise this as an option for getting this context.
 * Draws attention to Wikipedia's extensive historical chronology in its dates pages.


 * Linking calender dates is, believe it or not, widely popular. Almost every newspaper and news channel has an "on this day" column, including Wikipedia itself. There is a natural interest in what happened on a particular day and we should not sneer at people who wish to take this route to knowledge. Our date pages contain long lists of the births and deaths on those dates.


 * Lumos3 (talk) 09:51, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Nobody's sneering, Lumos3. But there are a number of people (see above) who are not convinced by your argument, yet you just repeat it ad nauseam, without any attempt to address the counter arguments.  Also, nobody is denying the general interest in "On This Day" information.  But are you seriously suggesting that a reader might chance upon, say, Stanley Baldwin's article, read that he was born on 3 August, and think to themselves "I wonder who else was born on 3 August or what historical events happened on 3 August.  I know, I'll click the link and find out" ? If anyone has an interest in such information, it won't come through reading about Baldwin or Dickens or Lincoln or Margaret Thatcher or anyone else you could name.  It will arise quite independently.  --  JackofOz (talk) 13:42, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Nobody's sneering. But your arguments would be taken much more seriously if you could provide evidence that your rationale for wishing to retain these deprecated links was one with any degree of community support behind it. As it is it looks like one person's view, without any properly-thought-out reasoning behind it. I also note you have still not answered my question about the date articles you are so keen on adding links to. The question, in case you have forgotten, is "Have you read the articles you are linking to?" --John (talk) 20:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, I fully agree with the three rationales Lumos has given above; and so evidently do about half the Wikipedians who have contributed to the RfC Lumos has cited. If so many think that such links can be useful and appreciated, why does it matter so much to you that they should be eradicated?  Jheald (talk) 21:59, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The RfC is titled "Linking of dates of birth and death". Could you please explain to us why finding out what else happened on 14 April (the day of Handel's death in 1759) is more significant than finding out what else happened on 13 April (the day of the first performance of Handel's Messiah in 1742)? Either all dates should be linked, or none. Until a better system is designed, I vote for none. HWV 258  22:13, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * @Jheald; see WP:CONTEXT for an explanation of why we try to use intelligence and discretion in deciding what to link and what not to. Indiscriminately linking dates (especially when one has no idea just how poor the dates articles tend to be) is contrary to this guideline. --John (talk) 22:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * And see WP:BUILD, that articles should have some links to them; and the snowball keep at WP:AfD/March 1 for an indication as to how much many Wikipedians do value these articles. I'm not suggesting we link all dates, but to link a date is a useful way to let casual readers know that these date pages exist.  And I'm sorry, but some people do like to know who shared a particular birthday, or anniversary of death; and what was happening in the world at a particular epoch. Jheald (talk) 23:29, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well indeed, CONTEXT and BUILD have always existed in dynamic tension with each other. The area of date links was badly fudged because of the stupid autoformatting thing that was applied. Now that this is deprecated, we don't need to indiscriminately link dates any more. People who want to link date articles have seldom in my experience ever actually read any. Have you done so? And the AfD snowball keep is a very poor argument; we would never want to delete the wonderful article we have on the United States, but this is a very far cry from saying it should be linked every single time it is mentioned. So, to clarify, my argument is not about wanting to delete anything, but rather to clearly state that the default should be not to link date articles except in certain clearly defined circumstances. I hope that makes sense. --John (talk) 23:54, 13 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Please don't put words in my mouth. I believe that only "significant dates" should be linked, not all.
 * I would have a stab at defining significant as
 * The commencement of things - births, foundations , openings , declarations, creations , patents and first publications.
 * The ending of things - deaths, dissolutions, closings, destructions, cease fires, armistices.
 * Another definition would by impact on human culture and would include battles, eruptions, disasters etc.
 * The removal of ALL date linking before a consensus has been achieved on this is excessive and is being carried out with careless speed.
 * Lumos3 (talk) 09:47, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * That's fine, and you have adequately expressed your opinion. The trouble it is is just your opinion. And apparently Jheald's as well. All the two of you need is to mobilize a large group of people and you will have consensus to add links to articles. Meantime, it is just silly to add them knowing that one of the many editors who abide by consensus will remove them again. --John (talk) 23:38, 14 November 2008 (UTC)


 * It is the opinion of a large number of editors and the consensus of which you speak only exits within a small pressure group.Lumos3 (talk) 12:53, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, that remains to be seen, doesn't it? We shall see. Did you read any of those articles yet? --John (talk) 18:07, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Jane Roberts.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Jane Roberts.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:00, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Childreach
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Childreach, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process
 * This is supposed to be a disambig page. Disambig pages are to eliminate confusion between articles that have similar names. Only one of the entries on this page has an article and that one article does not mention "Childreach" at all. Of the other 4 two have external links and two have no information at all. The disambig page is not needed

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. 98.192.228.154 (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

English people
Hey, I could help in this article that English people want to include in brazil diapora but I did not know how to come out and get the numbers of referrals coming out next to each country, you can help me I'm new in the wiki thanks. saludos--Kusamanic (talk) 03:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)--Kusamanic (talk) 03:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You need to look for a Bazilian government cencus report that breaks down citizens by country of origin. I dont know if this data is gathered in Brazil. I suggest you use Google to look for ''Brazilian census England' . This pointed me to the Brazilian IBGE which conducts the census for the government . You might find the information you want at their site, here  http://www.ibge.gov.br/english/default.php#divtema_populacao   .   Lumos3 (talk) 17:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Locations
Hello. You say that locations are included in many film articles. I genuinely have not come across these, certainly not at GA or FA status. Would you mind pointing out a couple of examples where you have come across instances of these? The JPS talk to me  16:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Here is a quick list I've drawn up with a Google search. Not necessarily GA or FA but that is only a precedent not a rule.


 * Midnight Express (film)


 * Vertigo (film)


 * List of James Bond film locations


 * Full House (2004 TV series)


 * Lost (TV series)


 * Thunderbirds (film)


 * Midsomer Murders filming locations


 * Buffy the Vampire Slayer filming locations


 * Lumos3 (talk) 17:37, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Don't get me wrong, filming locations are important production details. However, they need to be written properly, in prose. Lost_(TV_series) is an excellent example. Others you list are appalling and would not pass a GA or FA. We cannot justify including something in an article just because "other stuff exists". As far as One Foot in the Grave is concerned, it is relevant information for a production section. You haven't given me an example of an article that uses a geolink, though.  The JPS talk to me  13:52, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

See my reply at the One foot in the Grave discussion page. Lumos3 (talk) 11:46, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Grovehill Hemel Hempstead.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Grovehill Hemel Hempstead.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like PD-self (to release all rights), (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by STBotI. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 12:22, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

You maybe interested in the Article Rescue Squadron

 * I have joined.Lumos3 (talk) 16:22, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Great, welcome aboard! Any questions, please let me know.Ikip (talk) 19:00, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Welcome to the Article Rescue Squadron!
I appreciate your message on the member page.

If there is anything you need or have a question, dont hesitate to ask, sincerely.

Welcome aboard and enjoy the ride! Working with the ARS is so rewarding, you are not only rescuing articles from deletion by souring articles and making wikipedia more rich, deverse, and useful, you are rescuing and retaining new editors too. Ikip (talk) 16:27, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Hobbycraft
I have nominated Hobbycraft, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Hobbycraft. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Fabrictramp |  talk to me  21:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Lee Carroll
A tag has been placed on Lee Carroll requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. ukexpat (talk) 19:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Orthomolecular medicine
Thank you for your recent interest in Orthomolecular medicine. The section you have chosen to restore includes the following sentence: "This implies a bias against orthomolecular medicine whenever pharmaceutical companies have a financial influence on a journal." The sentence is textbook synthesis. If we were to engage in further speculation, we could draw numerous equally valid alternative conclusions from the same "data", such as they are. For example, advertising companies may wish to advertise their products in journals with high quality, and "orthomolecular" articles are typically of very low quality. Or, "orthomolecularists" may choose not to submit their articles to journals that print adverts from companies they consider their competitors. Etc.

I trust we can agree that synthesis, especially from primary sources, has no place at Wikipedia. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 22:33, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Madam Bevan.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Madam Bevan.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. 07:37, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Crackerjack screenshot.jpg)
Thanks for uploading File:Crackerjack screenshot.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Timewave zero
Four people on the talk page (not counting me) agreed to a merge. Only you objected. How many need to agree before you accept that your opinion is in the minority? If this article is as notable as you claim, then why haven't you spent the last week we've been debating this (even in the AfD you demanded I launch, in violation of Wiki rules) filling up the article with relevant information? If it goes so far beyond 2012, then where is the sourced information showing its monumental predictive power and ability to shape our civilization? So far, the only substantive edit you've done to the article was to list what drugs McKenna was on when he thought the idea up. This is a piece of kooky lunatic babble thought up by one guy while he was tripping out in the 70s. That's all. You're going to need more than what you've added so far to make the case for its notability, which you have so far failed to do.  Serendi pod ous  10:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

The truth or otherwise of McKennas theory is not relevant to Wikipedia. It remains a significant cultural artifact of some influence and noteworthiness. Wikipedia does not include articles based on their scientific truth but on their notability. Many independant published authors have noted, referred to or built on this concept. Mckenna's impact with the Novelty theory concept is big enough and its notability is proven in the discussions. You failed to get a consensus to delete. Merger is deletion by the back door. You yourself said you would wait a few days (4th June) before progressing. You are being precipitate and stifling debate to push this through. Lumos3 (talk) 10:53, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I never wanted to delete this article. You demanded an AfD. I asked for the AfD to be closed when they pointed out to me that AfDs are not forums for discussing mergers. Mergers are discussed on article talk pages. I know I said that I would leave it open for a few more days but all that happened in the following 24 hours was that someone else voted to merge. It seemed valid to conclude the merge as per WP:SNOWBALL. So far, the only person who has objected to this merge is you. Right now, the merged article contains almost all the information in the separate article. Unless you can double the article's length (with sourced, independent information that isn't just "McKenna said this" or "McKenna said that", there isn't much case for it to be kept.  Serendi pod ous  10:59, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

An article that has now survived 4 AFds can hardly be said to fit with the WP:SNOWBALL. Lumos3 (talk) 13:17, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

For Christ's sake! I do not want to delete this article! I am trying to merge it. You see a merge as equivalent to deletion, but you have yet to show why the article is in such dire need of any additional data.  Serendi pod ous  13:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

You want to turn it into a reduced form in a section within another article on which it only touches. Even if all of the Timewave material were included this would still be wrong as its trying to file it in the wrong place. It deserves its own standing, it is much broader than the 2012 predictions.Lumos3 (talk) 14:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Also your recent attempt at merger on 4 June included not one sentence from the Timewave article. You merely placed a redirect on the article. This is not a merger.Lumos3 (talk) 17:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm backing down. I may be a hard-nosed, bloody-minded old sod but I know when to quit. Sorry if I came across as a bit of a bastard but I hope you remember why I campaigned to merge the article in the first place. The current situation means I'm going to have to trust you with this article's welfare. I'll be keeping an eye on it. If it starts to get messianic again, I will come down hard.  Serendi pod ous  13:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for being so gracious. I will keep an eye on it and keep it within the wikipedia rules. I'll also add to the sources when I can. Through this debate I've learnt a lot about Terrance McKenna, he was no scientist but the clever alternative views he created were works of art in my opinion. Lumos3 (talk) 14:00, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Universality of patriarchy
Please see my reply at Articles for deletion/Universality of patriarchy. Kaldari (talk) 19:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

weirdness
Just FYI Lumos3, something very weird happened with last comment on the above AFD. I'm assuming this was unintentional and fixed it myself - please check other edits in case its happened again. Do you have a new automated script running or anything else that might have caused this?-- Cailil  talk 21:16, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I think it was something to do with the Google tool bar spell checker.Lumos3 (talk) 23:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Ah that'd probably do it. No harm do anyway =)-- Cailil  talk 20:05, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Timewave zero
McKenna: The object at the end of and beyond history is the human species fused into eternal tantric union with the superconducting Overmind/UFO. Superconducting = nonlocal. See McKenna's quotations at https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/w/index.php?title=Timewave_zero&oldid=291657046#Explanation_of_primary_notions Furthermore, words like "novelty" and "habituation" are too vague to be used in the Precepts section. We have to be as terminologically precise as possible. If you have any questions or doubts, ask me for the sources or explanations.--Systemizer (talk) 22:50, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Stop putting words into Mckenna's mouth, I yet to find a quote of his using non local and he did use "novelty" and "habituation". Lumos3 (talk) 20:49, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I know that he used those words. But their meaning is defined through the notion of interconnectedness. "Habituation" does not necessarily imply "absence of interconnectedness. We should avoid ambiguous and vague words. Nonlocality is implied by "hyperspace" and "superconductivity."--Systemizer (talk) 22:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Please only quote directly from McKenna or the article will be a mess of peoples interpretation of the subject. What to you may be an obvious conclusion may not be to others. Can you find a notable published source who makes the Nonlocality conection to MaKenna, or something by him on the subject. Lumos3 (talk) 22:58, 13 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "The imagination is a dimension of non-local information" (McKenna) http://cargo.superfamous.com/123
 * "In other words, technologies seem to be converging toward opening up the Bell-non-local quantum realm, where, presumably, all the intelligences of the universe are communicating in some kind of standing wave form." http://deoxy.org/tmab_4-1-99.htm

1) This is not a blog. This is the introduction to a printed book written by Heinberg (it is written below the heading--why didn't you read the heading?) 2) This is a personal website of one of the most honoured American scientists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Kurzweil 3) Keep the gastropod at bay. Do not allow him to intimidate you.

Lumos, we had a deal
You want this article, you maintain it. So far, you've not kept up your side of the bargain. If you are not willing to take the time to keep people like Systemizer at bay then you've proven that this article cannot exist on its own.  Serendi pod ous  11:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Any assistance is welcome.Lumos3 (talk) 11:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice to see you back. :-) Like I said, I'll be keeping an eye on this but, as I know little about Timewave myself, my contributions will mostly consist of reverting the more hyperbolic additions of people like Systemizer.  Serendi pod ous  16:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

RFC on extrasolar planet lists restructuring
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_extrasolar_planets#Restructuring_discussion

If you belive this is worth your time, perhaps you could turn the attention of a few other people, besides the few people there already there, that you think would not mind having a look/say. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 22:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Multi-licence
I'm not sure what it means on your user page where you write "I agree to multi-license. all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below.". WP:UP makes it clear that your user space pages belong to the community and are covered by our licences. Have you just forgotten that was there? Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 20:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)


 * See Multi-licensing. This statement is intended to add add additional freedom of use to any work I do on Wikipedia . My userpages are only covered by the  Creative Commons Attribution/Share-Alike License (CC-BY-SA). I have added a more recent banner to make this clearer. Thanks for drawing it to my attention. Lumos3 (talk) 20:25, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I just stumbled across yours, but there are a shedload of people with out-of-date statements, so I'm discussing how they can be notified. No big deal hopefully for anyone, but you never know. Dougweller (talk) 20:56, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edit of badoo
You used the pretext of "removing unsourced POV" of my own edit (which was justified and which I accept) in order to remove an older, perfecly objective and "sourced" reference, added by other users (quoting the very sources, i.e. the typical deceitful mass emails which are being sent by the Badoo spambots and which many sources and most Wikipedia users on the discussion page have confirmed). You topped this by blatantly justifying and legitimizing Badoo's spam practices and by digging out some "absence of evidence" evidence that the site spams (even though 9 users at the bottom your own McAfee "reference" say it does). All in the name of removing my humble unsourced POV? What's your POV? Not cool, brother.


 * I have seen no evidence from a reliable source that Badoo is spamming. The individual comments at the Mcaffee site do not fall within Wikipedia's guidelines on notability. The fact that McAffeeitself gives it a clean bill is reliable. You assert there is evidence but I've yet to see any. Please add it to the article. Guidelines on what qualifies as a reliable source can be found here WP:RELIABLE, basically scholarly works, or editorially published books, or reliable news source with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. . Lumos3 (talk) 09:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Badoo
I have nominated Badoo, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Badoo. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. —Mr. E. Sánchez (that's me!)What I Do / What I Say 18:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Misuse of edit summary and personal attack
Your edit summary here was a clear misuse of the edit summary and a personal attack. The redirect is clearly not vandalism as Wikipedia describes vandalsim - you are in fact taking part in a discussion about it on the talk page, although you seem to misunderstand the purpose of an AfD. Don't do this again please. Dougweller (talk) 14:30, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

I admit I lost my temper when I did that edit for which I apologise. However the use of a Redirect to in effect delete an article which has existed since 2004 and has survived repeated attempts at AFD is clearly against the spirit of Wikipedia and I shall bee taking the issue to RFC. Lumos3 (talk) 19:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Ursley Kempe
Hello Lumos3,

I see that you created the article Ursley Kempe back in May. I had already created a similar article at Ursula Kemp. Unfortunately I was unaware of the name variation or I would have put a redirect in place! The articles need to be merged, which I am happy to do. It should be straightforward. the only thing is, which name to put the merged article under. I suggest Ursula Kemp after a quick search through google. Eliminating Wikipedia mirrors, I found 836 google hits for Ursula Kemp vs. 494 for Ursley Kempe. About 3 relevant gnews hits for Ursula vs. 0 for Ursley. 113 google book hits for Ursula, vs. 100 for Ursley. These numbers aren't wildly different, so I'm not too bothered either way. (There were also some hits when I interchanged the first & surnames.) Do you have any thoughts? Regards, -- Beloved Freak  19:38, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Belovedfreak,

Your reasoning is exactly along the lines I would have suggested so go ahead and do the merger. Best Wishes  Lumos3 (talk) 14:00, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

RE:Timewave Zero Redirect
Thanks for letting me know. I'll be sure to post. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jyffeh (talk • contribs) 20:53, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * last I checked the redirect went through, I am sorry to see that. Please let me know if you need any help. Thanks. Ikip (talk) 18:46, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Dances of Universal Peace
I have nominated Dances of Universal Peace, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Dances of Universal Peace. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Wikid as&#169; 20:01, 18 September 2009 (UTC)