User talk:Meco/Archive02

help
I can not find the place where that you create a user on the English Wikipedia will you help me? possible. with a link to where you make a user here on the English Wikipedia MVH jacob --80.167.149.247 (talk) 18:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Look at the top right of the page. __meco (talk) 19:04, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

RE: Ivar Hippe for DYK?
Sorry, but i've already nominated it. --TIAYN (talk) 19:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Excellent. That's the important thing. __meco (talk) 19:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You can nominate Jon Hippe for DYK if you want, i won't. --TIAYN (talk) 19:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I won't do that. I have made some edits to this article though to hopefully improve it. __meco (talk) 09:38, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Good, since i've changed my mind. --TIAYN (talk) 14:44, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

hello and thanks back
Hi. thanks for the links to things I should know about wiki.i read a bunch of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zodiacww (talk • contribs) 17:44, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Glad I could be of help. Feel free to inquire here about anything Wiki-related. __meco (talk) 19:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

uoplad
kan ikke finde der hvor man uoplader billeder.--It is proven that it is healthy to celebrate birthday! Statistics show that people who celebrate the most birthdays become the oldest. (talk) 21:24, 18 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Images should be uploaded to commons.wikimedia.org. __meco (talk) 22:23, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy Meco's Day!
For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk  • 00:30, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Why? __meco (talk) 11:02, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: rv
Hi! Re: this edit, I mostly added the category because of their staying in Congo before getting arrested. What do you say to that? Geschichte (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't believe their status could be considered expatriate. Let's discuss this on the article talk page if you want to revert me. __meco (talk) 22:14, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

User page
Maybe a simple question but I don't how to create my "user page" ! :( other members have good user pages. THANKS! Böri (talk) 11:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Start simple and add items as you learn how to do it by peaking into the code of other users' pages. __meco (talk) 14:07, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you Böri (talk) 17:50, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Silda camp attack
Thank you very much for formatting the refs! I really didn't have time.. :) -- TheFE ARgod (Ч) 10:49, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * My pleasure! __meco (talk) 10:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Color symbolism and psychology
Your ongoing participating in the article in question, as well as the attendant RfD, is gratefully acknowledged and solicited once more. I have made radical overhauls to the content, but still have editors claiming it "not good enough". At this point, I feel it rather obvious that their policy obstructions are just edit warring by another means, but I do not have the standing individually to stand up to it alone. Thanks! Ender78 (talk) 11:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't want my comments to be deleted!
Huon says: "I'm (= Huon) no expert on ancient history" & ''then he said: "wanting everyone to think about something" is not the purpose of Wikipedia - Wikipedia is not a soapbox. I don't think your recent additions to talk pages are helpful to Wikipedia, and they also sound like original research.'' He talks like a deleter!

my comments:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Luwian_language#.22Luwian.22_place_names_in_Italy
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Huon#1200s_BC
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Huon#.22Greek.22_place_names.3F
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Luwian_language#Luwian_Gods_and_Goddesses

If you have time, you can read what I wrote on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/B%C3%B6ri

What's wrong with them?

THANKS! Regards Böri (talk) 12:57, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You don't provide acceptable sources. Simply writing "I wrote this mostly from the books of Bilge Umar..." at the start of a long list of names and their claimed actual etymologies does not cut it, at all. I doubt for one that Umar would be accepted as a source since he has done his studies on these matters in his spare-time, apart from his academic career. However, should you really want to make an earnest attempt at having his opinions presented in various articles, you would have to start with presenting coherent, logical arguments and having the best possible references for each part of it that would be likely to be contested. You should also familiarize yourself with WP:FRINGE to find out whether the perspectives you wish to present might be considered too tenuous and uncorroborated for inclusion into a Wikipedia article. __meco (talk) 15:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * They are not only Bilge Umar's opinions... The Greeks used the Pre-Greek place names and adopted the Pre-Greek gods (the historians knew that since 1890s.) Cevat Şakir Kabaağaçlı wrote many books about the Anatolian Gods: Anadolu Efsaneleri (1954)= "The Anatolian Myths", Anadolu Tanrıları (1955) = "The Anatolian Gods", etc. (you can see the list of that books on that article) / You are saying : You don't provide acceptable sources. If you look at Artemis article, it says: hypothesis connects Artemis to the Proto-Indo-European root h₂ŕ̥tḱos meaning "bear" due to her cultic practices in Brauronia and the Neolithic remains at the Arkouditessa. The name could be related to αρτεμης ("safe") or αρταμος ("a butcher"). (from: http://www.behindthename.com/name/artemis) Is it an acceptable source? No! But they wrote it on Artemis article!  I wrote about the Luwian Gods on talk page, not on the article! (so what I wrote is not vandalism!) / for Bilge Umar, you say: he has done his studies on these matters in his spare-time; he is the Head of the Department of Public Law of Yeditepe University (İstanbul) Faculty of Law and is teaching " Civil Procedure Law" and "Appeal Procedure and Arbitration".  He can't be a historian and the Head of the Department of Public Law at the same time... Have you read all of his books? (He knows the Ancient History more than the most of historians.) Böri (talk) 13:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The fact that other articles lack reliable sources does not free you of this requirement. Also, you need to cite exactly what Bilge and others write, not simply present a list of names. Also, your writing is pretty jumbled. It would be a great advantage to your chance of getting other editors' attention if you could write a lot more structured than you do, perhaps ask someone to proof-read your discussion posts before you post them. __meco (talk) 14:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * If I find some time, I will re-write them... Regards Böri (talk) 15:08, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Template talk:Cite interview
Nearly a year ago, in March 2009, you posted at Template talk:Cite interview requesting the |archiveurl and |archivedate parameters to be added to cite interview. I've now placed an edit protected tag on the page, asking for administrators to amend the template to include those parameters. Best, Cunard (talk) 12:01, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Insanity quote
The saying goes back to the 50's at least in the circles of AA so I don't think that 1983 book is the source. If you want it in there please discuss it in the Talk page (section already provided) and change it back to the Psy today bcause the current source isn't acceptable in my opinion. - Stillwaterising (talk) 16:46, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I reviewed the psy today, it cites Wikiquote (not Wikipedia) as a source for the quote. It could be used, but I honestly think Stack heard the quote in a 12 step group and not from the book. Could you find a source about it's prevalence there?


 * Also, the usual procedure for debating a removal it to bring a discussion up on the article talk page, not the editor who removed it. See WP:BRD. - Stillwaterising (talk) 17:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The reason I took it up with you on you user talk page was that there was no correspondence between the edit and the edit summary. __meco (talk) 17:52, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Jeff Stryker
Hi Meko. Thanks for your recent contributions to the Jeff Stryker article. Indeed, the whole paragraph is in question as there is no verifiable source to back up any of the information, except that Jeff sent a child to live with his mother, who is a Christian.

Some points from the article as written:

"Stryker has two sons." (uncited)

"Jeff was awarded custody of his oldest son, Joseph Peyton, after a lengthy custody battle which ended when the birth mother's parental rights were terminated." (uncited)

"In September 2004, his son, then 14 years old, was the victim of a severe beating and stabbing when he was surrounded by nine Latino gang members at Ulysses S. Grant High School in Van Nuys, California." (In the reference you have provided, the school only confirms an attack by TWO other students, not NINE, does not confirm the attack was by "gang members", does not confirm the attack was racially motivated. The article only says that a boy whose father is named Charles Peyton believes these things, not that this is what actually happened...not good enough for inclusion in Wikipedia.  And certainly not appropriate for this article, anyhow.)

"Jeff was interviewed by TV reporters and stated that he believed that the attack was racially motivated. Both Jeff and his son were interviewed by NBC news in Los Angeles about the incident" (unreferenced)

Unfortunately, the original link you are providing no longer exists, and the webarchived article contains no mention that the Charles Peyton quoted is actually Jeff Stryker, nor does it provide any TV interview.

So, unless you can provide a reliable source for these items, the paragraph will either need some serious revision or be eliminated altogether. Thanks. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 23:56, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Although I share your concerns with regards to this article, these are points that need to be addressed on the article's talk page. __meco (talk) 07:40, 24 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Good deal. I will copy and paste it over there.  38.109.88.196 (talk) 02:55, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Gulen's Biography
Hi Meco, I realized that you have some interest in Gulen's biography. I would like to take the recent discussions (although unpleasant) to your attention. An author (Arnout) is consistently blanking the page, deleting verified information, alienating naive editors, and blocking others from editing. He does not contribute to the article with even a meaningful sentence. If you could review the other version with wider support, more information and references, and compare it with the existing one, you will see the difference in depth of covering the issue. I believe that supporting the older version could help in having a more neutral biography with more informative context. 71.72.81.83 (talk) 14:27, 26 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I think maybe entering into Gulen conflict territory is a little beyond my stamina right now. __meco (talk) 14:56, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Not much of a conflict, just a single sockpuppeteer going against community consensus. Although it is a sockpuppeteer with a lot of stamine (User:Philscirel). IP 71.72.81.83 is just one of his many socks. A lot of stamina is needed to keep this fanatic out, so I can imagine not going there. PS: You are among several others being canvassed with the message by anon 71..../Philscirel. Arnoutf (talk) 23:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Jim Tucker
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Jim Tucker. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also Notability and "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Jim Tucker (2nd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:08, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

RFC?
Hi! you've been very helpful with me so far...perhaps you could give me some advice.

If I see a pattern of biased Wikiediting with a certain user (one, for example, with a particular history of creating (successful) AfD's for gay porn stars, but also doing so to other gay-related articles). I know there's a procedure to address the behavior of such users...doesn't it start with an RFC? How would somebody go about investigating or beginning that process? Please reply on my talk page. Thanks! 38.109.88.196 (talk) 05:42, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks meco! 38.109.88.196 (talk) 22:30, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You may be interested in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Request_for_admin_assistance_with_repeated_personal_attacks . Thanks 38.109.88.196 (talk) 20:51, 6 March 2010 (UTC)


 * A WQA has been posted here. Your name was mentioned, so I thought you should know about it.  Thanks again for any advice you might have. 38.109.88.196 (talk) 16:32, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

AfD nomination of 2010 Victorian storms
An article that you have been involved in editing, 2010 Victorian storms, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. - DustFormsWords (talk) 00:11, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Medicinernes Skiklub Svartor
Hello. I am contacting you because you are listed as a participant for WikiProject Norway, and the above-mentioned article is sourced by all Norwegian-language references. Moreover, the references do not appear to support notability; they might be mere trivial references to the subject. Since these sources are all offline, and I do not speak or read Norwegian, I'm hoping whether you can assist me in determining whether the article qualifies for speedy deletion. Many thanks! - CobaltBlueTony™ talk 12:49, 18 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The sources that are given are listed without reference to chapter or page, so even though the publications should be easily obtained at a library near where I am, I don't think I'll even make an attempt without more complete references. __meco (talk) 14:12, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Don't ever misquote me again
Making up a sentence, putting it in quotes and attributing it to me is the lowest of the low. If you can't argue without lying to try and make your point, you shouldn't argue at all. It shows low character. BrendanFrye (talk) 23:24, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Have you heard about paraphrasing? __meco (talk) 08:42, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, so you paraphrase in quotation marks. How do you do direct quotations then? Maybe with commas and ampersands? Live and learn. BrendanFrye (talk) 21:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)


 * See also scare quotes. __meco (talk) 16:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Is this an odd example of staircase wit? Verbal chat  16:15, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sort of, except my intention is not to vindicate myself, however, to bring an added perspective to the issue after I read the mentioned article and immediately thought about this thread. And that is funny, because you also bring another link to my attention that comes as somewhat of an epiphany to me and which I am most happy to learn about. __meco (talk) 17:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Martin

 * ''The following is resultant from this inquiry.

Thanks for your note. See Talk:Ricky Martin.  Will Beback   talk    19:26, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I read the article talk page discussion, and I understand your rationale. __meco (talk) 23:11, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

A Request for Help
Hi there Meco :), I noticed your username on Translators Available Norwegian to English, and was wondering if you could help with updating Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi on the Norwegian Wikipedia? Riaz Ahmed Gohar Shahi on the English Wikipedia has been majorly revamped- particularly, its being treated as a BLP now, since no one has been able to find evidence of his death. The article on the Norwegian Wikipedia still mentions an uncited date of death, among other things, and I think its pretty important to update it. I'm sorry to say I know little Norwegian myself, so I'd really appreciate your help in this :), although I understand if you don't have the time. Thanks in advance! Omirocksthisworld( Drop a line ) 05:04, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * The Norwegian article does a reference to cite his death or disappearance. __meco (talk) 07:22, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see it. Sorry about that, I should have looked into it more before requesting translation. The thing is, this article, used as a citation has been found to be plagiarized and not citing any reliable sources itself. I spoke to another Norwegian translator as well, and they thought it would be best to see the outcome of the English Wikipedia anyway. Thanks for your consideration, either way, and sorry for being a bother! Omirocksthisworld( Drop a line ) 07:46, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Anatole Bailly
There must be an article about Anatole Bailly in English!

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatole_Bailly Böri (talk) 09:53, 3 April 2010 (UTC)


 * Why is that important, and why should I involve myself in the translation of a French text? As you can see on my user page, my French is elementary, at best. __meco (talk) 10:12, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Ricky Martin
Hi meco. As an IP, I can't edit a protected article, but per your comments here and the concurring opinions, I would appreciate it if you added that information to the article. :o) 207.237.230.164 (talk) 22:08, 4 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks! 207.237.230.164 (talk) 13:52, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. __meco (talk) 13:54, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

2010 Sjursøya train crash
I've reverted your edit to 2010 Sjursøya train crash in which you quote WP:MOSFLAG, per the instructions given at Template:Infobox rail accident, which specifically states to use the flag. Mjroots (talk) 14:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I have reverted and taken the issue too the talk page. Rettetast (talk) 14:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)
 * As the issue needs wider discussion, I've raised the issue at WT:TWP. I'll not revert while discussion is ongoing, but would ask that you don't change any other infobox rail accident flags until the issue is settled in return. Mjroots (talk) 15:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Archive
Ever considered archiving this page? Mjroots (talk) 14:23, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Description wise correct and Morally bankrupt

 * ''This section is related to this edit

You are correct that the statement in the article states the way you put it. Otherwise law will have its objections. Those Responsible "human right respecting" media will always use the word "allegedly". But make no mistake my friend, atleast say sorry to the girl in your heart. It enraged me what that this brutal bastards are doing to humanity. When such brutalities happen, instead of taking the side of humanity and human morality those media bastards hide behind words. Feel sad that these things are happening in this world where the intelligent creature exists and people like me cannot do anything about it. I just would like to say that "Your addition was unwanted. Atleast please don't rub salt on the wounds of those affected suffering poor. Be humane. Stand for humanity and not for some stupid rights of terrorists.". Be a good human being.Bcs09 (talk) 13:26, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Category:Fringe theory
Hello. I have clarified the use of the new Category:Fringe theories, which I just created, by removing the word "specific". The Category:Fringe theory is intended for articles about fringe theory in general. See Category:Fire and Category:Fires for an analogous situation. --Millstoner (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you, for re-assessing the article Everybody Draw Mohammed Day as C-class. Especially for a page that some individuals tried to get deleted from Wikipedia, this is a welcome developement. ;) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 13:05, 10 May 2010 (UTC)

Cause of Elvis Presley's death
There are several mainstream sources supporting the view that chronic constipation caused Elvis Presley's death, including Peter Guralnick's famous Elvis biography and a recent book by Elvis’s personal physician. However, one or two Wikipedians are trying to suppress this information, frequently removing my contribution from the article and falsely claiming that there is no consensus supporting the proposed addition to the Featured Article. See,. See also Talk:Elvis Presley. What is your opinion? Onefortyone (talk) 01:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have an opinion on the issue, and I haven't read the article. I merely came across the news story which has been circulating the last several days. If there are a small number of editors who are blocking appropriate changes to the article, maybe one of Wikipedia's several conflict-resolution schemes could be engaged? For instance RfC? __meco (talk) 09:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

What was removed
Just in case you forgot to look at the history, here's an old version that has what I said. Silver seren C 19:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
I agree. Stillwaterising (talk) 23:49, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

"PEDO" (and please archive)
"You are a WP:PEDO".... The term "pedo"/"paedo" is perjorative and insulting, at least in the UK and Norway (according to Wiktionary, though I don't speak Norwegian). The word also happens to mean either "fart", "problem" or "drunk" in Spanish (again, I don't speak Spanish but the dictionaries I have consulted seem to suggest this). Furthermore, "ped-"/"pedo-" (rather than "paedo-") is also the prefix for things relating to feet so there is also potential confusion with that meaning. Too many possible misunderstandings, therefore, but most especially the likelyhood of percieved insult. This is clearly borne out by the several editors who have objected to the shortcut and the fact that it has been speedied  BTW, please take the advice of the editor a few sections above and archive: my connection is extremely slow and unreliable at the moment and it took me about a hour to connect to your page, draw it and then post this message  --Jubilee♫ clipman  14:46, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

ITN for Deepwater Horizon oil spill
-- HJ Mitchell &#124;  Penny for your thoughts?   18:52, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Elvis Presley
Thank you for your third opinion on the Elvis talk page. There is now an attempt to ban me from Wikipedia. May I ask you to have a look at Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents. Onefortyone (talk) 01:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Many thanks for your recent commentaries. It is a sad thing that a small group of Wikipedians seems to dominate the Elvis article, removing every edit that is not in line with their personal opinion. For similar biased attitudes of the same users, see also this thread on opinion polls and parts of Featured_article_candidates/Elvis_Presley/archive4. Do you have an idea how to solve such problems in the near future? Onefortyone (talk) 19:31, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, the situation on this article is not unique. I've seen it before and it appears very difficult to achieve a breakthrough with such crowds. Wikipedia has a number of upright administrators and some regular editors who have the clear-sightedness and stamina needed to get into an issue like this. However, they are far between, and one is lucky if several such editors converge on an infested nest such as the Elvis talk page appears to harbor. That could cleanse the air, so to speak. It's a minor consolation that everything is stored for posterity so that the schemers at some point in time will be exposed. __meco (talk) 20:34, 23 May 2010 (UTC)
 * From your various comments on this matter, I suspect you have had little or no experience dealing with long-term, single-minded editors who latch onto one very specific thing and push and push for years trying to get their way with it. A much more notorious case (to me, anyway) was the now-banned, who for four or five years kept trying to add a single inappropriate sentence to an article. 141 is not on that level, but he seems to be doing his best to be working toward it. :) That's why he needs to find something else to edit for awhile, and keep himself from getting sent to the Phantom Zone. The choice is really his at this point. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:41, 23 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Just a question. User:PL290 made massive changes on the Elvis talk page in order to support his personal opinion that Nichopoulos, Presley's main physician, is not a reliable source. See, , , . This means that important threads discussing the topic relating to the above request on the administrators' noticeboard and including opinions by users Baseball Bugs, Onefortyone, meco and Colonel Warden are no longer part of Talk:Elvis Presley. I do not think that this is O.K. Onefortyone (talk) 20:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)


 * "It's a minor consolation that everything is stored for posterity so that the schemers at some point in time will be exposed." Well that certainly works both ways. Your reluctance/inability to see fault or evidence of any kind of unseemly agenda in 141's editing history is really quite astonishing. Regarding the above 'question': apart from 141, 24.61.236.106, Meco and Colonel Warden are not regular editors, so why does 141 try to say otherwise in his version of this 'question' at WP:ANI? It's to convince readers that PL290 is lying and making a false claim - completely unfounded. Furthermore, the threads are in the Presley talk page; 141 implies they have bee suppressed. Clearly there's a need to spell out to editors like yourself just how 141 operates when trying to defend himself. It does him no favours regarding current proceedings. If you think that pointing out such matters is me 'scheming' against an editor and the betterment of Wikipedia, that's not a problem I can help with. Rikstar  409  04:46, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Some elucidating diffs
Please make your own conclusions: ,, , , , , ,. Onefortyone (talk) 00:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not able to connect the dots. __meco (talk) 19:37, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
 * I just thought these diffs show that these users (none of them administrators) are cooperating on the administrators' noticeboard. In the meantime, I have asked administrator Fred Bauder, who was the former arbcom member who wrote my probation order, if he thinks that I have violated this probation. Here is his response: . This may be a further argument for starting a new discussion on Talk:Elvis Presley about the relevance of including the constipation theory. However, I am rather frustrated as you might imagine and would like to take a short break from editing Wikipedia. Unfortunately, the few administrators on the noticeboard are not fully aware what is actually going on concerning the Elvis pages. They archived the thread you started. Anyhow, thanks for your recent statements. Onefortyone (talk) 22:27, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
 * Firstly, from a good faith perspective I don't see it problematic that these editors are talking in private. I didn't react to any of their dialog as being scheming or conspiratorial. As for threads being archived on WP:ANI, that is being done automatically by a bot when there has been no posts in a thread for two or three days. I hope to read the discussion you had with Fred Bauder a little later. __meco (talk) 09:14, 29 May 2010 (UTC)
 * If it were "in private", y'all couldn't see it, don'cha know. Everything in articles and talk pages, generally speaking, is visible to everyone. Meanwhile, an editor on the Elvis talk page is unable to find anything in the ex-doctor's book that supports 141's claim of what the ex-doctor supposedly said. Something does not compute. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:11, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Category:Alternative theories of the September 11 attacks
Hey there, Please take a look at my alternate proposal in the CFD for Category:Alternative theories of the September 11 attacks. Thanks! Cgingold (talk) 11:09, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Your DYK nomination of Ismael Urbain
Hello! Your submission of Ismael Urbain at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know!

XLinkBot
Though I agree with your point (and XLinkBot has been programmed to try and detect such problems, unfortunately it failed here detecting it), your revert here and here reinsert a link which actually should not be there at all. Please consider that the burden of proving the necessity of inclusion is on the inserter, and that the original insertion was unjustifiable. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:55, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, my issue with the bot was exclusively on technical grounds. I don't have Flash on this terminal so I have been unable to review the video myself yet. __meco (talk) 11:05, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Hmm .. which is exactly one of the reasons why YouTube links are 'to be avoided' in the first place, especially as external links. I have done a second attempt to cover the problem of the templates, though it is controversial there .. watching the bots output logs now to see if it works (the only 'refusals to revert' are at the moment references to myspace and flickr (flickr references .. sigh..)). --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Looks like Copyvio also. Dougweller (talk) 11:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughtfulness & civility
You wrote, "Please see Articles for deletion/Thirty Years' War and Norway. If you should wish for a deletion review I'd support this."


 * Thoughts in order of occurrence:
 * Wow, what a talk page! Must be hard to find your way around.
 * Very much appreciate your notifying me about the deletion. It has always seemed appropriate to me to notify the original author and any serious contributors to the article when nominating it for deletion.
 * That article was an early editing attempt of mine & certainly did not meet current Wikipedia standards. I started it because 5 years ago there was a dearth of material in Wikipedia on that period of Norwegian history, and most of it focused on the actions of the ‘great powers’ of the period.
 * Like most of my early articles, that article was probably pretty immature. Whether it was “original research”, I can’t tell without looking at the now-deleted text, but would be more than a little surprised as there are references for the period.
 * Being unable to access a deleted article I can’t be sure, but I’d suspect that had I participated in the review I’d have supported user:Geschichte’s viewpoint. He’s normally pretty balanced. And besides I started the Torstenson War article about the same time – find it dramatically improved – and suspect it covers the material well enough to fill the need.
 * That said, it might have been interesting to actually have seen the article so I could compare it with the Torstenson War article.  If you’re an admin, I’d appreciate your providing a link to the deleted article so I can review it to see if I care strongly. If not, c’est la vie – the community has spoken.
 * Thanks for your thoughtfulness & civility in notifying me - Williamborg (Bill) 15:21, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not an admin. __meco (talk) 15:31, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Appreciate your advising me.  Wishing you well - Williamborg (Bill) 15:37, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

The underlying conflict, you say?
That's exactly what I'm addressing--with humor, rather than willful blindness. The underlying conflict on the Talk page of the Featured Article Elvis Presley is that a troll, User:Onefortyone, has been disrupting the efforts of responsible editors to maintain and improve the article for years now, well before I became involved with it. His behavior is persistent and well-documented. When we recently raised the article to FA status despite his best efforts, we hoped that he would finally abandon his campaign. But no, he continues. And by aiding and abetting him, you have multiplied the conflict. You seem to have a problem with me associating your name with a troll. There's a very easy solution: Don't associate with a troll. If you want to start filing reports rather than educate yourself about the history of the problem, as I did when it was first brought to my attention, you go right ahead. But don't imagine that your threats will affect my commitment to preserving the article's quality in the slightest. DocKino (talk) 15:51, 3 June 2010 (UTC)


 * If you do become so inclined, meco, you might want to actually read archived material relating to certain persistent editors. Like here, for example: and .  Rikstar  409  01:51, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * DocKino, there are alternatives besides willful blindness and pungent humor. Humor is inappropriate in a conflict as bitter as the one in question. It becomes a guise for throwing punches camouflaged by asserting "I was just making a lighthearted comment." I have no wish to put pressure on you to make less of an effort to have the article presented in the manner you feel is the most appropriate. All I demand is that you do so openly and squarely. Applying rhetorical ploys is unacceptable. __meco (talk) 14:37, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Meco, for the sake of argument I am happy to acknowledge that you find the tone of some editors inappropriate. However, I continue to be perplexed by the way you ignore the arguments of the same and other editors. These have been clearly and repeatedly stated, and remain valid however they have been put forward. If, as you state, there is an alternative to "willful blindness", I think you need to demonstrate it by acknowledging that there have been real issues all relating to the behaviour of one editor over 4 years. I and others have asked you to familiarize yourself with the history, but you have not apparently done so. I have asked you to confirm whether you still agree that claims made by 141 three years ago regarding Presley's bi/homosexuality deserve mentioning in the article. And I am asking you again.


 * A fresh pair of eyes in any article can indeed be enlightening, but historical perspective is vital, as is responding "squarely" to cogent arguments. Otherwise I fear you will critically undermine your credibility. And I am not demanding you do these things; I am asking you. Rikstar  409  03:05, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Have you noticed that I haven't made any edits to the article itself? Nor have I read it. My involvement started when I read in the news about the constipation theory and I made an inquiry on the talk page about having this mentioned. Then I discovered what I have described as a toxic environment and I became engaged in addressing that. I think that is an appropriate angle and scope of involvement. It ought to be an issue that can be dealt with without having to familiarize oneself with all other aspects of the conflict. Incivilities and personal attacks are unacceptable no matter what. Even if the target of incivilities and personal attacks should be a "troll" that is still unacceptable behavior. Indeed the fact that 141 is still active on the article talk page after four years of "trolling", to me is a strong indicator that that editor is not a "troll". If they were they wouldn't have been able to continue with their disruptions for so long, that is unless all the other editors are complete pushovers. It's not my impression that they are. A rather more likely scenario seems to me to be that the article has become highly politicized, has become infested with spin-doctors who do their craft in the interest of preserving or promoting one particular version of some controversial aspect of the article subject, and as is ALWAYS the case in such scenarios, those who scream the loudest, make the most ostensive gesturing and engage in demagoguery, employ rhetorical stratagems and master suppression techniques constitute the faction which is also attempting to make inconvenient truths or opinions go away by any means possible. And since they are employing such methods as I just enumerated that obviously means that they have already exhausted their legitimate polemical repertoire.


 * As for your repeated question of whether I "still agree that claims made by 141 three years ago regarding Presley's bi/homosexuality deserve mentioning in the article", I have a hard time owning up to that position. Could you provide med with a diff for my original statement? __meco (talk) 07:47, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * See, your post at 19:46, 24 May 2010. Rikstar  409  08:25, 8 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Right. I haven't updated myself on this since writing that comment. __meco (talk) 21:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

CFD nomination
You may be interested in voicing your opinion at current CFD nomination, as it also concerns and other Norwegian categories. - Darwinek (talk) 11:30, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I've attempted to answer your question on that nomination. Please let me know if you have any further questions.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Very nice. That's what I was looking for. __meco (talk) 14:29, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Oy! ;)
Why did you replace my bracelet pic? Didn't like it?! Can't see that the new one is any vast improvement in quality??? My poor bracelet feels slighted! hehe PageantUpdater talk • contribs  14:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I find the colors much more vivid and fresh in the new photograph. Do you disagree? __meco (talk) 15:43, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Ismael Urbain
 — Rlevse • Talk  • 06:02, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 03:04, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Lindsey Williams
Yes and no — I've userfied the page, but not at your sandbox. Since we have to preserve editing history, it wouldn't work to copy/paste it over; therefore, I've moved it to User:Meco/Lindsey Williams. Nyttend (talk) 16:38, 20 June 2010 (UTC)


 * That's even better. I will move it into main namespace again if I can manage to find sources for it. __meco (talk) 16:55, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Sami songs
Category:Sami songs, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:34, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Undeletion request on "Assured Way of the Lord" church
I just noticed that you asked the deleter of the Church of Christ with the Elijah Message (Assured Way of the Lord) article to reconsider his deletion. I deeply appreciate that you did that; however, you might be interested to know that I've written a new article to replace it: Church of Christ (Assured Way). I'm not even sure that the deleter even read the original article at all in the first place; I'm almost 100% certain that the nominator didn't. At any event, I've completed a new article on the subject, with a shorter name, so even if he does undelete it, I'm going to simply redirect that original article to my new one (or that's what I'm planning, anyway). Any thoughts??

Thanks again for your thoughtfulness! - Ecjmartin (talk) 00:12, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Somebody's proposed the new article for deletion, too. I challenged him on his talkpage to identify (a) if he ever read it at all to begin with, and if so, (b) why he thinks it's "not notable" enough.  As I told him, we can write articles on stupid Footballers nobody's ever heard of or cares about, but a separate and distinct religious denomination in the LDS movement is somehow "not notable".  I just don't get it anymore.  I'm almost ready to quit this stupid, inane, juvenile joke of an encyclopedia, and if they end up deleting this one, I think I just might.  I hate dealing with idiots, and I've had to deal with three in one day--and all of them Wikipedia "honchos".  Oh well--thanks again for your support on it!! - Ecjmartin (talk) 02:53, 27 June 2010 (UTC)


 * You need to develop some stamina if you're going to do this. I noticed you had blanked the article after removing the PROD. That was rash and ill-advised, in my opinion. __meco (talk) 11:50, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Masturbation suggestion
A reply here. Kind regards, --Sum (talk) 21:18, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Redirect of Vampire State Building
I only moved Vampire State Building to Vampire State Building (Industrial music group) because of a comment on the article's talk page that seemed to indicate a second group by that name, even though there isn't another article with that name. 3BroomsticksInnkeeper (talk) 22:19, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Tik Tok
Please dont add Patrolling soldiers dancing incident to the article. Im reverting this because it has nothing to do with the song. The video itself is whats is causing controversy, no critic has called the song controversial. The song was used in the video without Kesha's permission, so dont add it. Thanks (CK)Lakeshade ✽ talk2me  17:38, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Please see my reply on the article talk page- __meco (talk) 17:42, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Tik Tok (song)
You are currently engaged in a WP:edit war about the use of "Tik Tok" in a soldier incident. Please might I ask you to stop adding the information to Tik Tok (song) as it is controversial. Instead engage in the discussion at Talk:Tik Tok (song) and do not add the information until there is a WP:consensus. Regards, -- Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:46, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Points
Excellent points at the deletion discussion. I have trouble distinguishing between the two other editors; they almost seem like the same editor to me. How would you suggest we address this? The points made to them are rationale, fact-based, and policy-based. They just in unison raise irrelevant points. This feels much like a filibuster. Thoughts?--Epeefleche (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It does look like a filibuster. I didn't care to endure the silliness because I felt that if the two 'Lil editors wanted to own the article it wasn't an important enough article for me to invest more energy into. Now that more editors have reacted to the folly, which continues unabated, it seems, I think we should hesitate no further and make a Request for Comments. __meco (talk) 18:47, 14 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your reconsidering your view at the AfD. Not (solely) because it gravitated towards mine.  But because I always respect those who have the thoughtfulness and lack of ego to reconsider positions already taken.  It's a wonderful trait.  Just thought I would mention it.  Cheers.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * BTW--do you realize that those conducting the filibuster are 16 years old and 19 years old? This does militate in favor of an age limit.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:33, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't know that, but it's wonderful that young people get involved in Wikipedia. They'll learn so much in the process, and it's our responsibility not to let them run the show on their immature premises. We'll just have to treat them with some patience and respect. __meco (talk) 08:21, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Hahaha. Well, let's see if that's still your view the next time your run into a fifth grade class, where the teacher has encouraged them all to open up wikipedia accounts, and they descend like locusts on one of the articles that interest you with a 30-fifth-graders' consensus view that is ... shall we say ... suspect.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:37, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, we can deal with that too should it come to that. We might have to develop some new procedural tools though. As for the current situation, we do not need to wait for the two teenagers to accede the consensus position. If the consensus is clear and they refuse to budge, i.e. keep reverting the article, then there can be issued an edit restriction on them which will cause them to be banned if they violate it. Let's hope it doesn't come to that. __meco (talk) 08:46, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree. BTW, have you opined as of yet at your own RFC?--Epeefleche (talk) 08:57, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps I forgot? I'll look into it. __meco (talk) 09:51, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

An aside on this: the two teenagers you are referring to are actually pretty decent editors. I wind up alternately arguing with them and agreeing with them on different occasions, but find that they both argue positions from a policy basis. Not perfectly, but not many editors do argue perfectly. It's substantially different from the group of fifty third-graders you refer to (a very real problem on the Disney articles). I think you should view their positions the same way you do those of any editor you disagree with, and not factor the age very heavily.&mdash;Kww(talk) 04:37, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that is wise also. They obviously (or at least one of them does) take offense to any attempt to make an issue of their age, and it really isn't necessary in this case. Where the arguments fail, the argument can still be the focus of discussion. __meco (talk) 06:44, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I don't believe that age was a starting point of analysis of their views.  It was just something noticed after having run into their views/approach.  (Editors who say things such as "I will not change my mind" attract that sort of puzzled scrutiny from some of us).  I look forward to the having the alternate experience you refer to.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:27, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * To be clear, i actually stated "i have no intention of backing down" :) Im just very strong minded, but i do admit if im in the wrong. With that said i could have overreacted to you calling/noting my age as its sometimes hard to determine someones tone over a computer, i hold no ill will towards either of you and i look forward to interacting with you two in the future. Happy editing :) (CK)Lakeshade ✽ talk2me  22:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)
 * As I indicated to Meco above, I respected him for reconsidering his position. As to your statement -- of course you had no intention of backing down ... if you had such an intention, obviously you would have already done it.  What that sentence suggests is that no matter what the future conversation your intention is to not let it change your mind.  That's not what I, at least, view as a mature approach (whatever the age of the person announcing it) -- in fact, it is the opposite of what I had lauded Meco for.  I do not equate a steadfast consistency in the face of whatever further discussion may reveal as "strong-minded", but rather as something lesser, and I view that attitude as one not conducive to further conversation.  I look forward to working with you as well.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:51, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Steadfastness when it comes to principles but malleability when it comes to responding to new facts. That should be the virtuous behaviour to strive for. The problem usually arises when what one believes to be higher principles aren't as thoroughly thought through as one believed them to be. Then one has to revise one's principles also and that will cause the person to appear inconsistent. That of course is much preferrable to the alternative which is to stick to one's position despite having come to realize it is wrong. __meco (talk) 08:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well said. Problems also arise IMHO when one commits to being steadfast despite whatever new facts or considerations might be unveiled in the future.  An example of one of the above, as well as again not quite viewing WP rules the way some of the rest of us do, has just been demonstrated.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That's just being bold. __meco (talk) 06:22, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

False positive report
The other day you submitted a false positive report because you found yourself unable to edit someone's talk page. If you have not already seen, it was due to an accident in the code of a particular edit filter which was quickly fixed by the MediaWiki software itself. The code has been reverted to the last good version and this should not happen again. Thank you for bringing this to our attention, however; if people hadn't reported it we wouldn't have known there was a problem. I have removed the false positive reports as I felt it was easier to just go to the people who submitted them directly.  — Soap  —  23:40, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Alternative Medicine & Reich
Hello. I noticed you are a member of WikiProject Alternative Medicine which I am in the process of joining. Is it a friendly group ? I also noticed your interest in Reich and wondered if you have a contact address outside of Wikipedia ? I am currently half way through reading The Mass Psychology of Fascism but I have no one local to me who shares the same interest. DJ Barney (talk) 13:16, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * You can find my Facebook contact info on my user page. As for WikiProject Alternative medicine being friendly, I'd say it's not really that active. There are some skeptics there, but I think the majority are positive towards alternative medicine. __meco (talk) 13:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

Unacceptable comments regarding IDF incident.
I respect your opinion at the AfD for the IDF Tick Tock incident however I do not appreciate your comments about myself and other editors acting as a Filibuster. I robustly deny suggestion by yourself that there is an form of collusion involved in the AfD or any of the other discussions relating to myself. Furthermore it was rude and disrespectful of you to bring in both mine and L-l-CLK-l-l's age into account. Our POV is no more or no less valid than yours and to somehow suggest that we are acting immaturely is not on. In case you don't know what I'm talking about I'm referring to a conversation between you and User:Epeefleche where you said "it's our responsibility not to let them run the show on their immature premises. We'll just have to treat them with some patience and respect." and he replied "Hahaha. Well, let's see if that's still your view the next time your run into a fifth grade class, where the teacher has encouraged them all to open up wikipedia accounts, and they descend like locusts on one of the articles that interest you with a 30-fifth-graders' consensus view that is ... shall we say ... suspect." You like to speak with grace and poise however I question your notion of wikipedia. You appear to think that my POV is wrong because I've misinterpreted the policies/guidelines when in fact my POV (or your POV for that matter) is not wrong... simply the community has appeared to decide that there is value and merit in keeping the article. ALL i intended to do with the AfD is establisher whether that was the case or not. As far as I'm concerned you made your comments at the AfD, I made mine and that was that. If the community votes to keep the article then so be it. But I am certainly not going to dispute it and equally I'm not going to sit back and allow you to not assume WP:good faith. Wikipedia should be about mutual respect. Editors come from various background and ages but because its a collaborative effort none of that should matter. At the end of the day there will be differences of opinion but the whole point is to work together for the best outcome for wikipedia not for individuals. Frankly I consider it WP:UNCIVIL for one editor to be disrespectful of another and I believe that's exactly what you've done by tacitly suggesting that age makes a POV less viable. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:09, 19 July 2010 (UTC)


 * First you seem to confuse me with another editor. I have not used the term "filibuster", nor have I brought your age and that of the other "Lil" editor into account. That said I have responded to this emphasis by another editor by volunteering my personal opinion that both of you display some hallmarks of adolescence, immaturity by course of nature being one of them. I don't believe I have stated anything that warrants the label "disrespectful", let alone "uncivil", in the current dispute. __meco (talk) 17:32, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Well for one speaking of others in a patronising and mocking tone is disrespectful. Wiki is a collaborative effort and so differences in opinion will exist. I've accepted that my POV is going to be overruled with the AfD and offered some form of suggestion on how to move forward. However once again you've patronised me and ignored what I actually said. --Lil-unique1 (talk) 17:48, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm surprised to see this notice from Lil-unique1 here, as it seems so out of place. Meco, I found your discussion at both Talk:Tik Tok (song) and Articles for deletion/IDF Tick Tock to be respectful and topic-focussed. Lil, I also think you've got your editors confused (or you're being enormously oversensitive). "Filibuster" isn't meco's word. Go back (after making a nice cup of tea and taking a deep breath) and re-read the discussions. Or where did you get "our responsibility not to let them run the show on their immature premises"? &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 23:25, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
 * That last quote is me if you see the section above on this page. __meco (talk) 07:09, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I failed to check your premises for your "premises". ;-) &mdash; JohnFromPinckney (talk) 10:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Meco: You may find the age/maturity issues discussed in this 16-year-old's just-withdrawn request for adminship to be of some mild interest.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:04, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Ten years ago I resigned as the chief administrator of an IRC channel with 500 simultaneous active users during prime time, and a host of channel operators that I was in charge of. I'm all too familiar with the shortcomings in this arena of this age group and their real motivations for seeking online status and responsibility. That is an eternal dilemma: the people least qualified are the most eager and those most qualified are conversely the most reluctant or downright unwilling. __meco (talk) 19:22, 20 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a commentary that could apply, as well, to those who seek political office.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:35, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

The Star Rover and The Tulse Luper Suitcases
I was assessing WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement tagged article that are not yet assisted, when I came across Talk:The Star Rover and Talk:The Tulse Luper Suitcases. Back in 2007 you put both these page into the WikiProject: Latter Day Saint movement. For the life of me I can't figure out why. I haven't heared of either of this, so I don't know what if anything it had to to with LDS related items. Nether Wikipedia page mention the LDS movement at all and nether do the Authors’ pages. Can you tell me why you tagged that pages into the WikiProject Latter Day Saint movement?--ARTEST4ECHO talk 15:22, 22 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't remember any of these two. I suggest you look at a version of the article from when I added them to the WikiProject. Probably they contained some information then that has since been removed. __meco (talk) 16:59, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Apparantly for a few month these pages were in the Category:Portrayals of Mormons in popular media for a very short time in July. The Star Rover was added by an IP editor and Tulse Luper Suitcases for less then a month.  I'm going to remove these from the Wikiproject.  Thanks--ARTEST4ECHO talk 19:48, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

POV tag
You can't add a tag without giving a reason on the talk page of the article. Either self-revert or provide a reason please. -- Snowded TALK  18:58, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * As you can read yourself in the template instructions this tag is to attract attention to the fact that there is an ongoing content dispute in order to bring in outside opinions. It is quite clear that this banner is most appropriate without the need for discussing its adding on the talk page. __meco (talk) 19:05, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * There is a very minor disagreement over a couple of words and I am sorry but you are required to justify a tag addition on the talk page otherwise its fly by tagging which is discouraged. -- Snowded  TALK  19:08, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

WP:INDENT
Meco, I respect what you're doing, and you're certainly making the thread easier to follow. But WP:INDENT is an essay (an essay, incidentally, with which I'm already familiar), not a policy.

I indented my reply to Snowded in that way for a reason. Indenting in this way is a fairly common idiom.

I indented my reply like that because it was not part of the normal flow of conversation - it was a specific, minor response to a point Snowded made that would not - and did not - warrant any reply. Placing it within the normal flow of the thread would result it in getting further and further away from the point Snowded made. It was important to keep Snowded's comment and my comment together because it involved an important issue that was not otherwise related to the rest of the conversation. TFOWR 14:05, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Very well. You are arguing that you indented in this fashion due to exceptional circumstances. Then I shall concede your right to make use of exceptional ways of working this out. I suggest you proceed with idiosyncratic indentation practices with extreme discernment and caution. I say this also because if more people start ad libing their indentation practices, we are sure to have the second confusion of Babel descend on us shortly, hyperbolically speaking. __meco (talk) 14:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Broadly, aye, but this isn't my practice, it is, as I mentioned above, a fairly common idiom. We all understand WP:INDENT (well, clearly not all of us based on the work you and other editors have had to do on the talk page!) and the usual need to indent below the post we're replying to. The "two or more indent to reply to a part of post" idiom is, I suppose, slightly unusual, but reasonably common, so I don't accept that it's "ad libbing". It's frequently used when replying to a specific, comparatively minor part of a larger comment. In this case, in a thread about POV, I replied in that fashion so as not to break the flow of the main conversation. You'll frequently see this idiom being used, usually with the reply enclosed in tags, at any of the major noticeboards. For example:

==Is the sky blue?==

There appears to be some debate about whether we should describe the sky as "red" blue. Discuss. User:EditorFoo 12:00
 * EditorFoo, did you intend to write "red" there? Surely you meant "blue"? User:EditorBar 12:10
 * Indeed I did! Thanks, struck "red" and corrected. Thanks again. User:EditorFoo 12:12
 * Oh this is silly - it's well cited, surely there's no dispute about the colour of the sky?!! User:EditorBaz 12:02
 * I disagree - this is a valid question. I've provided sources that show beyond doubt that the sky is red! User:EditorRed 12:02


 * Does that make sense? <b style="color:#000">TFOW</b><b style="color:#F00">R</b> 14:28, 26 July 2010 (UTC)


 * It does, and it would be great if this could be injected into the existing examples and howtos at WP:INDENT. __meco (talk) 14:33, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

ITN for R136a1
&mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 13:53, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for ...
... making me laugh, at this comment at CFD.

I think we may spend many a month of sundays skating on Satan's ice rink before that happens :) -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:08, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi
Is there any way to see articles in the articles as to encarta could start doing one? =) FabErMix (Talk You) 21:53, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I am sorry. I just couldn't understand what you wrote. __meco (talk) 07:40, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OK,is there any way to create articles as of encarta? =) FabErMix (Talk You) 17:50, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I have never looked at Encarta, so I couldn't tell. __meco (talk) 18:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * OK Thanks!..::..=) FabErMix (Talk You) 17:18, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Checkuser
Absoutely.--Epeefleche (talk) 03:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

RE: How not to nominate for ITN
why? what was wrong? (for future reference) I added the facets that made it important "first in X years..." "to calm tensions"Lihaas (talk) 11:02, 31 July 2010 (UTC)


 * I have explained it here. __meco (talk) 07:45, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism_from_Hiberniantears
Hi Meco,

I responded to your complaint at Vandalism from Hiberniantears. I was, and still remain, perfectly happy to discuss my edits to the article. As an editor, I found an article that was somewhat rambling and meandering. I then took action to edit that article into a better place. "Better place", of course, is a subjective value, but it is this value that creates the diversity of views which expand and improve our project. Please note that my changes to the article did neither changed the presentation of who Hoagland is, nor constituted the vandalizing removal of content integral to understanding the article's subject.

Thanks, Hiberniantears (talk) 18:38, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Serge Monast on "Did you know?"
I've never done a DYK, so yes, please do this one for me! Perhaps text mentioning "Project Blue Beam", which is his main theory known in the Anglophone conspiracy world - David Gerard (talk) 13:11, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Request for mediation rejected
The Request for mediation concerning English Defence League, to which you were listed as a party, has been declined. An explanation of why it has not been possible to allow this dispute to proceed to mediation is provided at the mediation request page (which will be deleted by an administrator after a reasonable time). Queries on the rejection of this dispute can be directed to the Committee chairperson or e-mailed to the mediation mailing list. For the Mediation Committee, AGK  14:50, 5 August 2010 (UTC) (This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.)

DYK for Little Pamir
<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 18:03, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Paul LaViolette
I hope you don't mind too much that I de-PRODded this; the previous deletion discussion was almost a year ago, Articles for deletion/Paul LaViolette (2nd nomination) and was not very clear-cut, so I think that if the new article is to be deleted, it deserves some discussion.  Chzz  ► 15:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure. However, with the article having no reliable sources I think it will be swiftly deleted if nominated again. __meco (talk) 15:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Serge Monast
<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 12:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

How can I communicate to other members?
So how do I do it? Is there a private PM system. I'm still sorta new to wiki.

btw Meco thanks for your helpful tips.

16:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)Henry123ifa —Preceding unsigned comment added by Henry123ifa (talk • contribs)


 * Question answered on your talk page. __meco (talk) 17:56, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Asif Ali Zardari
Can you discuss before removing a sourced statement before deleting it. You and User:Huon might end up in a war edit. We can discuss it on the Talk:Asif Ali Zardari. Farjad0322 (talk) 17:03, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Terry Jones Arrest News
- I wounder why my post was deleted when it's in the local news. - A recent "submit a story" post on NBC.com got a popular political blog buzzing about the rumored arrest of the minister of Dove World Outreach in Gainesville, Florida. Dove World is planning an event to publically burn the Koran, and an anonymous person has alleged that the minister has been arrested for possession of child pornography. .

- Infamous Pastor Terry Jones, known for his activism against the Gainesville Florida mayor, and for his "Burn a Koran Day" has been arrested for possession of child pornography. Wednesday August 4, 2010 Pastor Terry Jones was arrested for sharing pictures of children in various states of nudity over the popular file sharing network Limewire. .

- Pastor Terry Jones arrested for child pornography. Kessale (talk) 23:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I find it hard to wrap my head around this story. Firstly, the first url is unavailable to me, so I'm unable to evaluate it. The second is a strange news item that I'm unsure what it exactly is. I find it very odd that an NBC News story should list www.topix.com as its source. As for that third link, It is simply a headline with no content, except comments. This does not convince me that what you inserted is in fact a real news story. I cannot see that reliable sources have been supplied for its verification. As the theme of the story obviously has the most dire BLP implications, I don't see how any of this can be inserted into the article. __meco (talk) 18:53, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Request re-assessment
Hello! I noticed you're a volunteer at Alt Views and was wondering when you get a chance if you could do a re-assessment of NAMBLA. It is currently a B, but there have been a lot of changes. Thanks!Lionel (talk) 00:54, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

Collaborative news on quippd
Hey, I noticed that you had recently edited the Dove World Outreach Center, and I hoped that you could help out on another collaborative community edited project.

I run quippd, a collaboratively edited social news site, which mixes elements of Wikis, social networking, and social news sites. You can get some more information about what we are doing at: http://quippd.com/about/intro

Basically, we want to get good coverage on news stories, collaboratively edited, like Wikipedia. We are trying to take the ideas of WikiFactCheck -- to make news less biased and speedier (unlike something like Wikinews).

I hope you check us out -- and feel free to contact me with any questions, comments, or concerns.

--Yoasif (talk) 01:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Interesting initative. I have registered and made several posts. __meco (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

List of legally mononymous people
You may be interested in List of legally mononymous people, and helping to expand it. Thanks, Sai Emrys ¿? ✍ 19:20, 2 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I appreciate the heads-up. I don't know how I can immediately help to expand the list, but I'll certainly put it on my watchlist and keep an eye open for possible additions. __meco (talk) 19:32, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not Norwegian
I'm not norwegian i'm Filipino american I just went to Skal vi danse? website. Welchs12 (talk) 21:46, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * That's ok :-) __meco (talk) 21:49, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Removal of maintenance templates
It is inappropriate for you to remove speedy deletion templates from pages you have created yourself, as you did here and here. The template quite clearly states, "do not remove this notice from pages that you have created yourself." If you you disagree with the page's proposed speedy deletion, please add directly below the tag and add your reasoning on the talk page. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:28, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you are right, but mere common sense should suffice to see the inappropriateness of the template for speedy deletion based on the category being empty when the category isn't empty. __meco (talk) 15:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The category only has content because you keep adding a single article to it, while other editors have been removing the category. If it wasn't for your edit-warring over this, there would be no content. Regardless, there's no perhaps about it, the template is quite clear. --AussieLegend (talk) 15:45, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The category currently has three articles, and it would be very easy to add a whole not more, uncontroversially I might add, by simply continuing to populate this category hierarchy which you appear fundamentally to have failed to grasp. __meco (talk) 15:50, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Archiving
As a completely separate issue, you might like to consider to start archiving your talk page. At 326kB it's getting a bit large and is awkward to load. --AussieLegend (talk) 16:05, 7 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I am aware of the issue, and I have been encouraged before also to do as you suggest. __meco (talk) 16:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of International Burn a Koran Day for deletion
A discussion has begun about whether the article International Burn a Koran Day, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/International Burn a Koran Day until a concensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Physchim62 (talk) 22:39, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I removed the photo again
That picture is of the parade with some other group(s) behind it. But nothing says that group is NAMBLA, the image was taken from NAMBLA's website but even that doesn't assert anything. Cat clean (talk) 14:40, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Cat:Establishment by [whatever]
You clearly have no consensus to add these per the discussion here. Stop it or come up with a valid reason to add them beyond "I think it makes sense"-- Terrillja talk  16:43, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

September 2010
This is the final warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. The next time you disrupt Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice.

You have already been warned that you don't have consensus for your promosed organizational categories, Create another one and get blocked for ignoring consensus and editing disruptively in contempt of established policies and procedures.-- Terrillja talk  18:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I do understand that you want to become an administrator one day, but you are not one yet, and your style suggests you shouldn't be one either. __meco (talk) 18:14, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

ANI
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Meco. Thank you. — Terrillja talk  20:57, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

undo
Are you actually looking at what you are hitting undo on or just going willy-nilly at it? was clearly mistagged, your undo reverted back to the mistagged image. I realize you want to undo all the changes I have made, but there is a possibility that I did something other than just remove unnecessary categories.-- Terrillja talk  14:35, 23 September 2010 (UTC)


 * How is it appropriate to remove the Fair Use rationale, which you did? __meco (talk) 14:37, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Public domain images do not require a fair use rationale because they are not fair use images. Following the licensing templates will explain it in more depth.-- Terrillja talk  14:42, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, I see your rationale. Then I agree on that particular one with you edit. __meco (talk) 15:05, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * what now. This is clearly just text and does not meet the threshold of originality. A couple letters placed at an angle doesn't change the fact that it is composed of plain text, in line with PD-textlogo.-- Terrillja talk  15:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ. I think it certainly holds up as a work covered by intellectual property laws. Of course, if you insist this is not so, we can make a call with the nice people over at Non-free content to weigh in their opinions. __meco (talk) 15:15, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a difference between trademark and copyright. Just because it's a public domain image doesn't mean that the IP (trademark) is not protected.-- Terrillja talk  15:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I was not discussing trademark. I'm discussing whether the logo can be considered to be in the Public Domain. I find that unlikely. Very unlikely. __meco (talk) 15:20, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Establishments in the United States by year
Category:Establishments in the United States by year, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Terrillja talk  14:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

List of links to non-articles?
Hi, the pedophile list ... I think all items do have to go to actual articles. Otherwise, there is not much point in having the list, and it is utterly misleading to readers. Please discuss this on the talk page of the list before reverting the removal of dead links. Tony  (talk)  14:38, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Need your help
Please help me categorize the existing historic Norwegian images on wikicommons by year (see link) so that our readers would be able to access those images when they press on the links to the wikicommons pages at the bottom the Years in Norway articles. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 19:57, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll try and look into that tomorrow. __meco (talk) 20:02, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. TheCuriousGnome (talk) 20:48, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

US OFAC Specially Designated Global Terrorist
When you nominated "US OFAC Specially Designated Global Terrorist", it would have been common courtesy to notify the category creator. Marokwitz (talk) 06:52, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * In the case of category nominations, notifying the creator of the category is not done as a matter of course as in the case of article nominations. It is sometimes done, but very often not. It certainly would be ill-advised to take the lack of notification as a sign of disrespect or lack of common courtesy. However, realizing the need for better notification routines I have since this nomination made efforts to showcase the category nominations notification templates more prominently, so hopefully you and others are less likely to miss categories being nominated for deletion in the future. __meco (talk) 07:02, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

Elvis Presley again
May I ask you to have a look at the recent activities of user ElvisFan1981. Massive changes were made concerning the articles, Memphis Mafia and Personal relationships of Elvis Presley. I have reverted these edits because several direct quotes have been removed. See also Talk:Memphis Mafia. To my mind the same thing is happening as it did some months ago on the main Elvis page. You may remember the problems. Onefortyone (talk) 23:19, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

List of designated terrorist organizations
Hello Meco, thanks for your interest in List of designated terrorist organizations. The China column is very much needed, but solid references are even more needed. If you can find them that would be wonderful! Cheers :-) Nicolas1981 (talk) 10:45, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

3RR (false alarm)
Meco - with this edit at Canada, you broke the WP:3RR limit. You likely won't be reported for it, but I strongly suggest you don't revert again. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  15:28, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I did not break 3RR. _meco (talk) 15:35, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, you're right. I mistook "Moxy" for "Meco" in the edit history. -- Ħ   MIESIANIACAL  21:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

removing sort key scheme for Category:Positional numeral systems that is not helpful
Hi Meco.

Now that you have removed the original sorting scheme for the category Positional numeral systems, you need to edit the category page accordingly, and create the list of these pages in numerical order that we are now missing, e.g. List of positional numeral systems by base.--Nø (talk) 18:52, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Please see Category talk:Positional numeral systems.--Nø (talk) 10:58, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Rich Iott
Hello! Your submission of Rich Iott at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! J04n(talk page) 12:47, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Bunched linking
Hi, good work at the 2010 NPP article. But this introduces bunched-up linking, which is hard for readers to sort out; and in this case sort of redundant linking (?): "Chinese human rights activist Liu Xiaobo"

I think it's better with "activist" just plain, isn't it? Tony  (talk)  13:37, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * This touches upon WP:EGG, but I still think it would be useful to have a link to human rights activist even though it is somehow masked. It's a relevant topic, surely? __meco (talk) 13:40, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Rich Iott
<span style="font-family:Verdana,sans-serif"> — <b style="color:#060;">Rlevse</b> • Talk  • 06:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Mir Ali of Persia for deletion
A discussion has begun about whether the article Mir Ali of Persia, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Mir Ali of Persia until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. TYelliot &#124;  Talk  &#124;  Contribs  08:35, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, there is a way to ask a question and not WP:AGF is certainly not helpful. anyway, ive answered your queries on the talk page. (which is where to ask in the first place)Lihaas (talk) 04:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

FTF

 * ''The following post is in response to User talk:Lihaas

Well, there is a way to ask a question and not WP:AGF is certainly not helpful. anyway, ive answered your queries on the talk page. (which is where to ask in the first place)Lihaas (talk) 04:31, 26 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Response given at Talk:Fuck for Forest. __meco (talk) 08:24, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * With no intervening editors? come on..✅ anyways
 * this page is a little long, it would also help WP:Article size readability (granted its a talk page, so its only a suggestion)Lihaas (talk) 10:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * I have no idea about what your first line is supposed to convey. __meco (talk) 10:59, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * the indention request that you asked for just before i replied.Lihaas (talk) 11:01, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Why do you give a disjointed response to a request on another page in the middle of a section here without even referencing what you are talking about? __meco (talk) 11:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
 * A bad faith edit? its gone against consensus/discussion as the the opinion is split 2-2, with only 1 on each side discussing. to remove tags you need consensus.
 * just to clarify before asked again, i have duly given reason for each tag on the talk page, when we discuss these then we start taking them off so the article is in fact improved by the addition of the tags (purpose thenserved)Lihaas (talk) 10:54, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Cleaning up
I've gone and organised the page and copied edited it for flow. I've scratched out the tags that dont fit anymore, however 2 are still there. It seems accomodative to come to some agreement. I see the first tag and the sectional tag ready to go pretty quick, with discussion on talk. The "orphan" tag might take a little bit of work, but the article is much better now, and not for a lack of tags at one point ;) (hence, it did serve its tag)
 * I've also added an EL tag, but per talk one link can be taken from that section.Lihaas (talk) 15:15, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

Ior Bock
Hello. I think some of the fact tags you have added in the article are unnecessary. For example, Londen's own article is a sufficient source for the sentence beginning with these words: "Londen claims that he has seen...".--Kaikenlaisia (talk) 08:06, 1 November 2010 (UTC)


 * It would be sufficient if it says that, but I haven't found it in that article. That's why I placed the request tag. __meco (talk) 08:19, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * In fact, you're right. My mistake.--130.234.68.224 (talk) 09:24, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Then you should write that also in your edit summary as you backtrack your mistake instead of loudly proclaiming I'm mistaken and then quietly revert yourself when that shows not to be correct. Also, you removed another citation request concerning the "Ehrensvärd Society". Did you find a reference to this name in the Londen article? I didn't. __meco (talk) 10:58, 1 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, that would have been polite. I apologize. And you are right, the Ehrensvärd Society was not actually mentioned in the Londen article. I asked the user Fullfacts to stop adding non-referenced information in referenced sentences. And I must be more careful myself.--130.234.68.225 (talk) 13:00, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Help me!
I want to write this: They are using Atatürk talk page for attacking him! They used swear words and I deleted that! "Donkey" on Atatürk talk page? Böri (talk) 18:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

They said: Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Donkey. Thank you. — Favonian (talk) 18:32, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

- I went there, I wanted to write it but they say: Edit conflict / I don't have time now... I can't read it! & I didn't understand it! Please help me!All is about Talk:Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, they used swear words... I deleted it! Then they said what you made is vandalism, etc. Please help me! Thank you Böri (talk) 18:56, 5 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Bori, the quote is Ataturk calling himself a donkey . I can't see any swearing - can you point me to where someone swears. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 00:07, 6 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Not calling himself! Do you know Turkish? Böri (talk) 10:40, 6 November 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, then he's calling people named Kemal 'donkey'. Since Kemal was his name, it reads like it's some kind of joke about himself. In any case, it's a sourced quote of something Ataturk himself said, and if he isn't calling himself a donkey, nobody else is calling him a donkey either. --Elen of the Roads (talk) 21:46, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Erik Blücher
I hope you'll add more than a single source; although the one there is from a major reliable newspaper, it's better that material like this have multiple independent sources. The articles in the other WPs seem to have some that probably could be used.  DGG ( talk ) 04:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC).


 * Well, sure, I'm not finished. There are a number of sources to grab material from. Also, as you will see from what I have added so far, these are statements Blücher has provided about himself mostly. __meco (talk) 08:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * right. (& I'm a little leery of the accuracy of self-provided statements by people who have left a movement; if nothing else, they may exaggerate their role.)   DGG ( talk ) 12:17, 7 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Sure, but as long as they are attributed to him that's for anyone with a critical mind to realize, and it also satisfies the requirements in WP:BLP. I'll check the language to make sure nothing of what are subjective claims come off as neutral. __meco (talk) 12:22, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

List of designated terrorist organizations
Can you add a column for groups designated as terrorist organizations by China now ? Here --Wikimanno (talk) 15:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * It's such a big job and I don't know if I'll be able to prioritize it. __meco (talk) 15:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:1872 establishments in Australia
Category:1872 establishments in Australia, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. AussieLegend (talk) 09:44, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:1878 establishments in Australia
Category:1878 establishments in Australia, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. AussieLegend (talk) 09:57, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

encyc.org?
Per WP:ELNO #12, and possibly #13 as well, do not restore that link in the Wikipedia Review article. There is nothing useful or substantial to be found at another non-notable anyone-can-edit wiki. Tarc (talk) 21:45, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * You can discuss this on the article's talk page where I have created a section with reference to this link. __meco (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

edit on Fritz Springmeier did unnecessary damage?
This edit of yours seems to have done a little collateral damage to a sentence and a cite for it that I'd just put together. I'll restore it, but if your deletion of material was intentional, please leave me a note explaining why. Thanks. Yakushima (talk) 13:44, 22 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Oops. Not intentional. __meco (talk) 15:56, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Shelling of Yeonpyeong talk
To quote you "Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to delete or edit legitimate talk page comments, as you did at Talk:Shelling of Yeonpyeong, you may be blocked from editing" What did I delete or edit apart from my own comments? Mztourist (talk) 09:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shelling_of_Yeonpyeong&diff=prev&oldid=398409781 __meco (talk) 09:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I never touched that section. I have only written on the Merge and Korean War ended sections, but had edit conflict (presumably with you if you look at the time of our edits) when doing so and so I waited and then redid my comments later on. Deleting other people's talk comments isn't my style. Mztourist (talk) 09:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * That is good to hear. However, you obviously did remove my comment, even if it was inadvertently. And that was the only thing you did in that edit. __meco (talk) 09:41, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * No I did not remove your comment, there must be a problem with the software for Edit Conflict. I tried to make my edit to the Hasn't the Korean War ended section, it wasn't accepted due to Edit Conflict (presumably with your edit of the Copyright Image) and so I just clicked on the Article tab to exit editing the Talk section and then went back later to make my comments. I don't actually see how any Edit Conflict should have arisen as we were editing different sections as you can see from the link you sent me above. Mztourist (talk) 12:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The edit diff clearly proves that you did remove my comment. I have never before experienced anyone who actually rejects the evidence of this. As this isn't an important incident I'm afraid we won't see any investigation into your extraordinary assertion. That is unless you are going to address the developers of the MediWiki software about this. In that case, I will appreciate a heads-up. __meco (talk) 12:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * The edit diff shows that I was editing the Hasn't the Korean war ended section, not the Copyright Image section. So how do you explain that then? I will ignore your comments regarding me rejecting evidence and making extraordinary assertions. Mztourist (talk) 13:26, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Does your view of the URL to the diff which I provided above look the same as it does to me: http://i589.photobucket.com/albums/ss332/Halvor_meco/Screenshots/WikiScr.png __meco (talk) 13:40, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Look at the top. It states I am editing "Hasn't the Korean War ended". As I said earlier there must be a problem with the Edit Conflict software because I never touched your comment. Mztourist (talk) 14:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, you were fooled by that section reference. Don't be. When there are edit conflicts and you save the page, suddenly you are saving the entire page, not just the section you were working on. But the prefaced section reference in the edit summary box remains the same. I think I've been fooled by this myself in the past also, but now I've learned. __meco (talk) 14:12, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * As I have said several times already I never touched the copyrighted image section. There must be a software error such that either your change didn't save or it was deleted when I tried to make my edit but I didn't do it. I have spent enough time defending myself for something I didn't do and so will now get back to writing articles. Mztourist (talk) 14:25, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * On another note, you could have talked to me about the "Not a forum" template but you chose not to and reverted it twice even after I have quoted WP:LAME during my 1st and only revert; I shall halt at WP:1RR and bid you adieu. But when the discussion page becomes too forumy, you know it was your decision that made it so. Best and out. -- <i style="font-family:Rage Italic; font-size:large; color:green;">Dave</i> ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 09:56, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I didn't look at what WP:LAME would have to suggest. I agree it's not a big deal, nor would I think of it as an edit wat. I may be persistent, but I'm not immovable, and I think also, not belligerent. __meco (talk) 12:32, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

User:Mztourist unable to learn from their mistake
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. I have given my comments on the page. It doesn't read like the discussion is going in your favour. Mztourist (talk) 15:57, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.--S. Rich (talk) 16:06, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * To the both of you. Why are you posting nonsense messages on my talk page? You are notifying me in duplicate of a discussion which I started. And the personal comment from Mztourist; this isn't a competition. I'm not trying to defeat you, so you keeping scores is just demeaning yourself. __meco (talk) 16:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is User:Mztourist unable to learn from their mistake. Mztourist (talk) 16:24, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

You are correct about the inappropriate deletion by Mztourist. I thought you were referring to his own edits, but I see it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Shelling_of_Yeonpyeong&diff=next&oldid=398409713. Please accept my apology for this error. But also let's put this debate to rest.--S. Rich (talk) 16:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)


 * As I have made the case in several of my most recent posts at WP:ANI, if what Mztourist explains having done is dead accurate, then there is a software error issue here that is very dire. That needs to be properly acknowledged and addressed. That is where I'm currently at in this matter. __meco (talk) 16:42, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Wikileaks
Hi Meco! Please help with US diplomatic cables release if you can! Cheers - Amog  | Talk •  contribs 18:44, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

3RR warning on 2010 NPP
I would refer you to your revert of my edit. I have been trying earnestly to discuss with you in good faith, by seeking third opinions as well as seeking wider input, and leaving sufficient time for reactions and comments to come forward. Nevertheless, you currently appear to be engaged in an edit war as a substitute for engaging in proper discussion.

I would remind you that users who edit disruptively or refuse to collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. Although the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period may be grounds for an immediate block, it is clearly in the spirit of the policy that the 24-hour requirement is merely facultative. You should continue to use the talk page to discuss your change. You seem to want to buck consensus now established among fellow editors; several editors now feel your introductions are controversial. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. -- Ohconfucius ¡digame! 06:37, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

The Gambia
Hello. You recently participated in a discussion regarding renaming of several pages from "The Gambia" to "the Gambia". There is currently an RfC on the naming issue at Talk:The Gambia. Feel free to participate in the discussion. Jafeluv (talk) 05:28, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

1925 / 29 establishments in Norway
Hi - I think this is just a typo, wanted to call it to your attention. - Category:1929 establishments in Norway

Category:1929 establishments in Norway From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search Organizations, places or other things founded or established in Norway in the year 1925. Categories: 1925 establishments by country | 1920s establishments in Norway | Establishments in Norway by year | 1925 in Norway

Edit warring on United States diplomatic cables leak
Consensus is against your proposed edits. This was explained to you by five editors over at Talk:United_States_diplomatic_cables_leak and you have not used the talk page to explain why we should expand a 164,602 byte article to 168,888 bytes, based on a single topic out of thousands. It is simply unprecedented and violates just about every policy and guideline. Please stop edit warring and use the talk page to convince others. You may also want to follow the WP:BRD model for editing Wikipedia, as you don't seem familiar with it. Trying to force your version into the article isn't how this place works. I made an effort to work with a compromise version, and you reverted it wholesale. I will again make another effort. You will need to learn to compromise and engage in a give and take. This article is not about the vital sites, and adding this much unnecessary detail isn't supported. Please try to focus on the topic of the article and pay attention to what other editors are telling you on the talk page. Viriditas (talk) 13:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * If you stop misrepresenting whatever consensus has been formed and adhere to WP:3RR, I'm sure we'll figure this one out. __meco (talk) 13:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I split the contents out, even though I don't think this is ideal. But it does preserve the integrity of an article, and keeps the topic manageable. I did not add your content back to it, but I did add some of it to the reactions. Viriditas (talk) 13:54, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Terrorist incidents by responsible parties
Category:Terrorist incidents by responsible parties, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:16, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Wikileaks table
You removed the last entry from the release table and added a redundant column. I removed the redundant column again and restored the removed entry, and added the most recent entry. 213.84.53.62 (talk) 02:06, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

ANI notice
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Creation of articles from leaked classified documents. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 02:57, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Ignoring consensus
FYI...Your recent restoration of Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative an article that failed to find consensus for its original creation in the initial discussion at Talk:United_States_diplomatic_cables_leak, and which failed to find consensus for its current state over at Talk:Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative, shows that you do not respect or value discussion, consensus, or basic policies and guidelines governing basic article creation, development, and maintenance. This appears to be a continuing problem. Viriditas (talk) 09:21, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, there's a rather succinct observation of your insidious misrepresentations in an appended section to the current ANI discussion (which you notified me about in the above section): Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, which I'm about to contribute to when I have posted this. __meco (talk) 12:03, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Norwegian veterans
I have some suggestions for text and title, for an article regarding Veterans of Norwegian military operations. Your opinions are respectfully requested.
 * "Before the 4 Norwegian soldiers were killed in Afghanistan" ... "the Cabinet-members and Parliament-members were not very preoccupied in regard to soldiers returning from abroad. No Prime minister or statsråd showed up when 300 Afghanistan-veterans were honored after their 6 month-tour of duty, at a ceremony on June 10, 2010", was claimed by Dagbladet.
 * 66 military citations (medals and ribbons) were returned to Forsvarsdepartementet during a protest of 150-200 veterans, in front of Norway's parliament, on July 5, 2010.
 * They protested the treatment they received after returning from military operations outside Norway. In particular, a law regarding compensation (erstatning) for wounded soldiers of Norway, who have served outside Norwegian territory under United Nations- or NATO-command. Soldiers wounded before January 1, 2010 will at most receive 35/65 (thirtyfive sixtyfifths), than a soldier injured thereafter. The initiative for the return of citations, has been credited one of the protesters, Jan William Steen.
 * When soldiers end their service in the armed forces of Norway, the public health system is responsible for health care but lacks routines for discovering suicidal tendencies among utenlandssoldater (soldiers of Norway, who have served outside Norwegian territory under United Nations- or NATO-command), has been claimed by the Secretary General of the LEVE-organization(Landsforeningen for etterlatte ved selvmord).

since 1946", was claimed by the leader of the Veteranalliansen-organization, Jan Steen. --Gag-order for Norw.speakers (talk) 17:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That "Norwegian politicians decorate the truth and reinvent (omskrive) reality. Therefore there is no room in their løgnaktige descriptions, for Norwegian veterans and their sad stories about an improved and more encompassing tilbud for helseoppfølging", was claimed by Zorica Mitic, M.D. (and former military doctor), December 7, 2010 in Verdens Gang.
 * That "Around 120 000 Norwegian women and men have served in various military operations for Norway
 * A change of the law, Forsvarspersonelloven, was set forth by 4 members(Jan Arild Ellingsen, Gjermund Hagesæter, Per Sandberg, Øivind Vaksdal) of the Norwegian parliament, so that the time of an occurred injury, does not have any significance on the size of the compensation.
 * "I am a Lebanon-veteran who served in geværtropp in 1. kontingent in Lebanon in 1978. Why should our service be worth less? Why treat differently those who were "stupid" enough to serve outside Norway before 2010?", according to the leader of the organization SIOPS(Skadde i internasjonale operasjoner), in an article in Dagbladet in 2010.

Organizations

 * NVIO (Norges Veteranforbund for Internasjonale Operasjoner) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gag-order for Norw.speakers (talk • contribs) 19:54, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

A special compensation scheme(særskilt kompensasjonsordning)
--Gag-order for Norw.speakers (talk) 18:07, 11 December 2010 (UTC)
 * A compensation scheme (en særskilt kompensasjonsordning) was put in place by the Government, for soldiers serving outside Norway between 1978 and January 1, 2010 and who can document that their service outside Norway, has resulted in psykiske belastningsskader. The maximum compensation is a multiple of 35 of the variable folketrygdens grunnbeløp (2,6 million NOK is the maximum compensation, as of December 2010)
 * 193 veterans have claimed compensation(særskilt kompensasjonsordning), as of December 2010 (29 claims have been approved, and 7 have been rejected, as of December 2010.).

Relevant external links

 * http://siops.no/r/fil/VG021010.pdf --Gag-order for Norw.speakers (talk) 17:55, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Comments to the above
What you are presenting here are items that surely could be useful had an article titled Veterans of Norwegian military operations already existed. The points which you sources appear to support are problems with how the Norwegian authorities deal with the veterans, but there seems to be very little that could be used to write the backbone structure of this article. __meco (talk) 19:47, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion for backbone
"Combat veterans of Norwegian military operations, performed their military service during World War 2, the Korean War(623 women and men at the NORMASH-field hospital), 1982 Lebanon War and the ongoing War in Afghanistan."

"Between 1978 and 1998, Norwegian soldiers (under United Nations-command) numbered 21 326. "  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gag-order for Norw.speakers (talk • contribs) 19:18, 19 December 2010 (UTC) --Gag-order for Norw.speakers (talk) 19:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That is not sufficient. I need to see this presented in writing somewhere, in a reliable source. __meco (talk) 19:32, 19 December 2010 (UTC)


 * "Combat veterans of Norwegian military operations, performed their military service during World War 2, the Korean War(623 women and men at the NORMASH-field hospital), 1982 Lebanon War and the ongoing War in Afghanistan."


 * "Between 1978 and 1998, Norwegian soldiers (under United Nations-command) numbered 21 326. " "It was a peacekeeping operation, and has been characterized as "constant combat and conflict" by Anders Grindaker. "--Gag-order for Norw.speakers


 * "Between 2000 and 3000 medics (sanitetssoldater) participated in the Korean War, 22 000 served in UNIFIL in Lebanon, 11 000 in UNEF in Gaza, 3000 in ONUC in Congo."
 * --Gag-order for Norw.speakers (talk) 20:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Warrior culture
Information about Warrior culture of Norwegian soldiers, is provided in Verdens Gang, 2010-10-12, p.43, by Knut Braa. --Gag-order for Norw.speakers (talk) 12:50, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm interested in helping with this, however, I'm also currently involved in editing articles about the ongoing and highly controversial United States diplomatic cables leak which consumes much of my resources right now. I'll alert the other members of WikiProject Norway about this so that maybe others can pitch in also to get this started. __meco (talk) 13:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Relevant?

 * The editor of Samfunnsliv has commented about "bukken og havresekken" about statements by førstekrigsadvokat Gunnar Johansen (Verdens Gang, 2010-12-06 page 44). This might or might not be relevant.--Gag-order for Norw.speakers (talk) 20:34, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

re: AFD close
Hello - thanks for the message. I'll explain my rationale for closing the discussion as a merge.

In closing an AFD discussion, I look at the article first, then its history, its links to other articles (and vice versa), then I read and think about all discussion. A straight 'count the votes' is not the way to go about closing an AFD. Instead, all arguments should be weighed and considered. That's why we discourage simple 'per nom' comments - other than to chalk one up for this or that position, they're not much help.

A decision to keep or delete an article in 2007 can have a very different conclusion in later years. I feel that's the case here. In 2007 this tempest in the blogosphere was a relatively current thing, and at AFD it was pretty much a given that if there were enough Google hits, the article should be kept. That's not the case anymore. Since that AFD, there's been very little additional coverage and the event just isn't notable enough to stand on its own as a separate article. There are BLP issues here also, and in 2007 the BLP policy had very little teeth. Based on those factors, I think Bearian's and Sandstein's positions, to merge the content into the articles on Pianka and Mim, are persuasive as the best solution here.

I hope that helps. You're welcome to use deletion review, and I promise I won't go bananas or throw things at you or be angry. But I believe an admin's job is to use discretion and good judgment. In my view, the merge is the best way to proceed. Thanks again for the message. :-) - Krakatoa  Katie  03:13, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks again for notifying me of the DRV. I'll let my statements speak for me, but I'll follow along. Thanks for being polite and civil, and if you need more help just let me know. :-) - Krakatoa  Katie  04:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Offer of archiving assistance
Hi Meco, I see that some folks have recommended that it's time to archive the talkpage. I'd like to add my recommendation as well, since your page is currently over 360K, and some people's browsers start having trouble with a page this big. In fact, I'd like to offer to setup a bot to do the archiving for you? Then it'll automatically move older threads to a talk archive for you, and then you won't have to worry about it anymore. :) --Elonka 05:47, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative
Hiya, I appreciate that you are working to expand the Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative article, but please be very cautious about sourcing? Especially if information is removed by another editor, it should not be restored unless accompanied by a reliable source. In this edit, you re-inserted unsourced and poorly sourced information. This is a violation of Wikipedia policies, so please don't do that again. The best way to proceed here, is to ensure that any information which is re-added to the article, be accompanied by a reliable source. Thanks, --Elonka 15:09, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * For the record, I find that the 2008 Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative list as transmitted in a secret diplomatic cable to the Secretary of State and released by Wikileaks is a solid, definitive source for the article about Critical Foreign Dependencies Initiative. The "unsourced" items came from this reliable source.  I've been debating the sourcing issues with Elonka on User:Wnt and to some extent at the article talk page.  I believe that Meco's actions in restoring content were entirely appropriate. Wnt (talk) 15:53, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

Codependency
I added a reply to remarks you made at Talk:Codependency that you might want to take a look at. Basically, your statement there seems to suggest that notability of an author establishes him by default as being an expert, i.e. one who's self-published writings can then be used as reliable sources on Wikipedia. I believe the standard established by WP:SPS is different, that it is required that author's writing on the topic "in the relevant field" be externally recognized as expert before his self-published writings can be used as sole sources. I don't have any particular stake in this article (and the edits/deletions you reverted and the earlier comments that you responded to were not mine) although this problem regarding this same author is one that exists and will likely continue to exist on other articles as well. --Soiregistered (talk) 20:05, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

My talk page
Stay off it. Viriditas (talk) 11:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, just let me know where you would like my warnings against making personal attacks. As you obviously are unable to face the criticism which has been directed at you from various editors, some of it referenced in the present discussion Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, in any manner that resembles constructive you should at least realize that you cannot call on others to refrain from warning you about your transgressions (even though they are obviously non-existent in you view). __meco (talk) 12:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I stopped participating in that thread a long time ago, mostly because I discovered I was discussing a topic with people who didn't know what they were talking about. I don't require your dubious warnings, so you can stop making them. Viriditas (talk) 12:11, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

who wrote this on my user page?
... (I deleted it!)Böri (talk) 08:17, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

& who is 79.191.101.135 ?

Böri (talk) 11:56, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm sure I have no idea what you are attempting to convey to me. __meco (talk) 12:05, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Meco, Böri is asking for your help with an IP who vandalized his user page. Viriditas (talk) 12:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Where do I ask this question on Wikipedia? Böri (talk) 12:12, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Böri, I see you reverted his edits. I'll warn him on his talk page.  If it happens again, you can report him at WP:AIV.  Feel free to contact me if you have any questions. Viriditas (talk) 12:15, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * these links should give you some information. It's un unregistered user who has not talk page or user page. Of course, they have no right to write things on your user page which you do not approve of. If you want I can place a warning to them not to do it anymore. __meco (talk) 12:19, 12 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you Böri (talk) 12:23, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Concerns about Viriditas
I am very concerned about the behaviour of Viriditas in Talk:United States diplomatic cables leak, for obvious reasons. He has locked his user talk page, effectively blocking all comments from other editors, so I cannot discuss my concerns with him. Do you have any suggestions, or is an ANI (etc) my only real course of action?  Uncensored Kiwi  Kiss 13:00, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think ANI is the appropriate forum, and I believe there are more editors who are concerned about the behavior of this user. As I just wrote, things may be coming to a head for them at this particular junction, so I would like to wait out the current climax to see if things calm down a bit. I would also like to add that since I have been explicitly asked to stay away from their talk page, Viriditas extend the same restraint with regards to the present page. __meco (talk) 13:09, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have opened an AN/I about User:Viriditas here.  Uncensored Kiwi  Kiss 13:48, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Forking Contents of the United States diplomatic cables leak
I have started a discussion in Talk:Contents of the United States diplomatic cables leak about the need to fork the categories in that article. I see that you have expressed concerns (and you have even nominated one fork for AfD) about forking articles about the diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks and I would value your input regarding this issue. I feel it is important because the current article is very large and unwieldy.  Uncensored Kiwi  Kiss 10:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

BoA
Hi Meco, regarding your ES we've already got some speculation about BoA being the subject of an upcoming leak in WikiLeaks. SmartSE (talk) 18:41, 18 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Oh, I wasn't aware. That's fine then. I think I'll link to that section then. __meco (talk) 19:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Ahem

 * ''This section relates to this inquiry.

See WP:BRD. I don't have to discuss anything before making a change. Also check the edit history of the page, where you will find quite a few edits of mine. I have been an admin for over five years, I know how the place works by now :-) Guy (Help!) 20:19, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I know you are an admin and that you are one of the 400 (300 actually by the most recent count) most active Wikipedians, which are both commendable merits. I myself am not an admin and can barely count myself among this project's 700 most active participants. That aside, you were making a rash edit to an article where that is bound to cause protests, so rather than having to defend your action post facto you really ought to have consulted other editors on its talk page first, especially so as you are acquainted with the working atmosphere on that particular page. There's really no reason to take offense at my notice. The message I posted on your talk page was appropriate in tone and content for any user. It was not a "n00b" warning. __meco (talk) 21:45, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
 * And I found this rather telling... "Boring"? Or ""telling"? __meco (talk) 12:34, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Re: Watchlist problem
Hi. I saw your message about watchlists on your user page. If you are interested, there is a solution, but it involves using subpages. What this means is that your watchlist would be accessible to the public. What you could do, is reserve your personal watchlist for private pages and then create a public watchlist. Then, you can create either one or many watchlists with no limit on the size. It might help if you organize by project, topic, or some other sorting criteria. You can even view all the watchlists on a single page, which is kind of neat. Viriditas (talk) 01:36, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't follow you. You do realize it's the page where changes on the watchlist is displayed that is the problem? The actual watchlist has over 23,000 entries, and a systematic pruning of it is not on the agenda. Could you try and explain what you have in mind a bit more specifically? __meco (talk) 12:35, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I can't be more clear than I already have. Viriditas (talk) 00:22, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

A Norwegian UN-soldier
Hagrup Haukland is probably notable for wikipedia.

The following link, is similar to text that I have seen in notable Norwegian media,

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3964037,00.html.

His name is prominent in regards to the UN-forces witnessing the Srebrenica massacre. He was the commander of the UN-forces witnessing the massacre, according the following link, *http://www.nytid.no/arkiv/artikler/20050727/blank/. (But I suspect that he actually might have been commander of the commander.)
 * http://www.vg.no/nyheter/utenriks/artikkel.php?artid=106292m.

And his name might be prominent in regard to UNIFIL /NORBATT. http://m.nrk.no/m/artikkel.jsp?art_id=17315471

FYI. And keep up your good work.--Sølvguttene (talk) 06:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Right. This looks promising. I think I can patch together an article with this. __meco (talk) 10:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

A Norwegian ISAF-soldier & arguments for a seperate article about him
Rune Wenneberg has been a guest on a TV-talk show that is in its 3. season of being shown in both Sweden and Norway. And he is already mentioned in the following linked article, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skavlan#Season_3_.282010-11.29, as Major Valhall.

There also was a full-page in a national newspaper this month (Aftenposten, 2010-12-11, page 4 by Kristin Høiland). He has previously received extensive media coverage in print media and otherwise. --Sølvguttene (talk) 04:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Arguments for a re-direct of Rune Wenneberg
One might argue that his name should be re-directed to the article about the military unit where his service has received the most media attention — Telemark Battalion.

--Sølvguttene (talk) 04:17, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Arguments against a seperate article and against a re-direct
One might claim that he is not notable enough. (A number of us Norwegian speakers, get a little bent out of shape when discussing military subjects. I.e. the deletion of articles about the  Armadillo-base and soldier  Ben Griffin  on wikipedia-Norwegian on grounds of notability/relevancy.)

Or, he is notable enough for wiki-norw (http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rune_Wenneberg), but not in English.

--Sølvguttene (talk) 04:33, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Surveillance Detection Unit
Surveillance Detection Unit — might that be a notable subject, judging by The latter reference, on page 5, claims that the players in Oslo, include Olaf Johan Johansen, Gunnar Tveit
 * http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveillance_Detection_Unit
 * http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveillance_Detection_Program
 * Dagbladet, 2010-11-04, page 4 "Fra norske polititopper til CIAs hjelpere" (Harald Klungtveit)


 * VG, "Skatt? ved USAs ambassade er det frivillig ", 2010-11-12, page 34 ?

--Camouflage Sutra (talk) 08:51, 21 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Absolutely. I've been expecting it. __meco (talk) 10:59, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

Removal of prod notice
Hello. You recently removed a prod notice added to Surveillance Detection Unit with the edit summary "There's tons of coverage on this group in several countries". Per the prod notice guidelines, "You may remove this message if you improve the article or otherwise object to deletion for any reason. However please explain why you object to the deletion, either in your edit summary or on the talk page." Currently, the stub article does not indicate any notability, and has two references, one of which is a link to a small news report on Österreichischer Rundfunk. Please remember WP:NOT. On Wikipedia, we generally deal with encyclopedic topics that have significant coverage in reliable secondary sources. Viriditas (talk) 01:50, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I have redirected the stub to Contents of the United States diplomatic cables leak. The references provided neither support the claims made nor indicate any notability.  This is another bogus, unencyclopedic article created based on the mention of the subject in WikiLeaks cables. Viriditas (talk) 01:59, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as I know this has nothing to do with the United States diplomatic cables leak. Also you make damning assessment of the sources without having even read them. __meco (talk) 10:14, 22 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It looks like you are the one who hasn't read the sources. It is getting news coverage because people are looking through the WikiLeaks cable release for supporting documents. Again, Wikipedia is not Wikinews. Viriditas (talk) 11:40, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Ridicule move
I don't see the point of it. Wikipedia isn't a dictionary, and the only other Ridicule entry I could find is an episode of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit (season 3). P.S. What is this 1000 article limit of which you complain? I've got way more than that on my watchlist. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:19, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It's the 1,000 views limit. That makes me keep track of recent changes if I'm away from Wikipedia for more than 12–15 hours. __meco (talk) 22:02, 23 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I too see no reason for the move, and have reverted it. You didn't update any of the incoming links, nor make any use of the freed-up article title Ridicule, which made life easier. PamD (talk) 19:41, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: Deletion review for List of deaths related to scientology
In the future, I would prefer if you'd discuss with the closing admin (in this case, me) before listing an article at DRV. User:Coffeepusher contacted me at midnight EST, and you listed the article for review 3 hours later, thus not allowing me to explain my decision before discussion. L Faraone  01:52, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

Changes to Years hierarchies
Category:History of countries by period has existed since 23 December 2007 and was not created by me. It makes more sense to categories years, decades, centuries and milennia together in such a category. To place a decades category as a subcategory of a years category goes against general categorisation principles because decades are more general than years i.e. something could happen in the 1980s in Norway, but if it happened in 1980 in Norway, that is more specific. Tim! (talk) 17:34, 29 December 2010 (UTC)