User talk:Pedant/2007-06-07

Short message/Long message
Leave short messages here or if you have a really long message please post it here and sign here.

Helpful links
A synopsis of Wikipedia policies can be useful. If you have a problem, it helps to know what the relevant policy is. A gentle introduction to 'why we have rules when even the rules can be edited by anybody' can be found at Pillars of the Community.

Don't let 'problems' with other editors become disputes. Other editors are working on the same article you are for a reason... you have something in common! Instead of an edit war, try collaboration and maybe you will find some valuable help in improving the article. Those other editors are your colleagues, they deserve the same respect and assistance as you do.

NOTICE
I try to handle adovocacy cases very informally (I have never needed to go beyond a brief advocacy process in any of my cases) in an effort to reach a resolution as quickly as possible without undue stress for those concerned. If you see me making comments on discussion pages, for articles which I have not edited, I may be doing so as part of the advocacy process. I might express opinions which are not necessarily my personal opinions sometimes because of this. User:Pedant

Archived Talk
Archive 1 2004-11-19/Archive 2 2004-11-24/Archive 3 2005-01-14/Archive 4 2005-02-27/Archive 5 2006-03-22/Archive 6 2006-08-19/Archive 7 2006-08-19

Category tool
Using: you can place a Category Tree, rooted in any category, on a page:

Juxtaposition of user boxes
=Messages:=

hmmmmm
Pendant, your recent edit summaries have crossed into Personal Attacks on Viritas, please refrain for doing this. If it countiues I will have no choice but to report you. I have cautioned Viritas as well for his behavor. Æon Insanity Now! EA!  22:54, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

No worries
I accept your apology as I hope you will accept mine. I think we can work everything out. I feel terrible about Founders4's departure, but I hope he returns. We have all made mistakes, and as long as we can admit them, we can move on to the next level. I'm looking forward to your contributions. &mdash;Viriditas | Talk 22:06, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Message
Thanks, I'll think about it. I like what you have done so far. --Guinnog 18:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi
First, sorry again if my English is too bad 'cause your Spanish isn't at all :) I followed your suggestions on posting what did I think should remain on Keane article but Richyard doesn't agree with my reasons so I don't know how are we supposed to collaborate. His advocates on saying that information is irrelevant and we cannot take information from fansites, only from official sites. The thing is the "irrelevant" information was removed a long time ago by Painbearer and FlyingNelly so what's left and he insists on deleting is actually interesting and well referenced information. I don't see a reason for delete it. About the fansites, if you visit Keane.at or Keaneshaped, you'll find out there's even more information than the found on the official page, well sourced since the owners (Markus Unger, Girid Obertleiner and Karin Englheart for the Austrian and Chris Flynn for the British) have near contact with Keane through interviews (some important media like Teletext has even took keane.at as a reference for their news) And now, the thing has gone out of Keane-related articles. Last week, he deleted an article about an important Mexican politician (Gustavo Baz) saying this: Nominated for deletion. Article doesn't qualify subjects notability, or give any real details of his life You can't see how the article was but certainly was better than the current revision. Being a stub and brand new article, it was quite reasonable why it was short. Now I think is not about contributing to the Wikipedia but more like bothering me. Gustavo Baz to Keane is like Apple to Cell Phone. The only way he could found the article is by checking my user contributions isn't it? Hope all this trouble can be solved soon--Fluence 00:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Storm over?
So Pedant, do you reckon the storm is over? Or is this a temporary lull, the eye, so to speak?Founders4 08:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm pretty much waiting as well. I've done a couple of minor things, but I have no taste for confrontation, particularly with non-collaborative personalities.  I'll probably wade in slowly and see what happens, starting with some non-controversial stuff.


 * The article looks quite forlorn the way it is! Some of what was done was useful, and I have always felt that sourcing is important, but the basic tenor has changed so much (especially the lead) that the article no longer works very well.    I suspect that only former (or present) hippies have a true feel for the topic.


 * It seems that almost any statement can be sourced given the volumne of literature and commentary on the subject. Sourcing offers no protection against distortion, and therein lies the problem.


 * BTW do you suppose the Reagan quote is just an annoying joke? Certainly there can be no pretense that this adds anything to a reader's understanding of the topic. Founders4 08:12, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Pedant. A bit of your time if possible. Two issues. My Escape from Samsara bit needs an escape from samsara alias. Do I modify the original entry or create a new one and forward it. Also, I created an entry for Worthy Farm and put in a pic, which then got deleted cos I didn't do the copyright thing properly. Trouble is, someone has forwarded the page to Glastonbury Festival and I can no longer edit it to remove the broken link, which looks sloppy. Any help gratefully received. User:Wizardprank

Keane
I think I am really digusted of Wikipedia ability to restrain offenders and illwishers. I think that the complete disregard of Fluence to my edits and my persona is punishable. But you just came like Gandalf and you just said that: "Oh, my dear little hobbits, what do we have here? You should work like team!" Well, I don't think it's useful. I think it's useless. Where I tried with all my kindness and tactfulness to be reasonable to assume good faith (gosh, how I hate that word) that dude Fluence disregarded my work, reverted it, acted derisively and disrespectfully. I am really, really disappointed of that. First in my work here, I am extremely dissatisfied of the way control works here.

I don't know. I think I will fuck off and get a rest. We'll see.
 * Regards: Painbearer 16:16, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Pedant. See? That's exactly my point. I'm not really guilty for this. We'd agreed previously with a version of the article (with Mr. Scare) and I thought he was satisfied with that version. However, after adding just a paragraph (hidden due to a format failure) and two music samples, I finally let the article to be. Soon, Painbearer reverted again the edits and therefore, I reverted his. Somehow, Mr. Scare wrote this:

I don't recall "reaching a concensus". I did my best to make this article make sense but you've continued to try to drag it back to the miserable state it used to be in. Endlessly reverting and comparing the utterly insignificant Keane to the greatest band ever just serves to make you look like an idiot. Shut up, Fluence. Mr. Scare 16:17, 13 October 2006 (UTC) I'm fed up with this users. I tried to show my point of keeping some information as you saw on the talk page, just like you told me to but they're just uncapable to understand. I really need help. Take a look at the current version of the article and you'll se is not the "bad article" Painbearer thinks it is--Fluence 21:59, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It was me who requested advocacy if you remember. It is understandable to take his side. I didn't expect it to work. Yet, again, I must say that I am disappointed in the way it all turned to be. Simply because there is no justice here. Simply because User Fluence is acting like innocent, instead when he is to blame for the situation. This is frustrating I assure you. Think whatever you want, I really don't care at this point. User Fluence repeatedly claimed ownership on this article. If you see the history of Keane you will notice that wherever and whenever it was necessary I always have put a reason behind my edits, which were reverted by Fluence. Such a petty behavior from your side "asking permission for every edit" is highly insulting for me and my abilities as a capable editor.

Calling me uncivilized is a passable insult. I have always tried with reason before. We have always tried with reason. But you see, whether or not I do say fuck of shit matters not, because it is really frusrtating to try to reason with someone who blames you, frames you and is overall insulting and disrespectfull towards you and your work. This is what Fluence is. I don't demand an apology, I don't hope for one. You can see, there are always to sides of coin. I told you back then that things will get ugly. Surely, they did get. I don't like it, but it happened. Take Fluence side if you want, I really don't care, but I am making a statement regarding Fluence on this issue. I won't work on Keane anymore, because I am heavily disgusted, but I certainly hope for not crossing his path ever again. It is a disgrace and insult for me as a person and editor to have him around me.

Call me uncivilized if you want. It is a conscious choice for me to preserve my personal dignity and not get involved anymore into this issue. I don't want to speak with Fluence ever and I don't want to work on Keane anymore. Simply because I don't see any kind of meaning in this. I cannot collaborate with User Fluence. I don't want to work with him anymore so I am backing off.
 * Regards: Painbearer 14:19, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * In my opinion in his current state the Keane article sucks. In my opinion this is a testament to the other editors unwillingness to contribute to the article while Fluence is conducting "work". I don't see User:Richyard, User:Flyingnelly and other people, who refused to work anymore while Fluence is working on the article. I refuse to work on the article, too and I regard it as a "stillborn"-article. And I am striving for full-fledged works.
 * About the other thing, I don't know really. My personal advice is to browse the history of Keane and it talk page and see for yourself what is the truth. If you want to have an in-depth knowledge about the situation: you can do it. I am heavily disappointed, however. I don't want to brag about it, but I just want to see some kind of... justice, you might call it. True, meaningful and good justice. Because giving a shoulder to Fluence just wasn't the right thing IMO. I respect your opinion, mate, but I think you made a mistake. I think that Fluence is not a very good editor, nor he is very good person. Perhaps this is from age, but his behavior wasn't the best thing around, you know. However, I hope that things are gonna change, sooner or later. Preferably sooner, though later works for me too.
 * Regards: Painbearer 16:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Working Man's Barnstar and Barnstar of Diligence
Hi! evrik suggested I contact you since you're associated with WikiProject Awards. After some discussion about changing the name of the "Working Man's Barnstar" to something gender inclusive, we realized that there is not much distinction between "Working Man's Barnstar" and the "Barnstar of Diligence". In order to avoid an overly-PC rename of "Working Man's", and given that there's not much difference between the two anyway, I thought it'd be best to conflate the two awards and have only "The Barnstar of Diligence." Your opinion on the matter would be much appreciated! The discussion can be found here. Cheers! -- Merope Talk 17:44, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes!..yes!...yes! Just in...ya gotta see this.
Many of the earliest San Francisco hippies were former students at San Francisco State College (later renamed San Francisco State University) who had "dropped out" after they started taking psychedelic drugs and began living communally in the large, inexpensive Victorian apartments in San Francisco's Haight-Ashbury neighborhood. Young Americans around the country began moving to San Francisco, and by June, 1966, around 15,000 hippies had moved into the Haight. This constituted the original core of the hippie movement, comprised of people with historical roots and the beginnings of a political and social analysis. A second wave, larger, younger and without an analysis and commitment that could sustain their rebellion, but nevertheless affixed with the same appellation - hippie - flooded major cities around the world in response to the publicity that followed the world's first "Human Be-in" or "Gathering of the Tribes". Knowing this basic distinction between these two sociological demographics is essential for understanding the further history of the movement. For example, it is likely that it was mostly the second wave that "copped out" and became yuppies. Many or most of the originators are probably still among us, scattered across the country and the world, having had and continuing to have a profound influence in a thousand different ways on mainstream society and culture.

that was from User:Founders4

Copped out
Hi Pedant. I understand totally re: not engaging with Viriditas. I've done it a little, but even at this remove any interaction causes a feeling in my gut that is a little sickening--overexcitation of the spleen chakra, in particular, and an emotional tone that I am not used to fielding. Very hostile, ego-centered vibe.

Actually "copped out" means to avoid a commitment or responsibility. "To cop a plea" has to do with plea bargaining.

Hope you're doing well, my friend. Founders4 05:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Association of Members' Advocates
Hi, you are receiving this message because you have listed yourself as an active member of WP:AMA. If you aren't currently accepting inquiries for AMA, or if you have resigned, please de-list yourself from AMA Members. If you are still active, please consider tending to any new requests that may appear on Category:AMA Requests for Assistance. We're going to put AMA on wheels. :) Sorry for the template spamming - we're just trying to update our records, after we had a huge backlog earlier in the week (if you've been taking cases, then sorry, and please ignore this :)). Again, sorry, and thanks! M a  rtinp23  21:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

OBL worldwide perception article AFD
You might be interested in this Articles for deletion/Worldwide perception of Osama bin Laden
 * Regards, -- That Guy, From That Show! 07:33, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Image:Bleep pic11.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Bleep pic11.jpg. I notice the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:
 * 1) Go to the image description page and edit it to add
 * 2) On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on [ this link]. Note that any fair use images which are replaceable by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. -- Chowbok 16:18, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If you dispute this, then follow the dispute procedure outlined above. The tag says, in English, "do not remove this tag". That means you should not remove that tag, especially when accusing others of not being able to read English. &mdash; Chowbok  ☠  18:54, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Image:Bleep pic11.jpg listed for deletion
An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Bleep pic11.jpg, has been listed at. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in its not being deleted. Thank you. -- Chowbok   ☠  19:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Image query
Hi Pedant. "Free for non-commercial use" is no longer a valid image status. The image must be free for all use, and released accordingly. Proto :: type  17:55, 6 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a commercial site. Images, as with all wikipedia content, must have no restrictions on use, commercial or otherwise. The GFDL does not forbid subsequent commercial use of GFDL content, providing that such content is correctly and sufficiently attributed, and remains free of copyright. Hence specifying an image as for non-commercial use only is no longer allowed. HTH. Proto ::  type  19:02, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Former Countries
I would like to invite you back to WikiProject Former countries. You were previously a member of its former incarnation WP Historical States. The objective of this project is still to improve the content and accessibility of articles on former countries. A taskforce for the states of the Holy Roman Empire has also been started and the child project on Prussia has also been revived. This restart is still in its early days but it would be great to have you back. - 52 Pickup 18:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Barnstar
You may be interested in this discussion Talk:Barnstar. --evrik (talk) 15:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Awards News
There are several issues that the WikiProject needs to address.
 * 1) Do we need a coordinator (or more than one) to coordinate our efforts and act as an arbiter? Please place your thoughts here.
 * 2) Could someone work on archiving the talk page Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Awards?
 * 3) Do we need to develop better guidelines for the WikiProject awards?
 * 4) Finally, could you please weigh in on the following discussions so we can move them to conclusion:
 * 5) LGBT Barnstar
 * 6) Islamic Award
 * 7) Working Man’s Barnstar.

Sincerely, --evrik (talk) 02:08, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Hwacha's discussion moving to an advanced level
Hi, Pedant, its me HappyApple again. I haven't been active these months on Wikipedia due to my classes at university, but now as the tests were finished i can see there is recent and suspiciously negative activity on Hwacha's article, to be brief i can say: User:Wikimachine is deliberately deleting paragraphs and subsections i created months ago (totally cited) regarding Hwacha's characteristics, on the other hand user:OrbitOne's had already deleted the paragraph of Popular culture based on this WikiProject_Military_history, I dont know where does this rule or sugggestion came out, but i believe the short paragraph which was already written filled the requirements stated on that Wikiproject page. In the aims of WP:IAR i appreciate you can assist me on this.

User:Wikimachine already asked to move Hwacha's discussion to an advanced level as i can see right here: Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-13 Hwacha popular culture, it seems he had asked for a Medication Cabal ( i am not sure what it is) but i believe i would seriously require your help in order my voice can be heard. I hope you can give me a quick response as soon as you had finished to read my message, Cheers, a wikipedian in need, --HappyApple 00:35, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * ok, the mediation cabal is another informal step, they will attempt to mediate the conflict, and attempt an informal resolution. I'm busy this weekend, but I'll check in with the discussion... in the meantime, you can make a statement about the problem at Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-13 Hwacha popular culture in the Discussion section. User:Pedant 07:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Post 2
Hi Pedant, thanks for sending me a note on my discussion page about what's a Mediation Cabal. As far as i can see, it seems this step (the mediation cabal thing) is not going anywhere and i am really confused on what i should to to settle down this issue.

These days i have been away from wikipedia due to my tests on university (still ongoing), and i am afraid i can't be answering all the questions or defending my point of view accurately in time (as they may appear) so i would appreciate you can represent me while the discussion is on.

Today i had a little bit of time to look up, what happened this week and it seems User:OrbitOne and User:Wikimachine already deleted the pop culture section. Its a pitty they have done that but at least they are not deleting the earlier referenced material which i posted.

I can't understand well what's the legal (or if does it have a legal status) of a guideline (User:OrbitOne & Wikimachine's arguments are based on this guideline which i can't figure out if it is a rule written on stone or something like this-WikiProject_Military_history). 'What is a guideline anyway?. Is it a formal rule that we editors should obbey?'. I am not familiar with it, i would deeply appreciate you can explain this better to me. Thanks again for reading my queries, cheers & happy holidays :)--HappyApple 03:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

OrbitOne/Hwacha
As HappyApples advocat, I would like to have your input on WikiProject_Military_history. HappyApple seems content on ignoring this style guideline, which is a problem if other users agree the guideline should be followed. --  Orbit  One    [ Talk 17:09, 21 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I was asking your opinion about the style guideline, thats all. You could have given your objective opinion about the guildline and how it affects this case. You did not need to be rude about it though. If you wish I did not talk with you about it, then I got the message and will leave you alone about it in the future. --  Orbit  One    [ Talk 06:57, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Then can we please work together to find a productive solution to this conflict? --  Orbit  One    [ Talk 22:52, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I do not have an oversized problem with pop culture sections, but I do have a problem with game articles being linked to from artlces that otherwise have nothing to do with the games. I am willing to accept a highly generic section that says turn based strategy games often feature, have featured or do feature this weapon. But I do strongly object to the naming of any games. In this compromise, a pop-culture section can exist, with a link to Turn-based_strategy. This way, no games need to be named in Hwacha, since any and all games of the genre that are notable will be mentioned there (Turn-based_strategy). --  Orbit  One    [ Talk 09:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


 * If you object to it, I suggest you voice your concerns on the mediation page. --  Orbit  One    [ Talk 19:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Microsoft Virtual PC
Are you really wanting a cite, or are you just not sure if it's correct or not? It's impossible for an emulation to be perfect, especially if it is connected to the real world. --Scott McNay 06:33, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, you're right, the "excellent" needs a cite. I have one (and it seems typical), but it doesn't agree with the article, so I'll change it.  The rest, no. --Scott McNay 00:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Afro latin american
I hope you, or someone you can refer this to can help.

I have become involved and intrigued by the challenge of putting a NPOV to Afro-Latin American. As you can see by the page history and the talk page, I've been quite involved.

My reason for coming here is another contributor (mostly to the talk page) User:Chriscarlos who posts lengthly diatribes to the talk page, often without signing his posts or putting any time stamp on them. I've requested that he do so, but he doesn't seem to care, or perhaps he doesn't read his own talk page. I think he could make some worthwhile contributions, but he seems more inclined to add to the talk page.

I don´t know what to do and wonder if someone could at least give me some guidance, and possibly lend a hand in getting over any hurdles which my have to be crossed.

Thanks in advance -- J A X HERE  |  T a l k  03:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Pedant, Thanks for getting back to me. I guess what I'm after is:
 * 1) some idea as to how to get User:Chriscarlos to be an active editor on the page rather than filling up the talk page with long dissertations on what should be done.
 * 2) how to get this user to sign and date his additions to the discussion
 * 3) how to get him/her? to follow accepted procedure and place his comments following those of others in time/date sequence.  (His failure to do so makes it very difficult to pick up on any thread of conversation and follow it through ... one has to virtually scan almost everything from day one on the talk page to see if he's added anything and, if it isn't dated one can't even be sure it's new or whatever.

I've tried to point this out to him on his talk page but, if he reads these suggestions, he simply ignores them. Also, he seems to be inconsistent in signing in and making un-logged incontributions ... there seem to be a lot of entrys from the same IP which might be him (evidenced by similar material, time proximity, corrections to earlier posts, etc)

In short, I find myself wondering if this guy is serious, or if his is some kind of a squeeky wheel that is simply looking for some kind of attention, except for the fact that he seems to provide some valuable resources on the talk page.

So, I'm just wondering if anyone (you or your group) might have some ideas of what to do in this kind of situation. -- J A X HERE |  T a l k  14:41, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Pedant for your comments. After giving you the details above I started thinking that maybe I had assumed too much ownership of the page in question because I'd taken it on as a challenge and just wanted to see it through. Obviously no one owns any page here and so, as much as I'd like to see a good or excellent article result, that is completely beyond my control ... I can add what I can, but it is always subject to modification and even the whims of others so I've decided to relax a bit on this and try a bit of your gentle nudging as it becomes appropriate. -- J A X HERE |  T a l k  13:18, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Chowbok RfC
I have begun RfC procedures for User:Chowbok. Since you've had previous disputes with him about image uploads, maybe you'd like to add your commentary? TheQuandry 02:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Millard Fillmore
Is Talk:Inherently_funny_word that it? 68.39.174.238 22:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

HappyApple's comprmise offer
Could you find this for me and put it in the appropriate section on the mediation page. You will see where it should go. Thanks! →Bobby ← 22:08, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Just for your Information
I know you are not overly happy about the change of venue for the Hwacha debate. I just wanted to let you know why I did this. There are three reasons: I just wanted to let you know why I did this. It is not out of laziness or apathy, but simply because I truly believe it allows for a smoother mediation. Also, please drop by the mediation page at some point. I've added many comments and questions. →Bobby ← 15:14, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) Organization - I think you could understand how the Talk:Hwacha page might be intimidating for a new editor to the issue. By creating a blank page (and moving relevant sections of the old debate to the new location) I can do my best to ensure that discussion flows in a clear way so that anyone can pop in and see waht's happening.
 * 2) Freedom - The mediation page created when a request is submitted is good for small disputes. However, it's preordained headers can be constricting when mediating a more complex issue.
 * 3) Clean Slate - By the time I begin mediating, debates have usually been raging for quite some time. By forcing users to recompose their positions, I hope to get a more refined understanding of the issues at play.

Umm hi
I got the thing about the adoption could you adopt me? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Newbee1222 (talk • contribs).

Hello
Hey thanks for the adoptation... hey if i think that there is a suspected sockpuppet what do i do?--Newbee1222 05:13, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

RE to your question i do games (or will try)--Newbee1222 05:15, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
This message delivered: 04:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC). '''this is a mediation about what seems to me to be horrible POV in the 911 attacks article. Yes, aircraft hit the buildings, yes the buildings fell but I believe the article in general follows the logical fallacy of post hoc ergo propter hoc, "If ya know what I mean"''' User:Pedant 08:56, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Message
Hello, just saw you message from 6 June. Thanks for offering to help however shortly after leaving wikipedia I noticed further examples of the treatment dished out to me on wikitruth.info. After some reading there it became clear that abuse, and harassment are all part of the wider (unadvertised) wikipedia experience, so it doesnt bother me now :) Fluffy999 17:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Article in need of cleanup - please assist if you can
Because I think you inserted the famous Martha Graham quotation, and I'm a newer user, I wanted to encourage you to look at my edit. I agree that your version "read" better, but I think that the precise sourcing and content I managed to find are preferable. Please also advise me if this message is appropriate, and whether I should eventually remove your reply (if any) to my talk page. Thank you. Stagehand 22:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Need help with wordless reverts and bullying behavior
I'd be delighted if you could help me with this. At the Quran Desecration Controversy article, I have been trying to add a cross-reference to the Piss Christ article, which speaks about a similar incident where a Crucifix was desecrated with urine.

The change is additive, small, and relevant, yet it's been met with bullying behavior from a couple of editors, including repeated wordles reverts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Qur%27an_desecration_controversy_of_2005&diff=97518851&oldid=97512050

Any help you can impart would be greatly appreciated.

67.175.216.90 20:21, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * is disrupting this article with an unrelated reference. He was asked to stop months ago, and the dispute over the alleged relevance of the reference was settled at that time.  He is now revert-warring to get his way. csloat 22:41, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:ADOPT
Hi there,

As a current Adopter with the Adopt-a-User program there has been some ongoing developments that we would like to bring to your attention.

A new Adopter's Area has been created where you can find useful resources and other Adopter's experiences. Please feel free to add any resources you may have found useful as an Adopter, as well as recount any experiences that you think may help others. If you know of any useful resources for new users / Adoptees then you can add them here.

Also the way the adoption process works has changed slightly. To decrease workload at Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user, on offering adoption please change the   template to    on the user's user page, and this will add the user to Category:Wikipedians having been offered adoption. Users that have already been offered adoption can always have a second or third offer, but by separating out those users that have not had an adoption offer yet, it is hoped that no one will go lacking. Furthermore numerous Adopters have been adding their details to a list of users available for adopting, to offer a more personalised service and allow new users to browse through and pick their own Adopter. The quickest way to adopt though, is still to contact users at the Category:Wikipedians seeking to be adopted in Adopt-a-user.

Finally - thanks for all your hard work, keep it up - and if you have any general questions or suggestions about the further development of Adopt-a-User please bring them to our talk page. Cheers Lethaniol 13:58, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Robert Genn
Thanks. If you've got any more, do add it. I'm sure there are more refs out there.... Tyrenius 07:05, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
 * And you, without whom Robert Genn would have been a very different story, I think. Tyrenius 23:11, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Awards
There are three proposals which need some comments. Please weigh in: Two of the three are sensitive, and thuglas is taking the whole process personally. Finally, there has never been a standard for how much support is needed for the creation of a barnstar. The LGBT star went up with seven votes, and thuglas is threatening to post his star when he gets ten supportive votes. Thoughts? --evrik (talk) Barnstar]] Two of the three are sensitive, and thuglas is taking the whole process personally. Finally, there has never been a standard for how much support is needed for the creation of a barnstar. The LGBT star went up with seven votes, and thuglas is threatening to post his star when he gets ten supportive votes. Thoughts? --evrik (talk)
 * Moving the LGBT Barnstar
 * Changes to The Editor's Barnstar
 * New_Proposals - Neuroscience_Barnstar
 * Changes to The Editor's Barnstar
 * New_Proposals - Neuroscience_Barnstar


 * Once again, someone disagrees with my interpretation of our very loose guidelines. Now I don't mind when two users like WJBscribe and Kathryn_NicDh%C3%A0na, but they've taken the disagreement and posted negative comments over at that RFC.


 * So ... could you please weigh in one last time ... new barnstar or a wikiproject award Barnstar_and_award_proposals/New_Proposals. Thanks. --evrik (talk) 23:00, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Questions about edits
Hello Pedant, I'm just wondering about some recent edits to the page I put up on Bob Arno. I read the Help:Diff page, but on comparing the new and previous versions of the Bob Arno page, I don't see that all the red colored items were changed at all. Also, I'm wondering why the external links were removed. I see that some other pages list and link to articles, profiles, interviews, etc. Remember: you invited me, long ago, to bug you with questions! Thanks for your help. Mercurie 19:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

I have thrown my hat into the ring for Medcom. Would you be kind enough to give an opinion of me. Sorry to bother. G e  o. Talk to me 06:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Awards Coordinator referendum
There has been some conflict at WikiProject Awards. Please vote on the Coordinator referendum. --South Philly 20:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

User:Scumbag AMA case
I had thought User:Hbdragon88 was interested in this one, but I can do it. I will be on Wikibreak for close to a week soon, so I can't address it other than a brief message or two until then. Best, --Shirahadasha 15:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Mattisse's Case
Hey Pedant. I'm currently looking for an Advocate who would be willing to take back up Mattisse's Case as I do not have the capacity to deal with it anymore. Would you be up for it? אמר Steve Caruso ( desk / AMA ) •  Give Back Our Membership!  15:22, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Rutabaga and badger muffaletta
Hey, Pedant. I was over at the Department of Fun and noticed your edit from August, 2006 where you mentioned that you were looking for the person who said Millard Fillmore ate a rutabaga and badger muffaletta. After just a little wiki-sleuthing (Ronbo76 gave me a head start), I've found the user who made the edit in question; it was Deltabeignet. Thought you'd still like to know. Happy editing!  W ODU P  02:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Ronald McDonald/George Voorhees?
Regarding this: The ronald mcdonald material concerning willard scott and george voorhees was correct, documentable and verified by me personally. I have seen the costume and a newspaper clipping, as well as been told the story by the 2 co-creators in front of another clown that was a contemporary witness. The information is not disputed by mcdonalds. It should be restored.Pedant 22:02, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I realize this is kind of old by now, but I only recently looked at the "Ronald McDonald" entry in Wikipedia. I'd be interested in finding out if your "George Voorhees" is the same person as my "George Voorhis" who was the Ronald McDonald in personal appearances in the SoCal area for 20 years from the mid-60's to the mid 80's. Jimmknows 20:05, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Apparently so, George and Terry both played the role until some time in the 80's. I've seen the original costume and there is no doubt that the modern costume is descended from that one.  In the original, the french-fry-bag pockets are actual paper french fry bags.  Terry actually played the role first, but George was the first to make it into print as Ronald.
 * Neither of them was paid for creating the character and costume, and persona, of what is now one of the most valuable trademark characters in the world, and McDonalds used their vast financial resources to sue George Voorhees to keep him from portraying a character which was at least partly his own creation, and which certainly was a shared intellectual property belonging to him and Terry.
 * They've done a lot to keep the story from surfacing, and done as much as possible to quietly discredit the origin story. Note that they have not sued Wikipedia to have the information removed, but that the article is frequently edited to remove or change information about RM's origin.  Like the 'when his homosexuality came to light' he was enjoined from portraying...etc. -- George Voorhees was not as far as I know a homosexual, nor have I ever read anywhere but wikipedia that he was. User:Pedant 20:59, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

George told me that the Willard Scott story is true. But George did have a lot to do with the evolution of Ronald from Willard's version to the one that everyone now knows. I can't remember the name of the advertising agency that employed George, but he did portray Ronald McDonald for 20+ years in Southern California. So I don't know where the information that he was enjoined from being Ronald came from. He died in 1989.Jimmknows 14:07, 18 May 2007 (UTC)


 * The Willard Scott story is true, to a point, (Willard did play the character in 3 tv spots) but he did not create the character (who had been played at least once by both George and Terry, prior to the filming of the ads) and the costume was a blatant copy of George and Terry's original.

In the very first tv ad, a kid says to Ronald (Willard Scott) "You really ARE Ronald MacDonald" which implies that the character was already existent, rather than being introduced for the first time.

The information about being legally enjoined from playing Ronald was told to me by Terry, in George's presence, so I assume it to be true... this was about 1984 or so. I have tried but haven't found any court documents or the like to support it.

I have Terry Teene's address if you want to research this further (avoiding of course original research). User:Pedant 01:27, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

My thought is that Willard Scott, George Vorhees and Terry Teene should all take credit for creating Ronald McDonald.

I knew George Voorhis as well and he said that Willard Scott was the first one to create Ronald McDonald. George and Terry Teene created the second version that everyone knows well and has been the mascot since the 1970's. But Willard Scott did create the first version. Randyga7755 (talk) 19:38, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Pamela Gregory
Hello! I've nominated the above article for deletion, as I can't seem to find anything on IMDB about her and you created the article. Do you have any source info to help confirm this person existed? Lugnuts 19:22, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

That makes two articles about notable real people that I've written that have been deleted as hoaxes. Her Obituary appears on page 20 of Below the Line Magazine December 4, 2006. All of the information in the original article is confirmed by the obituary. User:Pedant 04:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:D2jsp screenshot - WarCriminalBush.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:D2jsp screenshot - WarCriminalBush.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 00:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Tarot stub template
Inspired by your comments in some page histories, I've created a tarot stub template. Template:Tarot-stub Smiloid 01:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

speedy
Thanks for spotting that "proprietary unestablishment" is nonsense. I'm about to delete it, of course, but it is a little easier to evaluate  articles before getting rid of them if you just add the speedy notice to the top and don't blank the content also. Just a friendly hint. DGG 21:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Christer Fuglesang
You seem like a serious editor, so I'm going to assume good faith and tell you straight out; the blog you're using as source for your new (now removed) section in Christer Fuglesang is not Fuglesang's official blog, it's a very obvious fake. EditorInTheRye 11:21, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * The constant spelling errors and poor grammar, it's never been officially acknowledged as legitimate, and another editor pointed it out on the talk page of Christer Fuglesang. What's your source for asserting it's not fake? EditorInTheRye 22:19, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry about that, the fact that the rfa wasn't properly closed properly by a 'crat led me to believe that it was still open, and yes, I wanted to bring this up if there was the slim chance that you were running for adminship, it's nothing against you personally, I just don't want admins trusting illegitimate sources blindly. Also, please consider this post, it's what convinced me it's fake. EditorInTheRye 22:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * If a former admin is a bad user, then what counts as good? EditorInTheRye 22:39, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Maybe 'bad user' is a bit too harsh, but look through his contribs. I personally don't trust users who make comments like "If it wasn't fake" in an edit but in the summary "Smells like a fake".


 * To me a 'good user' (besides being currently active) is someone who sources everything and doesn't make allegations without providing evidence. I don't have to 'trust' a source, but only reference it... if the source is bad then its easy to delete the relevant info.


 * The blog appears legit to me, at least on the surface. The point I'm trying to make is, maybe it is a fake, but where is the evidence, or the reference? 'Obli sez it smells fakey' isn't a reference.  He posted a fake looking video is a bit better, but still is original research unless there is some definitive proof that the vid is fake and in which case, I want to see it.


 * I am not trying to have an argument with you, you are relatively new and I am just trying to help you become a 'good user'. I have pretty high standards, but I'm sure you would want your actions to be unassailably correct.  I'm just pointing out that you speedied a redirect, and deleted information, without reliably sourced third party information.  Show me good evidence or third-party references and I will make efforts to have the blog itself deleted.


 * I hope you understand: this isn't about you deleting info I posted, just about the right process for deleting it. Neither of us, at this point, can say one way or the other whether the blog is fake.  If either of us can find a reliable source that answers that question, we should let the other know.


 * In future, please discuss changes, before making them, if the change is based on "smell". That's my recommendation.  You could be a good user, which I think is a higher calling than becoming an admin.

User:Pedant 23:11, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Unless I'm mistaken, aren't reliable sources required for adding material? It shouldn't be required to remove material, it's like adding some random factoid to an article and demanding that a publication debunks it before it can be removed, and surely, neither NASA nor Fuglesang are going to give any attention to the fake blogger, it'd just make his day. Also, the blog is almost exclusively linked by Swedish blogs: EditorInTheRye 23:25, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * No, reliable sources are expected for making any edit in the article namespace. Note I am not disagreeing with you, I'm finding more that leads me to believe that 1)the blog is not genuine; and 2)that I was in error to rely on it as a source.  Nonetheless, some evidence that it was a fake would have been more appropriate than speedy-deleting the redirect and summarily removing the text.  If you were going to remove the text, without evidence, it would be more appropriate to remove the text by copying it to the talk page, stating that you feel it was not sourced appropriately, that it came from a blog which looks to you to be fake. (I'm talking about impeccable behavior, here, which I assume you wish to strive for, since you are willing to spend this much effort talking about it).  Also, it might be worthwhile to contact me, as the editor who added the info, to see if I had some comment on the issue, before you dash off to bad-mouth me on RfA.  I don't care about becoming an admin, but I do care about the Wikipedia, and so I have to care about its individual editors.  I hope you understand that all of this is advice along the lines of 'wanting you to be the best editor you can be', and that it is of some use to you.


 * Thanks for your patience and efforts to keep wikipedia free of bullshit... it's good to meet you. User:Pedant 23:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, you too. :) With the risk of sounding stubborn, though, I'd like to think I was just being bold and using common sense. But yes, if I ever see anything like this again I'll definitely take it up for discussion. EditorInTheRye 23:48, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense of Fuglesang Syndrome
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Fuglesang Syndrome, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Fuglesang Syndrome provides no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Fuglesang Syndrome, please affix the template to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Please note, this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion, it did not nominate Fuglesang Syndrome itself. Feel free to leave a message on the bot operator's talk page if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot. --Android Mouse Bot 2 11:37, 24 June 2007 (UTC)