User talk:SWAdair/Archive7

'''This page is an archive. Please do not edit this page. If you would like to comment on something you see on this page, please comment on my current Talk page. Thank you.'''

Dodge Challenger
Thank you very much for the help! Akloki 12:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)Akloki

Am I glad to be back?
Hi! This is the first thing that greeted me on my talk page today. How was your holidays?--Pinay06 (Talk•Email) 00:33, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for alerting me about the Exergoecology article.
SWAdair, thanks for alerting me to the copyright problem with Exergoecology. I am really not interested in the subject. I just saw it as an article that needed Wikifying. I have no intention of working on it any further. - mbeychok 17:43, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Grassy Knoll
I read your comment. I'll have to take another look. Maybe I'm missing something, but he seems to be notable.

--Kevin Murray 05:11, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I have to admit that at first glance the list of things he has worked on or is working on impressed me.  It wasn't until I did a line-by-line comparison between the article and the notability guidelines that I determined he didn't make the grade.  The bar is deliberately set high and he isn't quite there yet.  He comes close, and may very well meet those guidelines within a year or two, but right now I think he just misses making the cut.  SWAdair | Talk 05:25, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

I went back and reviewed through why I opposed the deletion. I can't and won't dispute your allegation that someone may be manipulating Wikipedia as you say, but that is independent of the criteria supporting the notabilty of the person in question. Life is not always fair, but in this case these issues are independent, and I believe that your allegations at the AfD discussion are irrelevant and unrelated. Being nefarious and notable are not mutually exclusive. Sorry to be on the other side here, as I expect that our goals will generally be aligned.

--Kevin Murray 05:29, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Again, fair enough. I can live with that.  :-)  I appreciate your taking the time to review things.  Happy editing!  SWAdair | Talk 05:34, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Your Userpage
Hello! I wonder if I can "borrow" some of your userpage icons? I love the page. It's neat and "sanitized". Mine is more like me...hehehe--Pinay (talk•email) 05:37, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * LOL, of course. It is all covered under the GFDL.  In fact, if you click "edit this page" on my userpage, you'll see where I've credited the users that I stole from.  My page is mainly based off of an old version of User:Musical Linguist's page, with a few modifications that I pieced together from other pages.  Feel free to use whatever you like.  SWAdair | Talk 05:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I will do that. I'll pick and choose. Busy night huh? Me, i got a lot of catching up to do...--Pinay  (talk•email) 06:02, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Help with User:71.135.168.81
has vandalized several articles tonight including Lindsay Lohan, Jimmy Carter, etc.--Pinay (talk•email) 07:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * He appears to have stopped, but I'll keep an eye out for him. If someone continues to vandalize past test4, you can report them at WP:AIV.  I see you're using popups now.  I think I'll give that a try, myself.  SWAdair | Talk 08:26, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I installed it sometime ago. It's cool. And really helps a lot. I can work on my articles, then check my watchlist, and do some reverts every now and then. Yes, you should try it. It comes in handy esp. with all the work that you do here in Wiki. I also have Instaview which I also love, and AWB, but i still have to learn/practice how to use.--Pinay (talk•email) 16:52, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your Help!
Iandres 08:57, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi, this is Iandres, a new comer to WIKEPEDIA. Thanks for your simple instruction on how to post reply to messages. I think I finally got it right. I observed that this WIKIPEDIA is not so USER FRIENDLY, specially because they used different and confusing HTML codes. thanks again. iandres


 * You're welcome. Here are a couple of useful links to help explain the basics of editing: the  Introduction and the Tutorial.  Once you get used to the syntax, it becomes second nature.  Of course, it takes everyone a little while to learn.  If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me.  I'm glad to see you've figured out the four tildes for the signature, but the custom here is to place those at the end of your text, so that your signature comes at the end of what you write instead of before it.  Like this --  SWAdair | Talk 09:05, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Again, Thanks
So now I placed the 4 tildes where they should be :-) One last question can I simply click EDIT (the one beside the last message and not the one above the page) to send you a reply? I use Frontpage express to edit contents of my personal blog and webpage but this WIKIPEDIA is really different. I think it will take me quite sometime before I'll feel comfortable with their page making and page editing format. I tried to download the WIKEPEDIA editor program but what I got is a zipped file containing elements which I don't have any idea at all how to install. They should have placed a READ ME file along with it. I deleted the useless file out of disappointment.  Why is WIKIPEDIA so user UNFRIENDLY? Thanks for your help. Time to log-out.

Iandres

(Iandres 09:19, 27 December 2006 (UTC))


 * When you click EDIT to the right of a section header, that lets you edit that section on that page. In other words, if you are reading your own talk page and click EDIT, you will add your message to your own talk page.  No one else will get a message that you've edited there (it acts like a message board instead of an instant messaging client).  Usually that isn't a problem because if someone is engaged in a conversation with you, they'll check back after their last edit to see if you've added anything.  If they're busy with something else it might be a while before they get a chance to check back, but they'll see it sooner or later.  If you want to be sure a user gets the message at the earliest opportunity, then you should be sure to place your message on their talk page.  Then, the next time they view a new page they'll get a notice telling them they have new messages.  Actually, Wikipedia is quite user friendly once you get used to the syntax.  A lot of things that would take long HTML commands can be done with short, simple and easy-to-remember wiki commands.  The only difficult part is learning them the first time, but once you do you'll love the ease of the new options available to you.  I find myself wishing other webpages and even e-mail offered the ease of wikisyntax.  SWAdair | Talk 09:28, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Wiki tools
How are you doing with popups? --Pinay (talk•email) 20:47, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * O, and I just got approved for this --Pinay (talk•email) 04:47, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds interesting. I'll check it out later. Yeah, isn't popups cool? not too many pages to open anymore huh? Just click on rv and it will be reverted...I am still learning vandalproof. As a matter of fact, I had only used it once when I registered and still asking/waiting for support with it. Well...--Pinay (talk•email) 04:56, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Body odour
Hi, I thought I should inform you of the "subtle" vandalism on body odour. I am not sure whether I should use the admin intervention noticeboard or whatever, but I am telling you about it because I want to make sure the vandal doesn't revert and that the "the system" should sort of deal with this in one way or another. The guy is an unusual case of a registered user (albeit with about 10 contribs for years) committing blatant vandalism. Which grade of warning is relevant here, I don't know, and I don't feel like dealing with the issue myself either. Regards, --194.145.161.227 20:43, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Evolutionary medicine
Evolutionary medicine was challenged for AfD today by an ongoing contributor soon after I editied it for NPOV, and made some edits toward neutrality. I don't now enough about the subject to tell whether it is a notable field or not. Perhaps it should be merged to another subject.

Goood luck.

--Kevin Murray 01:48, 31 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I apologize for the delay in responding. It took me 26 minutes just to check and then add a "Speedy Keep" to the AfD, what would normally have taken me about a minute and a half.  The emergency department is keeping Security busy tonight.  :-)  The AfD was nominated by a SPA imposter.  The established user who had edited the article is User:Evolu, and the nomination was by User:Evoluu.  The imposter's only edits, other than recommending "Delete" on the Sharon Moalem AfD, have been an attempt to delete this article -- first by tagging it for speedy (obviously not a CSD) and then by AfD.  SWAdair | Talk 02:35, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

help needed
Hi! May I bring this to your attention? It looks like we need your expertise on this--Pinay (talk•email) 08:51, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I really appreciate it.--Pinay (talk•email) 09:19, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not too confident to follow the process/instructions myself. BTW, The links here are pointing to U.S. now.--Pinay (talk•email) 09:36, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I meant to say some links are now pointing to U.S. agencies instead of Philippines. --Pinay (talk•email) 09:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * This was posted in WT:PINOY: - Please help me finish Portal:Government of the Philippines/Topics -- Kevin Ray 09:31, 31 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi! How is naming conventions done? What are examples? Thanks. --Pinay  (talk•email) 04:56, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I posted your comment in WT:PINOY. I hope they will pick up on it...--Pinay (talk•email) 04:35, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for reverting vandalism to my page. (I didn't notice this earlier. :-)) --Nlu (talk) 15:39, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy New Year!
Here's wishing you more blessings and more success for the New Year 2007! --Pinay (talk•email) 01:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Happy New Year
(Feliz Año Nuevo)



I wish you and your loved ones all the happiness in the world this coming year.

wrong wiki links?
I was browsing for ideas. And saw that the wiki links to this article point to wrong persons, and not the clergy. Check: this. --Pinay (talk•email) 05:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

 * The award is well-deserved! --Pinay (talk•email) 05:53, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Re the links, was interested in the statistics, that's all. LoL! Thank you for pointing that out, and for the additional resources. Will have to check them though I must admit they are too overwhelming for now...--Pinay (talk•email) 05:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

How did I do with this one then? Angus purdy
Please look at this one Angus purdy. I am about to call it a night. Amateur vandal hunt ends soon. Ronbo76 07:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!
Hate to brag, but I was on an amateur vandal patrol tonight. Another editor on New Year's Eve gave me a good idea on how to spot self-published article and BS edits. I think I done good tonight. And, I even caught one on JFK just after I left you my message. Yee-haw! Ronbo76 07:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'll take any advice you have. I *hate* to see some of these bogus self-publishers. My resume reads as good or better (I can't even mention half the stuff I did in the military (if you know what I mean). Well, the witching hour is on me and time to hit the sack! I may ask some advice on some pages I tagged tonight. Here's a quickie: Curtis Newart. Please read the talkpage on this article. Ronbo76 08:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks again for all your help and advice. I nominated three other pages and they were all deleted. Working on another one right tonight. Ronbo76 03:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.
Context note: This is in reference to a question on how to appeal the speedy deletion of an article Ronbo76 ran across before it was deleted.
 * The deletion log shows the article was deleted according to CSD A7, meaning that the article "does not assert the importance or significance of its subject." In other words, it wasn't deleted because the person was non-notable, but because the article did not assert notability.  There is a distinction there that is very important.  Any article that does not assert notability (per established guidelines) is a candidate for speedy deletion.  Rather than trying to dispute the speedy deletion, it might be easier to write a short article (stub) yourself, including an assertion of notability that meets WP:BIO.  If you believe the article did assert notability before it was deleted, you may want to discuss it with the admin who deleted the article, or else list it at Deletion review.  SWAdair | Talk 05:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Just as I read the article on Speedy Deletion and the appeal of an article you answered my helpme. I did find out who deleted it and left a message on that admin's talkpage.

I don't know if I can create a stub but will take a shot. Trust me, I felt his article was worthy of AfD, I would be one of the first to also recommend Speedy Delete.

If I have to create the page (because the admin refuses), could I send you the finished article link and ask for your opinion of the finished article? Ronbo76 05:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * And we have history. You helped me figure out the AfD process. I have 15 kills. Ronbo76 05:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Hehe... it is good that you seek out vandalism and take the necessary steps to fix it, but adding content is also important.  This will be a good opportunity for you to do that.  You might want to work on the stub in your personal sandbox before creating it in the article space.  That way you can be sure that it meets standards before putting it out there.  When you have it ready, let me know and I'll take a look at it.  It would also be helpful if you add a reference or two to the article so that it has reliable sources.  SWAdair | Talk 05:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I do contribute too when the vandals are not running rampant. Here is one of my better contribs: KUVS. I still await word from the admin.
 * Thanks again, please see another page KUVS I am proud of. And, while on vandal patrol, I shot down three vandal edits and nailed one self-deleted article. It's for ronbo76 to RTB as I am low on fuel and the smoking lamp is lit (figuratively - I do not smoke but it's a mil custom). Ronbo76 08:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ready to go live with stub article
You around? Ronbo76 07:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I am now. Looks good.  Seems to meet WP:BIO criteria "Multiple features in popular culture publications."  That version should be safe from speedy deletion.  Good job.  SWAdair | Talk 08:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the inspiration
It was tough being on vandal patrol and creating the article. I got it done and created the discussion page as well. I have some plans for the page but I want to see it fully fleshed before one thought is implemented. Ronbo76 08:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I know what you mean. I have several things I want to eventually get around to, but I need uninterrupted computer time to do them, and I can never count on that.  I end up spending most of my time on vandalism patrol because frequent (real life) interruptions don't matter there.  Occasionally I stop to help out on an article, making small "wikignome" edits.  Trying to juggle everything and research/write/source an article  is quite a challenge.  You did a good job.  SWAdair | Talk 08:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

I have included advocacy
I forgot to mention last night that I have advocated Keeps on several articles. Here is my strongest one []. Before I leave for home (a two day trip), I will count my advocacies and post a number on my talkpage. Ronbo76 18:44, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Here is my latest case for advocacy AAPLAC
Check out the histories for the before and after, AAPLAC Ronbo76 01:00, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

RE:Floating box
Thanks! After some thought, I decided just to do away with the message entirely, since it was a bit harsh, and just use the box. Gzkn 06:12, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

pop-up
Now the pop-up is working everywhere on WP. Though, the 0th section editing doesn't work. I won't ask for more help to avoid causing headaches.--Patchouli 07:31, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The process you used should do it for clearing the cache. For the complete version, see Bypass your cache.  Was the 0th section editing working last week and then stopped working?  I'm no javascript expert -- far from it -- but I'll try to help figure out the problem.  SWAdair | Talk 07:43, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Everything is now fixed including the 0th section editing. Thanks.--Patchouli 10:02, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for the help sorry about the help me thing TeePee-20.7 07:35, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You're welcome. Don't worry about the placement of the helpme request.  We don't expect new editors to know all the ins-and-outs of the system.  That's why we have the  template -- so that we can help you learn the ropes.  If you have any more questions, please feel free to ask.  SWAdair | Talk 07:39, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Ok kul thanks TeePee-20.7 07:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Need Help Please..
Hi user SWADAIR, I have been a WIKIPEDIA user since December 2006 and have contributed some materials (mostly photos) already since then. Yu have given me valuable advice on how to use the Wikipedia.

I'm Ian-James R. Andres (User:Iandres) and the MIDI sequencer of the 2 MIDI nusic sequences of the Philippine National Anthem (Lupang Hinirang) that you will find uploaded in the Wikipedia Commons. 2 Links to these 2 MIDI files which I created have been made because I gave my permission previously to the person(s) who requested for the said MIDI files to be uploaded.

On January 11, 2007 or barely 2 days after it was uploaded I changed my mind decided to WITHDRAW my permission. I requested the person (an Administrator) who uploaded my two MIDIs at the Wikipedia Commons to remove them.

The said Administrator refused to grant my request to have them removed even after I have withdrawn my permission to publish them at Wikipedia. He said and I quote:

Ian,

I am an administrator for both Wikipedia and for the Commons. The problem is that once you have given the rights to release a media file on Wikipedia, you cannot take them back. We had people try to do that before on the Commons, but have been denied the request to do so.

Regards, Zachary Harden 12 January 2006

Mr. SWADAIR, I ask for your advice as to what appropriate action I should do. I felt harassed and taken advantage of this Administrator and his Team. I want to have my two MIDIS removed. Please help. Thank you very much.

Respectfully yours

Ian-James R. Andres --Iandres 08:14, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Mr. Andres, Wikipedia and the Wikimedia Commons are two separate projects and operate by similar but different rules. Both are provided by the Wikimedia Foundation, but the rules that apply to Wikipedia are slightly different from those that apply to the Commons.  Although the files may be linked to from Wikipedia, they reside on the Commons website.  I am not familiar with all of the rules and legal interpretations of licenses allowed on the Commons.  On Wikipedia it would be a simple matter -- once something is submitted per GFDL, the right cannot be revoked.  The Commons, however, allows many more licensing options.  I would recommend that you bring this up on the Commons' Village Pump and if you don't get a satisfactory response there, you could contact the Commons directly.  SWAdair | Talk 08:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your immediate response. I'll follow your advice. But the person claim that he is also "an Administrator" of the Wikipedia Commons. Is there an over-all Administrator of the Wikipedia Commons and not just "an Administrator". I want to write my request to the "Superior". Are all these "administrors" the same or they have different levels. It would be useless to write them if all these "Administrators" are the same. But it's worth a try. Thanks again.--Iandres 09:05, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I would assume that Wikipedia and the Commons are set up along similar lines as far as administration goes. IMO, the best way to approach the matter is as I outlined above -- start by reviewing their page on licensing, then if that doesn't answer your questions, post on their Village Pump.  I would reserve contacting the foundation directly as a last resort to be used if and only if the matter cannot be settled at a lower level.  Again, I would start by reviewing the details of licensing.  It might very well be possible that the granting of rights is irrevocable and reviewing those pages could save you considerable time and effort.  SWAdair | Talk 09:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch!
Thanks a lot for your help; I didn't know that I, as a non-administrator, was allowed to warm other users. Good to know! -Vter4life 08:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi again, I have another question. Once again, vedpmehta has blanked the Ved Mehta article, only this time replaced it with a whole new 'profile' of sorts. I reverted it again, which would also be the second time today (I know about the three revert rule). I could obviously post another warning on the person's user page, but what if it keeps happening? Thanks for your suggestions. -Vter4life 18:00, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Er, it's not quite blanking, so I'm going to put up Ved Mehta so that it properly applies to what the user did. I'm still concerned about future vandalism though.. -Vter4life 18:42, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hmm... I'll help you keep an eye on the article and this user.  The  template is a nice way to warn/welcome someone.  If you see someone who continually vandalizes, the standard progession of warnings is, ,  and .  With each of those you have the option of using the -n|articlename if you want -- for instance Ved Mehta.  If they continue to vandalize past test4, you can list them at WP:AIV for administrator intervention.  Be sure to go through the entire set of warnings, waiting after each one to see if they vandalize again.  Most people will stop vandalizing after one or two warnings.  Relatively few will continue past the fourth warning.  If you see someone who is rapidly vandalizing many articles in succession, then you can skip the standard progression and use  as a first-and-final warning.  SWAdair | Talk 06:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, sounds good. I'll keep an eye out as well.  Thanks again for your help, and educating me about how to deal with vandals! -Vter4life 07:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

gmail
Please acknowledge receipt of message from gmail - for your comments...--Pinay (talk•email) 19:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
 * You have e-mail. SWAdair | Talk 06:01, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Email reply sent. --Pinay (talk•email) 06:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Sent lullabye via email. --Pinay (talk•email) 07:30, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Award
Thank you. It is the people like you who are the source of joy and inspiration. --Pinay (talk•email) 07:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Web colors and music
JUST IN CASE: Make beautiful tables from this and play beautiful music from here...--Pinay (talk•email) 11:28, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * To use Winamp (to get the OGG codec version), you need to go to the Winamp website and click the player to download. Click "get basic" then click "full." --Pinay (talk•email) 22:53, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Just sharing this quick look into the country's anti-corruption campaign. --Pinay (talk•email) 22:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Userpage
One more question on userpage in gmail. --Pinay (talk•email) 00:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Old time radio related articles
Hi. If you have the time, please take a quick skim of "Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam" when you get the chance.

It looks like there's been a big dispute over links (as well as personalities, motives, names, parentage, etc.) and that you tried to calm the players down at some point.

In your opinion, do you think there's a spam problem that WikiProject Spam volunteers should undertake to fix? If this is more content-related POV dispute over which links to include than a spam-campaign for money, then it may need a mediator/arbitrator more than a spam investigator.

Thanks for any advice you can give me. --A. B. (talk) 16:05, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello. My only involvement so far was the talk page that you saw where I tried to reduce the vitriolic nature of the comments.  I see that they are still debating the issue but at least the blatant personal attacks have stopped.  Until now I haven't made any declaration either way concerning the spam-or-not-spam nature of the links.  Since you asked, however...  :-)  I can honestly see valid points on both sides of the issue.  Removing the personalities from the picture and focusing on the facts, it seems that 1) there are an excessive number of links to libsyn.com; 2) otrsite.com is a site that exists primarily to sell products or services; and 3) the ads on freeotrshows.com are more prominent than the content link.  That indicates there could be a spam problem.  On the other hand, where a link leads to a completely free (no registration or payment required) service, it would be nice to be able to keep that link if such links do not otherwise violate WP policy.  Relevant links that provide something more than can be contained in the article are desirable.  Then again (here I am playing devil's advocate with myself) I had to inform a user who wanted to link thousands of articles or article talk pages to a free service, that even without prominent ads it would still be considered spam.  So yes, in short, I believe there are valid points on both sides and an investigation may be warranted.  Note that I'm not pre-emptively declaring the links as spam, but I do believe that a determination by an experienced, third-party spam investigator would be useful.  Now I'm left scratching my head, wondering how you can handle all of this while on a wikibreak.  :-)  SWAdair | Talk 05:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your long and thoughful response. I will stay out of this for now. I think the involved parties need some sort of arbitration or mediation process first, perhaps starting with an RFC. This is a content and personality conflict as much as it is a spam concern; I believe community consensus is more effective in those situations than an indvidual such as myself just sticking his hand into the buzzsaw. --A. B. (talk) 13:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You may wish to take a peek at User talk:76.170.239.56 again, particularly the Crime Club thread. Awhile ago you refactored some comments to remove personal attacks, but it appears to be happening again, not only from this anonymous editor, but by others as well. Since I have in the past contributed to the "discussion" here, I can't do anything myself without there being an impression of conflict of interest. 23skidoo 16:38, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for bringing that to my attention. I left a message for both of them at User talk:76.170.239.56 and left appropriate warning templates on both talk pages.  I've been bending over backwards giving multiple chances to prove that people can conduct themselves appropriately when warned, but it seems that this might be a hopeless case.  From this point on, no more talk-page-only discussions.  From now on, it will be templates and noticeboards until the behavior is changed or the editors involved are blocked.  Sheesh!  LOL, oh well, thank you again.  Happy editing!  SWAdair | Talk 05:36, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

I have just read some of this anonymous editors comments about me. Please advise what action I can take as I consider his comments about me to be libellous. Obviously since he's hiding behind an and IP and I, of course, am "hiding" behind a nickname, I'm not talking about legal action. But I think it's time we stop pussyfooting around with him and do what he's actually requesting we do an permaban him. But again I can't do anything without coming off as pushing some agenda or being a "sockpuppet" or whatever. And to my knowledge his comments about me have not gone beyond his talk page, so this isn't the same as him making these claims in a more public forum. If you see any comments of this nature addressed towards me in any forum beyond his talk page, I'd appreciate knowing about it. Thanks for any advice. I've already done the Internet equivalent of biting my tongue on this (i.e. I typed up a strongly worded and possibly actionable response and then deleted it without posting, to get it out of my system). I still think he is eligible for permabanning as he's insisting on editing from an anonymous IP despite being a registered user. 23skidoo 06:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Please note that in order to remain a neutral party in this situation, I am simply pointing you toward appropriate policy. I would rather not become involved in any libel dispute.  I intend to focus solely on the flame war nature of the discussions.  In order to remain neutral I'll have to give you the same advice I would give Dennis if he were to ask about how to handle libel, so here goes:  First is a recognition that Libel only says libel isn't tolerated.  It doesn't give a resolution process other than contacting the foundation.  The proper way to handle such a dispute on-wiki is to follow Resolving disputes.  Please note that the very first step listed for dispute resolution is to talk to the other parties involved.  Keep in mind all the conduct and communication related policies (WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, WP:EQ, etc.) when discussing the issue and be sure that you are abiding by those policies.  Violating those policies at this first step would look bad if third-party assistance is needed later.  The object should be to see if you can resolve the issue in a civil manner.  If that doesn't meet with satisfactory results, then there are other options listed.  Skipping that first step, though, would be a bad thing.  The dispute resolution process should be followed step by step, making every effort to resolve things at the lowest level possible.  ADVICE FOR ANYONE INVOLVED IN A DISPUTE:  Avoid loaded words; comment on content and not the person; eliminate adjectives and adverbs where possible; if you must use an adjective or adverb, choose the softest / least-loaded one; do not make accusations that cannot be proven with a diff.  SWAdair | Talk 07:05, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Comments noted and appreciated. Thanks! 23skidoo 14:56, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

English and non-English references
Context note: This is in reference to this comment. Yes I know it.I was also indulging in it. But that doesnt mean that we cannot use non-English citations. He's removing my English citations as well. Wikipedia policy doesnt say that we cannot use non-english sources. There are thousands of citations quoted in numerous articles of wikipedia. Plz tell how can i stop his removal of info? Sarvabhaum 11:06, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Probably the best way to handle it is to bring it up on either the article talk page or his talk page. You might ask that he not revert but selectively edit to remove only the non-English references.  Also, on your part, it would be best if you only used verifiable (English) references, and if you feel that you absolutely must include a non-English reference, do that as a separate edit.  If you leave that as your last edit, then it will be easier for someone to revert *only* that part without reverting your other (non-controversial) edits.  SWAdair | Talk 11:12, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Good suggestion. But isnt it unfair to remove Marathi citations and push a certain POV? I have discussed and tried to end up the feud by allowing Kannada script at yadavas of devagiri but he is being too inconsiderate. He uses a English book written by a proud Kannadigas and uses it everywhere naturally the article goes his way. Its important to inlclude others views as well. Chalukya and Yadava/rashatrakuta are integral part of Maharashtra's history.Sarvabhaum 11:30, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

If u see wiki policy it does allow using non-english books as well. This guy deletes because he has strong hatred against Marathi language and people. I have discussed this many times on talk page. Add to that,he is a senior user he gets the benefit of doubt. Sarvabhaum 11:32, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

my tag line
I thank you very much for the appreciation of that phrase, for I made it up myself. Possibly I should make a userbox out of it. If you want to use it, perhaps you could say something like "as DGG says on his user page, ..."

Thanks!
Thanks for clearing that up for me! --Emevas 19:53, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

update
in gmail. --Ate Pinay (talk•email) 03:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Your last observation on my talk page
Context note: This is in reference to conversations at User talk:76.170.239.56 and, most recently, this edit. SWAdair | Talk 04:35, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Excuse me, but I took extremely great pains to specifically avoid directly accusing you of anything. If you wish to stop the flame wars then step in to stop the libel--or find someone who will. How difficult is that? As to your obviously well intentioned suggestion to report the libel, I have to tell you how laughable that suggestion is.  Either you're very naieve or you've never been libeled in such a naked, sustained, public fashion.  There are no effective means of preventing, reporting, or defending against this naked, repeated, outrageous, utterly baseless libel.  You know it, and the libelers clearly know it--and capitalize and count on it. Certainly no means that will result in it being excised from public view, and clearly no means by which the libeler is ever sanctioned by the most strenuous, effective, permanent means.  They've learned through repeated libel, that their libel goes unsanctioned over and over and over and over again. You still fail to respond to the libelers 'running under the skirt' of your talk page to alert you to the brouhahah their libel has generated--yet again.  I repeat for your edification, there is no--repeat no--current effective defense against this naked pattern of libeling anyone who challenges the spammers, link abusers, and their ilk. None. Not on Wikipedia anyway.  Show me even one effective avenue and I'll pursue it. This entire libel issue is obscene, pure and simple. It rises to hate speech on occasion, and has no place whatsoever within Wikipedia, but all that's ever sanctioned is the language, not the libel.76.170.239.56 08:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Let me disabuse you of some apparently fanciful misapprehension you seem to hold: libel absolutely does harms the libelee. In some instances it harms the libelee for months or years.  In my specific situation, my entire reputation on the internet has been based upon being an effective, conscientious, dependable steward of Golden Age Radio preservation.  I've gone to great pains in the past 5 and a half years, to specifically avoid any appearance of conflicts of interest by specifically refusing all advertising on my site, and yet these spammers have embarked on a widespread campaign to harm my reputation.  They contend, however tortured their logic, that my one page out of 1229, suggesting donations to support my efforts, makes me 'just another money-grubbing commercial site'.  My continued refusal to accept advertising of any kind has unquestionably cost me a great deal in potential additional revenue, but one simply cannot establish oneself as a Golden Age Radio Preservation promoter, while at the same time capitalizing on the very subject one purports to preserve, promote, and protect.  Hence all I have left is my site's reputation, painstakingly established over 5 and a half years.  It's self-evident that anyone that would actively campaign against the naked commercialization of Golden Age Radio, is going to be a very visible target of the proliferation of spammers, inferior quality CD and .mp3 vendors, groups of 'OTR' hoarders that acquire new material by whatever means available to them, immediately downsample it--thus effectively destroying it's only intrinsic value, distribute it via 'distros' to thousannds of other 'OTR' hoarders at either some nominal cost in postage, CD's, or trade, then ultimately post all of it on streamload or Media Max, or some other file-sharing mechanism, and thus proliferate hundreds of thousands of inferior renditions of some dedicated collector's original, painstaking preservation and encoding effort.  Even worse, in time, the inferior rendition of the preservationist's efforts, based purely on the overwhelming numbers of inferior copies circulating, becomes believed to be the encode of record for that particular episode, program, or historical recording.  That simply deprives the small percentage of genuine Golden Age Radio Preservation inspired collectors of the opportunity to hear the best rendition possible of a particular recording.  I'm not being naieve myself by any means.  Commerce has it's place, obviously.  Honest, moral commerce; providing the best possible product or service for it's target audience or customers.  I have no argument with that ideal.  I have my personal doubts about how effectively it's being upheld in the current era, but in principle it's one of the bases upon which our very successful economy was developed.  But it certainly doesn't justify the proliferation of outright immoral behaviour within the 'OTR' community--or any other aspect of society for that matter.76.170.239.56 08:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Being one of those encoders myself, as well a producer of thousands of original Golden Age related artwork myself, I can certainly sympathize, but that's not my objection here. My objection here is Wikipedia's tacit endorsement of the most vile, underhanded, reprehensible libel, with no recourse whatsoever to the libelee. That's immoral.  There's no other word for it. Yes it's unjust, deceitful, misleading, and uncivil, but it's the pure immorality of the practice that's the most shameful and harmful. To date, every single libel levied at me personally, and my site and it's operation, stands without refactoring, or deletion within the Google-searchable pages of Wikipedia.  And here's the most insidious, venal, reprehensible aspect of the situation:  the libelers then compound the libel, by distributing, amongst their own Yahoo, Google, IRC, or UseNet groups and forums, that same libel as if it's indisputable fact--and of course it remains undisputed because they never offer the target any means of redress or rebuttal.  That's been the coward's way throughout history: 'whispering campaigns'. A proven effective way of libeling--even eventually destroying--either an individual or a class of individuals.  And the modus operandi is always the same.  Indeed, the libel may as well be fact, because Wikipedia tacitly endorses it. You'd do well to stop being such a Pollyanna about this and face the reality of the effect of these naked libeling campaigns. It's one thing to campaign spam on archive.org, Wikipedia, DMOZ or any other well meaning vehicle they attach themselves to like a cancer.  As with all things reprehensible as our civil society continues to deteriorate, the inclination of most of the apathetic majority of society is to simply not get involved in defeating such naked violations of justice, civility, American Ideals, or The Golden Rule.  They just hold their nose and look the other way--or even worse, they eventually buy into the libel campaign and accept it as fact.  This simply creates a more fertile 'petri dish' for the bottom feeders in every facet of the dregs of society.  So no, your comments are not just, they don't address the base problem, they don't defuse or redress the libel, and they do nothing whatsoever to further Wikipedia's higher aims.  That's the long and short of it. 76.170.239.56 08:30, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I understand what libel is and the effects it has. As I have made clear both on your talk page and further up this page, I have no intention of getting involved in a libel dispute.  Period.  If you want corrective action taken, then you need to initiate it.  I'm not going to do it for you, and I have explained why.  You've seen the response I gave to 23skidoo when asked.  It seems to me that you somehow feel justified in continuing a flame war.  That is not appropriate.  If you really believe you're being libeled, then follow the proper procedures, but do not engage in incivility.  Also, I have made it abundantly clear in mulitple posts that the only area I'm focusing on is the flame war.  That is the only area I intend to have any involvement in, and that involvement is to see that it stops.  As I have explained in detail already, my choice to limit my involvement is to prevent any possible perception of a conflict of interest.  I cannot have made any clearer my intention or my focus.  Any future comments as to why I'm wrong for not exceeding that limit will be ignored/deleted.  My choice to limit my involvement has absolutely nothing to do with your choice of how you conduct yourself on Wikipedia.  I have only one question for you:  Do you intend to abide by Wikipedia policy?  SWAdair | Talk 10:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Interesting that some can delete whatever they wish to delete on Wikipedia--including their own talk pages, while libelees have to sit still for defamation and libel to stand undeleted on their own talk pages. And of course you're utterly unconcerned about libel because you can delete it from your own talk page anytime you wish to--something the targets of repeated libel campaigns cannot do--ever.  It's clear there's neither any effective means of redress, or justice on Wikipedia. You saw for yourself on the page I referred you to, what happens when anyone even attempts to provide a thoughtful, dispassionate plea for resolution.  All the libelers have to do is go to that page as  well, and continue the libel.  It's all a farce. I'll leave you to your spammers, hypocritcal editors, and libelers.  It's simply not worth the aggravation any longer.76.170.239.56 22:37, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey!
You should probably take a look at your entry at WP:NA...I believe it needs to be updated. =)   Jumping cheese   Cont @ct 08:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * np ^_^   Jumping cheese   Cont @ct 20:49, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Wall of Honor
Because of your dedication and your excellent work in Wikipedia, I have inducted you to my "Wall of Honor" Tony the Marine 21:30, 2 March 2007 (UTC)



How's it goin'?
Hey! How was vacation? just dropping a few lines...been busy in RL,elections and all, but still checking in here at WL from time to time. Hope to touch base with you again here or in gmail. TTYL. --Ate Pinay (talk•email) 16:48, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
 * As expected, stalemate! as the 2 congressman are concentrating on campaigns nd cannot be bothered with images, much less Wikipedia images at this time! hehehehe. Well, i guess we will have to wait for the new congress to convene to change the status of the images! BTW, Are you saying there are no rocks for me? huhuhuhu! nor sand? huhuhuhu more...well, i got to buy some somewhere! also on ebay! hehehehe! more to accumulate!--Ate Pinay  (talk•email) 11:19, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Gmail
Please check...where are you and how are you now??? --Ate Pinay (talk•email) 09:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Nice picture -- please help with 203.33.199.7
You already warned 203.33.199.7 in December 2006 of staying out of articles due to adding spam. They are back at the links again. Also, after spending about 3 days getting material sourced and written for the feng shui article, this person put in their commercial link and put in the old, crappy stuff without attributions.

I think you had asked about carbola chemical co. It was in operations in the 70's. My father owed the place and I spent alot of time there. If you have any questions, I'll help you the best I can.

Carbola Chemical co.
I think you had asked about carbola chemical co. It was in operations in the 70's. My father owed the place and I spent alot of time there. If you have any questions, I'll help you the best I can.