User talk:Slp1/Archive 5

thanks
for the correction. I don't know how that sneaky vandalism got by me. -- brew crewer  (yada, yada) 03:52, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No problem!! That's what other eyes are for. It must be super hot on those articles at present. I initiated the protection of the Gaza Strip article, but that must be only the tip of the iceberg.   Good luck--Slp1 (talk) 03:55, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Why do you object to parental Alienation court cases being listed on the Parental Alienation Syndrome page?
Why the objection to the listing of Canadian cases by Slp1? 15:50, 13 May 2009 Slp1 (talk | contribs) (26,161 bytes) (restoring sourced deleted material and deleting crc website material; a questionable reliable source which does not even say that the court rulings were in favour of PAS)

There is nothing but a list of and court decisions in Canada about Parental Alienation and was objected to by Slp1 who undid the entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.172.84.98 (talk) 18:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Ayn Rand
Hi, I've filed an RfM on Ayn Rand, including as parties only those who've recently edited the article. However, as you've commented on talk, you might want to be involved too. If so, please add your name to the list of parties at Requests for mediation/Ayn Rand. Cheers, SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 02:34, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * No thanks. I know virtually nothing about Ayn Rand or philosophy, and don't feel I would have much to contribute. --Slp1 (talk) 15:07, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Please do not revert an Arbitration Clerk acting in that role, especially as "vandalism". As the header of the page says, "# Arbitrators or Clerks may summarily remove or refactor discussion without comment." Daniel (talk) 03:14, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Also note that reverting Arbitration clerks actions will result in a block. Tiptoety  talk 03:49, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * What on earth are you talking about? If I have reverted any comments or discussion then it is totally a function of the software that I do not understand. I wrote a comment. I saved. Please WP:AGF and treat me accordingly.--Slp1 (talk) 03:59, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Daniel and I are referring to this revert which you made. Tiptoety  talk 04:02, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Slp1, everything OK? (I don't believe Slp1 would knowingly or willfully revert a clerk at ArbCom, and most likely hit the wrong button.) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yep, that is what it looks like. No harm done, if anything it is a lesson learned. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 04:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

I did assume good faith about whether it was an accident, by the way. If I wasn't assuming it, my response to your revert of my action as "vandalism" would have been a block, rather than simply the "Please don't..." message I left. Please assume the assumption of good faith. Daniel (talk) 04:12, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Just for the record ... Slp1 is ever so quietly one of Wiki's finest editors, truly one that I hold in the highest esteem ... two warnings at once for what was most likely a wrong button can deliver an . Just saying, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 04:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * So can having your edits, made in an official capacity on behalf of the Arbitration Committee, reverted as "vandalism" and then having the person who made the revert not even touch close to an apology — or even a recognition of fault, as the banner at the top of WP:TW suggests — when it is brought to their attention. Daniel (talk) 04:17, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Allrighty then, so much for my friendly attempt to de-escalate an unfortunate situation. I just thought you might not be aware of what a fine editor Slp1 is because they fly under the radar. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 04:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * And that matters in this situation because...? He is suddenly immune from being responsible for his editing because of it...? I was aware of his writing, having closely observed his role in the Learned Hand article, which was why I didn't go in swinging. However, the response generally has been rather...unsatisfactory. Daniel (talk) 04:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Especially as far as I am concerned I pushed no wrong button. I never called anybody's edits vandalism. I decided to comment arbcom case. I hit the edit button, I wrote my comment, I saved. What wrong button could I have pushed? I would be very grateful if someone could tell me. This is really putting off, frankly, as far as trying to help in these kinds of disputes. --Slp1 (talk) 04:46, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, you did. The edit summary here clearly states that you "identified" my edits as "vandalism" and reverted them because of it. So if you pushed no wrong button, are you saying you meant to do that? Daniel (talk) 04:47, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hm, that is a puzzler, seeing as you made this edit. By chance, do you have twinkle installed in your preferences? Tiptoety  talk 04:48, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do have Twinkle installed. And no, there is no way that I would (or did) revert anybody's edits on the arbcom page as vandalism. But yes, I have had trouble saving recently. I have to save constantly to have a comment stick. Is this the cause? I have no idea.  But, there is some glitch in the software somewhere, for which I apologize, that made me look like I was reverting or claiming vandalism, or whatever, when all I was trying to do was encourage people to go to Mediation.--Slp1 (talk) 04:53, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

GON OUT BACKSON BISY BACKSON
What really got me hooked into editing Wikipedia was the collegiality and helpfulness of editors, and the requirement for civility and assuming the best of people. It was so refreshing, and it was great fun editing with others to create excellent articles. But for whatever reason, the joy has gone out of it, and the above is the final straw.

I make a mistake (which I guess I did, though I have absolutely no recollection of even seeing the diff concerned, and as can be seen from the log I wasn't even active on WP at the time), and instead of "Did you mean to do this?" or "Maybe this was an error, but..." I get not one but two warnings, both assuming my edit was deliberate, and one talking about blocks. And it turns out that this was special treatment, and it was only because I had been observed working on a Featured Article, that one editor didn't really "go in swinging". Apparently not blocking me immediately was a sign of the assumption of good faith.

Well, in my mind AGF works out differently: all editors without a history of disruption- whether they've been "noticed" for FAs or not- are entitled to have possible errors pointed out by someone who is not swinging a bat. We all do make mistakes occasionally, no? Threatening blocks (or worse, blocking) when it is still unclear whether a behaviour is deliberate is inappropriate and hardly deescalates the situation or minimizes drama.

This is a very minor issue. I am not blameless. But the difference between the friendliness I first enjoyed on Wikipedia and the actions and attitudes expressed here (by admins representing arbcom, no less) is just too jarring. There have been other disappointments, but this is the one that has popped the balloon. Time to get a new hobby. --Slp1 (talk) 00:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Slp1, I'm very sorry to see this. Usually when an editor feels the need to leave or take a break, I encourage that they do so and don't try to talk them back; this is a different circumstance, and I hope this can be sorted.  Losing you would be a huge loss.  I am going to ask around to see who might know what caused that to happen with the automated tools.  I don't use any of those tools (I'm afraid of them for reasons just like this), but I know people I can ask.  The overreaction to a simple mistake that occurred here is most troubling; I hope you will reconsider, come back refreshed, and please feel free to e-mail me if I can be of any help.  All the best, Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 00:51, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * For what its worth Slp1... I think I know how you feel. I started editing in late 2004 or early 2005 as an IP - and with few exceptions I had the time of my life with wonderful fellow editors who treated me very well. Later, I ended up taking a sudden break in February 2006 and came back just a few months ago - and wow have things changed. My first few weeks back were frustrating, I felt I had left a very different wikipedia than I had come back to. In many ways it is - but in some ways it isn't. We're still all volunteers, and 99% of the time, things are ridiculous because we all care so much. I'm not in any position to tell you to leave or not to leave - but my recommendation is to sleep on it. There are still beautiful things about this place - and wonderful people too.--Tznkai (talk) 02:08, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am sorry to see you go, but wish you all the best in whatever you do. If you do ever decide to return, I for one will be very glad to welcome you back too. Peace be with you, Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 04:11, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Slp1, please do not go. After looking back at my own actions the warning I gave may have been a bit harsh but at the time I assumed that as a administrator you knew what you were doing and deliberately made the vandalism revert, I agree that was a assumption of bad faith on my part. I want to offer my apology for my original statement, and continue my last statement by offering to try and get to the bottom of why it says you made that edit when you clearly state you do not. Understand that after you stated you did not recall making that edit, I backed down and did my best to assume good faith, clearly I failed. I ask that you do not take this so harsh, and simply ignore myself and Daniel and move on. This incident is nothing compared to all the great work you have done for the project, and I would hate to have it be the reason you decided to stop contributing. As always, my talk page and email are open if you want to talk. See you around (*hint, hint*) Tiptoety  talk 04:53, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear wonderful colleague, please stay with us. The encyclopedia is a better place for having you around; I loved working with you on Learned Hand and hoped to do so again in the future on something else. I was once accused of being a sockpuppet in a similar situation, which was quite bewildering (I think aol members share ip numbers or something). In my opinion, arbitration pages and the like are hotbeds of aggression and people march up and down in defensive mode, jumping to conclusions. Things go at a slower and more thoughtful pace on the average article, and I'm certain that you will continue to find on many pages the collegiality you enjoy and represent. Please change your mind. Some people here think the world of you, you know.qp10qp (talk) 22:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to all for posting, encouraging, suggesting, and explaining. It means a lot to me that editors took the trouble, and has made a difference. Maybe the gulf isn't as wide as I feared: I certainly hope that this is the case. For my part, I am sorry for my entirely unintended edit, however it came to be.

I think I still need to take a break, but hope, like Christopher Robin, to be backson. There's all that research I did over the Christmas holidays that should be put to use somewhere! --Slp1 (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Great great news!!!!! (dances round garden in kilt playing the balalaika) qp10qp (talk) 20:02, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Dancing, too ... glad to see you editing ! Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 20:08, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Woohoooo! Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 20:52, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It was a pleasure to read Hermione, Countess of Ranfurly. Wonderful to see you back and doing the things you enjoy here. Risker (talk) 18:35, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much to you all!! The encouragement is really much appreciated! Hope to see you all around --Slp1 (talk) 13:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Banned IP user
I noticed that you had banned the IP user: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:24.210.221.242. I had seen on a talk page for Larry Schweikart another IP user had made a spurious comment about Prof. Schweikart and I noticed that the only other contribution the IP editor had made was to clear the talk page of the user you had blocked. You might want to consider banning http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/75.187.83.247 as well. I5kfun (talk) 05:55, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. My opinion is that assuming good faith is the right reaction here.  Being worried that your parents might be pretty displeased by their beloved offspring's vandalism streak strikes me as a very natural response, and I am inclined to forgive the deletion of warnings etc, and hope that this means an appropriate lesson has been learnt! --Slp1 (talk) 02:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Countess Ranfurly
Oops, I put the ref in for the OBE first (which did seem to be OK when I tried it), and then cut-and-paste the template for the Governor of the Bahamas ref, and forgot to take out the supp=yes parameter since that was in a regular issue of the Gazette, not a supplement, and there's a slight difference in the way the urls are formed.

I've now added a few inks and things I meant to do eysterday, I've assumed that the ref from The Herald was The Herald (Glasgow), if not, it would be a good idea to point the link to the right version. David Underdown (talk) 09:10, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. It all looks great!--Slp1 (talk) 02:02, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Merge of vacuum assisted closure wound therapy and negative pressure wound therapy?
Hi! I noticed you have contributed to either or both of the aforementioned articles. If you have any thoughts about whether or not and/or how to merge the pages, please respond at the discussion page of negative pressure wound therapy. Thank you, Where next Columbus? (talk) 02:06, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Nolan Gerard Funk
The actor is notable, but his article is nonsense and does not provide any notability. If you had never heard of him and looked him up on Wikipedia do you think you would feel about him? It provides no notability and that's why it's being deleted.  moo cows rule talk to moo 03:50, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but a claim of notability was there, and so a speedy deletion was inappropriate. Refs are not required at that stage, as several other administrators agreed (when the speedy tag was repeatedly restored). It looks like somebody did the proper thing and cleaned it up. --Slp1 (talk) 01:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

cheers
thanks for the advice re the OSA president pages. There is quite rightly reason for including these guys (not many girls unfortunately), among them are nobel laureates, inventors of the laser, presidents of different colleges etc. We figured we'd ad the bones of a page and then get collaborators to flesh them out. I'll get onto the others who are involved with the project and see what they're thoughts are. I'm new to this, nice havin a bit of back up - cheers! Ciaradublin (talk) 16:53, 22 February 2009 (UTC)


 * You are welcome and good luck with your project! --Slp1 (talk) 01:12, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

USANA Article Help Request
I'm a fellow Wikipedian that focus' primarily on editing the Wiki article for USANA. USANA is a Multi-Level Marketing company of Nutritional and Health Care Products located in Utah. Earlier this week a French language program, La Facture, did an episode on USANA and I'd appreciate it if you would be willing to watch it and perhaps add a new section to the article about the content of the show. According to your User Page you are capable with French and since you have a health backgrounds I believe you would be well suited to helping expand the article. If you're interested the show can be found here. Jean314 (talk) 14:47, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

http://www.radio-canada.ca/emissions/la_facture/2008-2009/Reportage.asp?idDoc=75158


 * I'll try and get to it soon. Thanks for asking! --Slp1 (talk) 01:40, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. It would be much appreciated. Jean314 (talk) 13:26, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your contributions to the article. I have raised the question of the proper placement of the content at Talk:Usana, and would be grateful for your comments. LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:31, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Re : Talk:Ayn Rand
Oh dear, you're right. I used the original filing parties as the list. I've dropped messages on all editors right away. Thanks for bringing that to my attention. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 14:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * You're very welcome! --Slp1 (talk) 19:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you!!!
I did a quick look through of the changes you made to the USANA article and at first look I have to say that it looks like a remarkable improvement over what was there before. Thanks! Looking forward to more of your contributions in the future. Jean314 (talk) 02:53, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Your revert
Hi. Contrary to what's said on your edit summary, that edit your reverted wasn't mine. All the best. --Damiens .rf 17:09, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I think if you look again you'll see that the edit summary says that I reverted to your version, not that I reverted your edits. But no worries --Slp1 (talk) 17:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Family Court with Judge Penny
Hi Slp1, just wanted to make you aware that I had blocked the involved parties whom were edit warring at the above article. Because of this, I am not particularly sure what full protection is accomplishing as neither of the parties are able to edit the articles talk page. I have no issues if you wish the article to remain protected, but I just wanted to let you know the main instigators are blocked in case you did not know. Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 06:19, 23 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, thanks, I did realize that, though only later; it seems the issue was posted to various spots and I was responding to the ANI posting at which time it seemed that there were multiple editors and IPs involved. Ed Bever got caught up in overenthusiastic 'vandal' fighting, OhioRuthie and 65.7.128.164 engaged in the latest edit war, with 24.209.53.167 (Ruthie?), 69.119.246.108 and 98.73.17.44 involved too at various points. It looks like Ruthie, a very new editor, was making unsuccessful attempts to get in touch with others about her concerns, though not on talkpages, unfortunately.  I still think it is worthwhile to 'force' some conversation after the block, given that the text (though sourced) seems somewhat problematic from a BLP perspective, and of undue weight if nothing else. I'll try and mediate something once everybody gets unblocked, if that's okay with you.--Slp1 (talk) 12:13, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sounds fine to me! Cheers, Tiptoety  talk 18:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

FYI: Follow-up analyis of that WSBTV video ref (No)
Hi, I was patrolling in the midst of that, and I too thought the ref was OK when I first saw it.

BUT ... no, it's tabloid noise. See my notes on talk -- Proofreader77 (talk) 09:36, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

re: Ed Bever
Something graceful should happen now, yes? Proofreader77 (talk) 10:00, 28 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Patroller (and his page said "an administrator on Dutch wikipedia and meta")
 * Blocked
 * Accused of being a sockpuppet
 * Denied unblocking
 * Stripped of rollback
 * Rollback userbox immediately removed
 * Loses sleep
 * Goes on wikibreak
 * Will never RC again?


 * Thanks for giving your opinion on the talk. It is helpful to get other voices into the discussion. I will respond there.  As far as Ed Bever is concerned, it is a very unfortunate situation. On the one hand, there was a lot of reverting going on, and unfortunately the removal of that section really wasn't vandalism, but in fact a fairly legitimate edit (in my view) particularly given BLP and the sourcing concerns. As you know, I didn't have anything to do with the blocking, unblocking, rollback removal etc, and my view is that page protection might have been a better solution given the number of editors involved.  But that wasn't the decision of the admin involved at the time, and the decision to block was also very reasonable, given what was going on.  However, I will drop Ed a line of encouragement, as I think you are suggesting. --Slp1 (talk) 12:28, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Based on our experience, we, the guardians of Wikipedia, all do the best we can in the moments of decision ... 


 * With the more perfect knowledge of hindsight, let us ponder if something more can be done to repair the slight to Ed Bever's honor &mdash; who I believe felt he had earned the benefit of the doubt in moments of decision, and received the opposite ...


 * Not because of particular errors in judgment, but rather like the technicalities of the sinking of the Titanic, wherein sometimes all factors align negatively. :) Proofreader77 (talk) ~

A good (little) case study of several issues
1. RC patrollers, "vandalism," and 3RR
 * e.g., A patroller's judgment that a particular edit constitutes "vandalism," removes it from the constraints of 3RR (from the perspective of the patroller)
 * e.g., Unexplained removal of cited information = vandalism ... (Insufficiently justified removal ...?)
 * e.g., Another experienced editor treats the information as valid by coding the "cite" (NOTE: My "contribution" to the sinking, based on my first judgment that the video referenced was acceptable)

2. Providing (gracious) guidance to new editors (who err in ignorance of protocols) 3. (English) language proficiency
 * (not a judgment of Ed Bever's skill, but raising the issue that for judging some "rhetorical" matters, language mastery matters more.)
 * NOTE: I suspect that 3. may have hindered 2. in the interaction between Ed Bever and OhioRuthie (if only from the perspective of the increased level of effort required for sufficient employment of patience in the matter, etc)

4. (really #1) TV NEWS (news & noise mixed from a reliable source) (e.g., Not everything on CNN is news, but it's all on CNN, etc. etc.)

BOTTOM LINE: Please excuse this clump of notes on your talk page &mdash; not an intent to place a further burden on your attention, but rather a squeezing of the orange of "tragedy" for all the juice which can be gained. lol Cheers. Proofreader77 (talk) 22:17, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks, but I really don't know what more I can do. I have long been a fan of taking some time for decisions, rather than responding quickly and impetuously, though I admit I have not always lived up to this ideal myself. In my opinion if everyone had taken more time to assess what was going on here then this situation would have worked out better. And I'll say very frankly that this includes you, since as your opinion about the source, as you admirably admit, changed when you looked at it again.  I say this not in any way to admonish you, but just to illustrate that it is clear that quick decisions were being made all round. It seems to me that the posts of the blocking admin Tiptoety showed considerable sympathy for Ed Bever's situation after the fact, even though it is clear that Ed should not have done what he did (as Ed seemed to understand).  All the same, if you want to pursue this, maybe you should talk to Tiptoety about your concerns?  --Slp1 (talk) 22:43, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * (sotto voce) It is only because of your assumption of the role of Solomon for the article, that I raise matters of wisdom to you. :) Fear not, I will clean your plate of these extra notes within the next few hours. The broader issue of "patrollers and 3RR," and specific remedies of restoring honor ... Elsewhere and in good time. Salute! Proofreader77 (talk) 22:58, 28 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Solomon?? That's a first!!  Feel free to leave your posts here, however, and I will archive them myself in good time.  I wish you joy in your pursuit of the issue for which I have some considerable sympathy. However, I will just add that these things are complex; compassion and understanding are important, but nevertheless, editors need be accountable for their actions, and should not get carried away with the righteousness of a cause without considering that another approach may be the more appropriate in the circumstance.--Slp1 (talk) 00:09, 29 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Surely Solomon would agree there is at least a subtle distinction between crucifixion and charm school, or, um, flight school :) (Which, of course, means there should be one last meta-subtopic) Proofreader77 (talk) 01:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Speed
I.E., If all of us do not proceed at cruising speed, the plane will not fly.
 * The plane named Wikipedia, despite what aerodynamic theory might suggest, flies!
 * But as with all aircraft, below a certain speed, it stalls.
 * We, the little rotors in the jets, spin furiously, at the required SPEED.
 * If we slow down ... yada yada yada
 * SO ... speed ... is ... required.
 * HOWEVER ... sometimes something other than air gets sucked into the engines.
 * It is not the little rotors' fault. And no, they must not spin slower so nothing else ever gets sucked in.
 * BUT while the rotors are paused for cleaning ... yada yada yada :)


 * HOWEVER, there is no need to pretend that speed does not sometimes yield '''"unfortunate suckings."


 * LET US ALWAYS, AND QUICKLY ADMIT when we have sucked.


 * RATHER THAN quietly making barbecue of what got sucked (through our little rotors).

NOTE: This does not in any way imply that the rotors should be barbecued. :) Proofreader77 (talk) 01:08, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

William Wilberforce
I see they've been keeping you busy, Slp1. Thanks for holding the fort for such a long time. I'm back now (I think) and hope to also be able to keep an eye on things – I may even be able to provide a short addition to our friend soon! Sorry to read that you, too, needed a break recently – I also am glad that you decided to stay around. Cheers, Bruce – Agendum (talk) 21:39, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hey Bruce, welcome back and how are things?  It's true that here was a strange upsurge in vandalism at one point, but the article has generally been amazingly stable.  Funny how that happens when an article is well balanced and well referenced as we made it, isn't it?!!!  I look forward to seeing more of your edits --Slp1 (talk) 22:54, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

PAS 3RR
Thanks for posting the 3RR, I hate filling out that damned form. Have a look at the mostly cosmetic, but pretty extensive alterations to PAS that are now up. The lead is currently wildly unbalanced, as the page is about 2/3 criticisms and the lead does not reflect this. But I'm done for today. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 16:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I hate that form too, and always miss something, which I did again this time. The article looks much improved. Great work!!  I've got a few ideas to tweak and will get to it soon. This looks a good source, for example  --Slp1 (talk) 01:05, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Does look like a good source. I don't know how much expanding of the article I'll do, but I'm  happy to watch it and copyedit (thanks for the adjustments by the way, I never proofread my final work, obviously to my detriment).  One area I do think is lacking is the "support" side.  Obviously some people think there is merit to PAS, or it wouldn't be controversial it'd just be lost in the mists of time.  Either a section on scientific merit, or a section on appearances/uses in the courts and media, would seem merited to indicate why it has persisted.  I think the best we have now is "father's rights activists like it 'cause it makes them look less bad" or something similar.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 12:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Yes, it would be nice to expand the support side, but it seems rather difficult, to my mind, to find authoritative sources giving that perspective. It is telling that so many of the recent books, (including one entitled "The Scientific Basis of Child Custody Decisions"!) comes out so down on PAS. But there is a summary of the pro arguments in the DSM V article which will be included when I have a minute.  Interestingly, though, the very detailed Hoult article  went as far as counting up the pro and anti (legal) articles. --Slp1 (talk) 00:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw 61 pages and decided not to bother (though it's really 40 pages appendix). Do you have the full text?  I've a pdf if you're interested (and it's hard to get).  I don't remember where I got it from.  If I'm really unlucky, it was you :)  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * As an FYI, I officially consider engaging with MH34 on talk:PAS to be a waste of time. I'll be monitoring, but I won't bother commenting unless I see it to be necessary.  It's not DNFTT time, but it's close.  I think more talking won't change anyone's opinions.  MH34's failure to see how sources are more important than his opinion is an essential sticking point for me.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:18, 4 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry I never saw the April 3rd message here. Yes, I have do have the pdf for the Hoult article, and a bunch of others, of which more below.  Thanks, though.
 * I haven't been commenting much either because I was hoping that a new voice might be more successful in conveying WP's policies etc in a way that could be heard and understood. What you have said there has been very helpful in giving another view of the same arguments, but I agree that despite this, the key issues about editing here don't seem to have sunk in, which is too bad.
 * As I mentioned above, I have been gathering more recent sources and will probably do some major editing in the next few days, including possibly a bit of a restructure of your restructure. Let me know what you think. --Slp1 (talk) 13:45, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Citation templates
Hola,

Do you get your citation templates from the edit bar in the edit window? Have you ever seen diberri for books and pubmed journals? I never understood why people used quotes around the ref names - adds to length and confusion in my mind. With no real reason other than personal preference (and the rest of the citations are formatted this way), I adjusted your citation. But that's ever so slightly dickish, plus if I ask questions like this sometimes I find out neat stuff. I insert the google books link in the pages argument of the template so it doesn't look like you're citing the whole book, and use single letters only for the first names 'cause that's how the pmid comes out in diberri (and I love consistency). The caps in the ref name tag and removal of the quotes is the same thing, consistency. Makes remembering the ref names a little easier and more predictable. I've never really discussed these habits with anyone before, so I'm wondering if there's detriments to them that I'm not aware of yet. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I do know about diberri, and sometimes use it when I want a quick link from an isbn. However, in general, I tend to use the refTools gadget that you can add to the edit toolbar from the My preferences section. I find the "named references" tool within it very useful indeed when repeatedly citing the same article/bool/. I like reftools because one can copy and paste so easily from the googlebooks or other citations, and not forget useful info including the url, page numbers etc. And while diberri works well in medical areas, it isn't much use for journal articles in other areas. Reftools adds the quotes automatically, I think this is because adding them permits the use of number-only refnames, which I guess is useful in some cases. It seems that reftools also quotes the entire book automatically too; I must admit I hadn't noted this alternative method of linking to the page numbers before. I guess one lives and learns! And I will remember the capitalization for another time; I was trying to follow the method, but missed one feature! --Slp1 (talk) 13:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oops, I'm wrong about the numbers and the quotes; it is because ref names with spaces or non-ASCII characters won't work without them, apparently. WP:REFNAME.--Slp1 (talk) 13:53, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * To be clear, no one except me links to page numbers in the page number argument! I'm a special flower.  I've never made the case anywhere, but I do think it makes sense; linking the book with the url feature uglifies the template (totally a word by the way) and means if you duplicate the reference with ref name, you have to be sure it's to the exact same page.  The only time I've ever found this to be an issue is multiple citations, to different pages for different information, of the same book, (see satanic ritual abuse for example, which I re-worked entirely based on this theory) though in that case I ended up using mixed footnotes and references (à la here).  So it's not a perfect plan.
 * I like the automatic generation of diberri 'cause I make a lot of typos. I've installed reftools but never used it since - I may start though, you prompted me to try out some of the options.  Looks very useful for whole-page edits, less so for section edits.  When you add "named refereces", the selection from the dropdown menu will give you the right named refs within the section, but also automatically adds quotes, but apparently it doesn't make a difference, it recognizes it quotes or not.  Cool!  See, this is why I ask questions.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 15:14, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oooooooo. I'm going to report you to the MOS police straightaway. I'm afraid I'm a lot less considerate than you. I figure the googlebooks link is just a convenience, and if people can't figure out how to turn pages of a book then they've missed an important developmental stage, and this can be a teachable moment for them.  A lot of the longer articles I've written use Harvard refs, (see this one I'm working on User:Slp1/2draft) which don't easily allow links to specific page, or even the book which is fine by me!! Saves a lot of trouble. Anyway, yes, you are right that the named refs aren't so useful in section edits, but all the same rather satisfying.--Slp1 (talk) 16:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd join the MOS police if I could. I bet they'd give me a whacking stick.  I like the google books links for verification purposes (handy in a POV-dispute when someone's arguing over semantics, nothing like an implied "suck on this quote, douchebag" to win an argument) which is why I'm a stickler about linking to pages.  Multiple references to the same book on google books preview means you are less likely to run into a preview page limit problem too, plus I figure for curious readers who like to see the source material (i.e. me) it's much handier.  Figuring out how to edit the url to get a specific page took me weeks, and I don't consider myself a stupid man.  It's a bit uneven too 'cause not all books appear as full or limited preview on google books, but partially functional is better than nothing.
 * I've seen the harvard refs, but they seem more complicated than what I use on SRA without much gain (quite possible I don't see the advantages though). The format on SRA (  in references, Victor, 1993, p. 55-6 leading to Victor, 1993, p. 55-6 in the body) warms the pedantic cockles of my heart, which pumps not blood like that of a regular human's, but actually the distilled essence of referencing.  I'm not sure how the Harvnb links up to the citation - for Cooper it seemed to work but for Braybrooke and Spalding it doesn't hyperlink to the reference and I can't understand why.  Both templates in both locations seem pretty much identical unless there's some automagic I'm missing.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 19:05, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, your SRA refs seem to do pretty much the same thing as the harvard refs are supposed to and works very nicely. Thanks for checking them btw: Spalding now works (wrong date inserted), but I still have to figure out the Braybrooke ones; I think it has something to do with the double author. I think I learnt how to link to specific pages from watching your edits, and I do agree it is very handy. Most of the Manning material is not on Googlebooks, and it is not exactly controversial either, so that makes this easier and less necessary.  BTW, did you know that if you have even purchased something from Amazon, you can quite often 'Look inside' books on their website.  I sometimes find it helpful for filling in pages missing on Googlebooks. --Slp1 (talk) 13:29, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Figured out Braybrooke. The bloody template can't cope with spaces, apparently.--Slp1 (talk) 14:12, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Undent. I'll stick with my version I think :) Templates in my experience are rather unpredictable, while the cite id and other <> tags seem a bit safer - always a concern for new editors.  It took a lot of fiddling to work out the citation and reference tags; were I feeling ambitious, I'd try to figure them out then re-write the instructions.  Richard Arthur Norton showed me the amazon quasi-full-text linkbut I haven't figured out the specifics for linking direct to pages.  If you have to have actually bought something from them, I don't think I'll bother since that's a big limitation for non-North American readers.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 12:33, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I wouldn't try linking the amazonbooks; it's just that they are sometimes very useful for finding pages in books that are unavailable in googlebooks.--Slp1 (talk) 20:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Information for Sungenis article
Hi - you mentioned that you could email me an article about Sungenis/geocentrism for use? I'm not sure how to email you. Thanks! Liam Patrick (talk) 16:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Just click "email this user" in the toolbox on the left hand side of this page. I'll be waiting. --Slp1 (talk) 20:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)


 * There's nothing saying "email this user" on my screen - anywhere. Help?   Liam Patrick (talk) 05:44, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Look on the left hand side, of the screen. Under the searchbox there is a section called 'toolbox'; the 6th item down says "email this user".  Or is it possible that you don't have email enabled?  If not, you need first to go to your "My Preferences" tab at the top of the screen, and in your user profile check the  appropriate boxes to allow email from other users, providing an email address etc as required. --Slp1 (talk) 12:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Ah - I think that's the problem. I don't think I ever enabled the email.  I'll try to take care of that later when I have a little more time.  That will at least give some more substance to the Sungenis article.  Liam Patrick (talk) 18:58, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I sent over an email to you. I hadn't set up my email - that was the problem.  Liam Patrick (talk) 21:32, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Teenly
Good investigating. I hope you're wrong, but it doesn't appear likely that you are.--Tznkai (talk) 19:41, 20 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Actually I hope I'm right, because it means that Teenly has not left us (though I suspect that she was never actually with us in any real sense!).  There are just too many improbabilities, and in fact I haven't listed the half of them. But no real harm has been done, I suppose, unless Teenly is a real person, who comes back to find she has been declared an ex-editor.  Hopefully the sillybillies behind it all will quietly see that there are some who question things a bit, and not bother with similar tall tales in the future.--Slp1 (talk) 21:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Help on RS queery
Hi, I'm posting to some uninvolved editors who have been active at WP:RSN to see if there is any clear consensus on some sources used on a BLP. The discussion is pretty brief but I'd like more opinions to ensure a strong consensus is reached one way or another. If you have time please visit the thread so this could be more quickly resolved. Thank you in advance for your time. -- Banj e b oi   20:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

PAS revisited
MichaelH has revisited PAS, have a look at the history! I'll have a look through but another pair of eyes would be good. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 15:25, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * In case you're on now, I'm working away and it might be worth waiting to give me time to comment and justify on the talk page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 15:36, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi WLU, yes I did see this, and your responses.  I don't know if you saw the massive cut of any negative info (and more) from Parental alienation?  Unfortunately, at the moment I am swamped with work, taxes and the very real life actions of similar individuals which are dragging me down, down, down.  I just don't have the capacity to engage too much at the moment.  But I will get to it as soon as I can. I'm sorry.  --Slp1 (talk) 12:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Frankly that page was mostly a coatrack for PAS anyway, with a lot of primary sources in the form of court cases. If parental alienation is the real syndrome, it should be considerably longer.  But based on what existed before I'd support the lengthy trim.  I can't hold a grudge about PAS - you asked me for help a while back with the Father's Rights Movement page and I said no - payback is a bitch!  One of these days I'd like to take the time to rebuild the PAS article starting with the most recent sources, but not today.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 02:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The day of wrecking is at Hand
Hold on to your hat! qp10qp (talk) 00:55, 24 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Aaaaaah. Run for the hills.  Or the moors, in your case!--Slp1 (talk) 12:10, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit to Portraits of Shakespeare
Nice edit. No problem from me. FYI - I just posted a "non-cluttered" response to Dlabtot with a short list of published Shakespeare authorship related works by the editorial board of the Fellowship. I still contend that the source should be considered a peer-reviewed journal. The problem is that in the mainstream world, there are no experts in Shakespeare Authorship, since orthodox scholars refuse to admit that the issue is worth discussing. This has left the only "allowable" citations from 40-year old books that initially looked at the various alternate theories. Since then, however, none of the (considerable) scholarship that has gone on has been reported, except of course in the world-wide press, and a handful of authorship books. In this regard, however, even those books published by independent third-party publishers have been disallowed by the mainstream editors of the Shakespeare related Wikipedia pages. Its a pickle - and a situation that I consider quite unfair, and not really in line with wiki policies. But it still goes on with "consensus" of the mainstream editors always winning the day. Sigh. Smatprt (talk) 21:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Gregory Charles
Please do not move to an unaccented e, I watch the téléroman "Chambres en ville" and the CBC Newsworld show "Culture Shock". He is credited with an accented e (é). User:Bearcat told me "He agree with my move", but this is to match the article from the French Wikipedia. I told User:Bearcat "Just doing my editing job". And your move is a mistake. You talk to User:Bearcat entitled Gregory Charles I don't want you to move to an unaccented e (é). You should talk to User:Bearcat and never move to an unaccented e again. Steam5 (talk) 02:24, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I check out the IMDb website on Gregory Charles and there is no accented e also. I apologize by being mean to you but you're right. I will move it back to an unaccented e as soon as I can, In the mean time go to IMDb on his credit work. Then you are going to talk to User:Bearcat on his correct name. Let me know as quickly as you can and everything will be solved. Thanks for your information. Steam5 (talk) 02:43, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much on your idea of solving the answer to the article name, I made a lot of contributions on Canadian related articles, anyways keep up the good work. Steam5 (talk) 02:58, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

ANI posting
Note. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Richard Williamson (bishop)
I have protected the page in order to prevent the edit warring. Please discuss the edit in question on the talkpage and come to some agreement with the other editors. Also be warned that your addressing a fellow editor as a "filthy idiot" is totally unacceptable per no personal attacks. Repeat either this or the edit warring and you may find yourself blocked from editing. Please go to the talkpage and politely explain your objection to the phrase in question. I suspect if you explain yourself clearly you will not have a problem. --Slp1 (talk) 21:08, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've been reverted six times for something that's absolutely evident by three different people. It may not excuse the insult but can explain it. 88.166.140.196 (talk) 21:12, 9 May 2009 (UTC)
 * So go to the talkpage and prove you are right; not difficult I suspect. But here on Wikipedia, being right is not an excuse for edit warring and you should have resorted to discussion long before 6 reverts and losing your cool. After 3 you risked being blocked for edit warring and you might have found that if you explained yourself more clearly on the talkpage you wouldn't have needed to be rude. --Slp1 (talk) 21:22, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Slp1, I am not accusing you of trying to whitewash anything. I think you are doing a good job there. Williamson is a Holocaust denier, and he does set up straw man arguements that he can use to weasel out of trouble. That is why the whole quote needs to be in the article. Thanks. Sposer (talk) 20:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

I made a prediction
Here. So in 30 days, I'll either be wrong, or my record will be 3/3. Sweet. I'm thinking I should perhaps start some sort of WP:TE/WP:DE checklist that will allow me to objectively rate the characteristics of editors who I think will end up blocked. I notice you're a bit shorter than your usual eloquent self. I've long since passed that point, I am now in DNFTT land and think further comments are a waste of time. Just a series of FYIs. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 02:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, I really do hope you are wrong!! I'm not that keen on drama, and I keep hoping that a corner has been turned. But to date it's true that the same issues remain and we just go round and round. I'll keep trying in a small way, I guess.  --Slp1 (talk) 03:12, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * In case you need it, I mis-read your EW warning for a 3rr warning. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 20:56, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've reported yon PAS anon for edit warring and suggested page protection. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 21:34, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I edit conflicted and went straight to ANI. Sorry!--Slp1 (talk) 21:43, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Whatever works, I'm not insulted (though I do wish I hadn't taken the time to fill out that damned 3rr report - soooooo tedious!) WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 21:45, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it is a pain, I agree. Be sure not to revert yourself again. Let's see what happens. --Slp1 (talk) 21:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Looks like your work panned out best!!--Slp1 (talk) 23:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Bala
I just noticed that Bala's recent article in the globe and mail distinguishes between parental alienation and parental alienation syndrome. I recently stubbed the article because it was mostly a coatrack, and despaired of finding sources that weren't about PAS. After noticing Bala's article distinguishes between 'em, I contacted him about where and when his article will appear. Eagerly awaiting a reply. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:33, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I have a copy of a 2007 article by Bala, (cited in the PAS article currently) which seems to make many of the same points as the G and M article; it differentiates between PAS and more general concepts such as parental alienation, alienation, and seems to give a lot of air time to Kelly and Johnston's version, which uses the term "the alienated child". Bala et al dismiss PAS but argue that "alienation is a useful and important concept". I'll send you a copy. --Slp1 (talk) 21:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please do so! Jack-A-Roe might also be interested, I'll forward him a copy.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I've reported JaniceMT at 3RR and will wait for the block before bothering to do anything with the page again today. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 20:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

The summary of Bala's scholarly paper is already published on the website of the Canadian Children's Rights Council. He gave it to us for publication. Perhaps you could have attended the Ontario Bar Association Stakeholder's Conference. You missed some important information.JaniceMT (talk) 20:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

In addition, you have repeatedly stated that newspaper articles as sources are inadequate for Wikipedia and then when we put on the scholarly paper, you took that link off. Why? Your advocacy for child abusers that alienate children from a father or mother is deplorable
 * This has been addressed - an analysis by a partisan organization on a scholarly paper that is not yet published, is not appropriate for wikipedia. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 22:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry Slp1, a series of rapid edits to my talk page ended up with me missing your note that you were preparing the 3RR notice. Didn't mean to steal your thunder or make you draft a post in vain!  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 00:29, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No worries. My turn for the wasted work, but I am getting quicker!--Slp1 (talk) 00:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, and did you see that the website isn't even available at present !!! --Slp1 (talk) 01:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think I'm quicker because I'm less patient and more trigger happy - why I'd be a bad admin.
 * Neat fact, did you know the software won't automagically turn [] into a hyperlink unless you have http:// at the front? That drove me nuts for months until I figured out why [www.pubmed.org] didn't work.  CCRC page seems to be back up, "fortunately".  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 13:14, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I just called up the president of the Canadian Children's Rights Council. He had a good chuckle about the wasted time you and your girlfriend WLU have spent editing the CanadianCRC article. He stated that he will consider putting out a notice to volunteers who are Wikipedia smart and some admins to do some good editing to assist you two. Another hand with the work is always appreciated...don't you think.QPTD (talk) 01:15, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Apparently now I'm a lesbian. Cool.  Like most heterosexual males, I think that's hot.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 02:37, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That's the best WP laugh I've had all year. It's right up there with being proposed to during my RFA. A fine way to end a rather funny day. --Slp1 (talk) 02:54, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Your editing of the parental alienation and parental alienation syndrome webpages is without foundation.
You should really leave these webpages alone unless you are aware of the issues. Numerous advisors to us are the authors of those scholarly papers that you keep taking off. These are vaild content forthose webpages. You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. --> -->Smith research (talk) 21:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Your misinformation provide in editing the Canadian Children's Rights Council
You know nothing about this organization but since you are apparently opposed to it and anything of a masculist or child rights nature You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. --> -->Smith research (talk) 21:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Your keep changing the legal name of the Canadian Children's Rights Council and the content of that article
You have changed the name from the legal name of the council and the keep reverting th an abbreviation that is not that of the Canadian Children's Rights Council, Kindly explain your actions on the discussion page before making any more changes. A consensus is needed in order to have correct information. You might find it helpful to look at the discussion page to get some insight into the council. It explains their appearances on CBC, Global TV and CTV television networks as well as their frequent quotes carried on child rights issues in Canada and authoritative presentationjs to various legislative committees and position papers. They are the most quoted source on child rights in Canada. You may also wish to research COMSCORE or some other reputable source of web traffic visitors to their "Virtual Library" of articles and documents pertaining to the rights of Canadian children. You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. --> -->67.204.11.48 (talk) 02:37, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, editors from the CanCRC, for the above communications. I suggest you look a bit more closely at my edits before dropping warnings on a user talkpage, as it is not really very polite to make false accusations of this sort. For example, I was nowhere near 3RR in reverting your COI, POV edits to articles, as there have been plenty of other editors who were reverting them too.  And if you had checked the talkpage of Canadian Children's Rights Council you will see that I actually took your "side" the great abbreviation debate, and that the CCRC abbreviation is no longer included in the article.  A close check of my edits to the article today would also show that contrary to your statements here and elsewhere on WP, I actually added a lot of well-sourced information about your organization and its activities, information that both attests to the  notability and the work of the CanCRC, and none of which could be considered negative in any sense of the word.  Check the diff out for yourself. It was ruthlessly reverted nonetheless by one of your IPs.  An apology would be nice.  Any chance of one??? --Slp1 (talk) 22:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * None of the people that reverted your edits were officials at the Canadian Children's Rights Council. Your obscure reference to an article which referened to the Canadian Children's Rights Council as a "father's rights group" is worthy of an apology. So is your repeated reverts to the incorrect name which is legally both the english snd french together. The history for that article shows that you repeatedly kept changing it from the correct legal name as mon their website to an incorrect english only legal name....so do you apologize for that?


 * The reference to Anna Marie's CBC show ( The Current ) is terrible and if you had read the context you would have honestly stated that you agree with the president of the Canadian Children's Rights Council on the point that stated : " Last Saturday, a couple in Saskatoon opened their back door to find an infant -- just hours old and wrapped in a comforter ..in the minus 29 degree cold."   The baby might have died if there hadn't been a dog in the house which sounded an alarm by barking. The CanadianCRC pres then made the comment that such a bio-parent should be charged with "attempted murder" based on the particluar circumstances in that individual case.


 * The CBC article then went on to talk about only women who abandon their babies and American "Safe haven " laws. If you look at the summary of these laws for all American states on the Canadian Children's Rights Council website, anybody can drop off a baby  .... dads, neighbours ...anybody. The pres was on another CBC News Sunday  with Carole MacNeil and Evan Solomon talking about child abandonment laws and the reasons why so few babies are even abandoned in Canada. —Preceding unsigned comment added by QPTD (talk • contribs) 01:32, 23 May 2009


 * It's interesting that you would know who reverted my edits and could so confidently assure me that none of them were officials of the CanCRC. How do you know this? It would be helpful to understand what is going on here. I have reworked the name of the organization following your clarification here, but as for the other material, most of it was not even written by me originally.  However, I do agree that it should be included.  As it happens the reference about the fathers' rights group comes from the most reliable source in the bunch (a scholarly work by an academic) and incidentally it seems very much borne out by the material hosted on your website, and the WP posts from CanCRC supporters about "totalitarian feminist tactics","female supremacist"s, and complaints of opposition to "masculinist" causes   Not that the latter personal observations matters at all given our policy of verifiability.--Slp1 (talk) 02:06, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Sock
No worries, I'm a pro. I'm not sure about this case though, 'cause I'm less clear that it's a single person. The SSI will also turn up accounts with the same IP that haven't edited these pages. Let me work at it, I'll post a notice on ANI. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 18:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Good. I'll watch and learn and add some bits if I can. I'm actually prepared to lay odds that at least some of them are the same people, however.--Slp1 (talk) 18:48, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You just reminded me that I forgot to include a code or something. I'm obviously lying when I say "pro".  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 20:07, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Slp1 editing - Canadian Children's Rights Council
It has been described as an example of fathers' rights group that "has appropriated a discourse of children's rights as an anti-feminist strategy".

You are certainly entitled to you POV but really, we can always find some obscure POV to support our opinions. Why are you and Slp1 rewriting the whole page as if you owned it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by QPTD (talk • contribs) 00:44, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You can, but it almost certainly won't be a reliable source and until the CCRC meatpuppets understand our policies, you are at a substantial disadvantage to contribute anything meaningful. Also, note that you're talking to Slp1.  Do your research.  WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 12:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, man

 * sigh* I once more dicked up a block, and accidentally blocked you instead of the person who made that post. I've undone the block and autoblock already. -Jeremy (v^_^v Cardmaker) 05:08, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, there goes my nice "clean" block log; now it is neither empty, nor obscenity free!!! Though come to think of it, it is probably a good idea to have some extreme language, as I guess it makes it very clear that there was indeed an error here! ;-) Anyway, no worries.  It was bound to happen sometime and it might me feel a bit better when I make the same mistake myself, which no doubt will happen. Thanks for all your work on protecting and other blocks.  I doubt this will be the end of it, but it is a start.--Slp1 (talk) 11:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I'd be feeling a lot better about this if this isn't the third block I've screwed up in recent months. -Jeremy (v^_^v Cardmaker) 21:51, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Olivia Manning

 * Cool. Thank you very much!  My second barnstar ever!  If you would be interested in helping improve the article, I would be glad of some help and fresh eyes. --Slp1 (talk) 16:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Trinity Church, Redlands CA
You deleted three of my posts: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Inrig http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Inrig http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity_Church,_Redlands_CA It's clear I'm new at this, but with the posts deleated, how can I edit them to correct? Would you be willing to help me? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bruceherwig (talk • contribs) 20:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Bruce, Thanks for your message. There are three basic problems.
 * Your articles were deleted in the first instance because they were basically copy and pastes from other websites, and we cannot permit this kind of copyright material to be added to WP for legal reasons. You could always rewrite the material to solve this problem and there are other solutions above.
 * The second problem is about the issue of whether WP wants and needs articles about these subjects. For that you need to consult these pages WP:BIO and WP:CORP which are the guidelines for what sort of articles WP wants. I'm sure you understand that we don't need articles about every pastor and every pastor's wife and every church; articles here need to meet certain criteria of what we call notability. The guidelines will give you idea of the sort of thing you need to prove notability: in short, some independent, mainstream reliable sources about the individuals or the church. Articles in newspapers about them (not just mentioning them) etc are just the ticket. You will be well placed to know if there are these kinds of sources out there.
 * The third problem we can't do much about, which is that judging by your username, you actually work for the church and therefore are in a conflict of interest about these articles. You will want to read conflict of interest to see what is recommended for somebody in your situation.  Basically, it is a bit delicate, because of the danger that you (quite naturally)  are motivated by a desire to promote your pastors and your church.

Something also to consider: sometimes creating articles can backfire. Since anybody can edit them, negative material can get added, and as long as it is sourced, it will stay. Some people have wished they had never started an article, frankly! Anyway, those are the issues. Let me know if I can help in any other way. If you do decide that they are notable, and you want to try the rewrite, I could give you copies of the deleted articles for you to work on. --Slp1 (talk) 20:58, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Ducks
Hi Slp1 - I noticed you and WLU are coming under fire at the Canadian Children's Rights Council article from IPs that seem to be either from the same organization or acting their interest‎‎. Feel free to drop me a line if there's any likely ducks quaking on the page. Also just for verifiablity issues could you list what user accounts have been povpushing and COI-ing (you know what i mean =) ) on that topic. Also did the ANI thread close with a decision about sock-puppets--Cailil   talk 16:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Cailil and thanks. All (or most) of the socks are listed at the check user investigation here, and all the accounts blocked indefinitely for more threatening meatpuppetry etc. All the relevant pages have also been semi-protected, which forestalls any problems in the shortterm at least. There is one IP who is currently commenting and requesting changes on the talkpage, but that seems reasonable enough.  I'll let you know if things start to get out of hand again. Thanks for asking.--Slp1 (talk) 17:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikilinks to policy etc.
Hi there.

Just a tip;

I noticed this edit;

When referring to policy, you put, for example;


 * 

This appears as;


 * 

If, instead, you put;


 * Field guide to proper speedy deletion

It will appear as;


 * Field guide to proper speedy deletion

You can also use the shortcuts, and could link to different text. For example;


 * this guide

Appears as;


 * this guide

For more on this, see WP:LINKING. Hope that this helps.  Chzz  ►  23:44, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Lindsay Perigo
Hello there. Long time no speak. I'm interested in soliciting you for a consultation. I came across this subject one or two weeks ago on the internet as the result of a topic-banning discussion. I decided to look up his name on Wikipedia and up pops this entry. It looked a little strange, so I decided to run the usual database checks for independent third-party sources discussing the subject (e.g., JSTOR, LexisNexis, Factiva, Google News, Google Scholar), and Google Books. I confirmed the existence of the bio mentioned in the article and one small English-language article comparing the subject to Rush Limbaugh. That was it. I consulted with User:Hoary whose opinion I respect and he thinks that the bold claims stated in the article in conjunction with the bio from Perigo's former employer is something of a walled garden situation that doesn't -- in his view -- meet notability. Others -- in particular a vocal Perigo fan -- obviously disagree. Rather than just tag this entry and let it go, I was hoping to cross-check my results with you as we did on G. Edward Griffin. If you have some time, would you mind checking for any third-party independent sources on Perigo that I might have missed? I suspect that Perigo fans will not understand the process, so they'll naturally assume bad-faith. I'm more interested in trying to research this article. J Readings (talk) 21:29, 31 May 2009 (UTC)