User talk:Sparkzilla/archive Dec 2005 - May 2006

Welcome to Wikipedia!
Welcome to Wikipedia, ! I'm Xinoph. I noticed that you were new and/or have yet to receive any messages so I just thought I'd pop in to say "hello". Wikipedia can be a little intimidating at first, since it's so big but we won't bite so Be Bold and get what you know down about U.S. politics! If you do make a mistake, that's fine, we'll assume good faith and just correct you: it'll take a few seconds maximum! Here, however, are a few links to get you started:


 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article

There are lots of policies and guidelines to get to grips with but they all make your life easier and your stay more fun in the long run. If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. Please be sure to sign your posts on talk pages using four tildes (&#126;&#126;&#126;&#126;) to produce your name and the current date, along with a link to your user page. This way, others know when you left a message and how to find you. It's easier than having to type out your name, right? ;)

I hope you enjoy contributing to Wikipedia. We can use all the help we can get! Have a great time, all the best, sayonara and good luck!

RFM
Hello, are you still interested in mediation? Please reply at my talk page. Redwolf24 (talk) 02:10, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Request for Mediation
You recently filed a Request for Mediation; your case has been not been accepted. You can find more information in the rejected case archive, Requests for mediation/Rejected 1.
 * For the Mediation Committee, Essjay  Talk •  Contact, Chairman, 12:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * (This message delivered by Celestianpower (talk) on behalf of Essjay .)

I am taking this case for mediation. My name is Genick Bar-Meir, Ph.D. and email is barmeir at gmail.com --potto 17:34, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Behavior on Wikipedia
Your talk page is not for you to erase. Please do not do so. Additionally, please sign your comments using four ~ in order to sign your name with a date. Use the "Edit summary" boxes so others know what you've done. Thanks. -- Chris53516 14:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi, Sorry about that. Can you direct me to the policies for Talk pages? Can I erase the top part? Sparkzilla 15:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't bother erasing the welcome. If you do, someone else will welcome you again. What you can do, after a while, is archive your talk page once it's too large. There really is no point in erasing anything on a talk page, unless the talk page is huge or out-of-date. Then, you should archive, not erase.


 * There are a couple of archive methods. One is to erase the talk page portions that you want to archive, then reference a history page. Look on my talk page for an example. Here's a policy for it: How to archive a talk page. Otherwise, try this page for more info: Help:Talk page.


 * If you ever need to find a Wiki policy, try searching for the title by prefacing your search with "Wikipedia:". For example, if you need help with adding external links, you can try "Wikipedia:External links", which will lead to External links. It's hit-and-miss, but it's useful.


 * -- Chris53516 15:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that was very complete :) Sparkzilla 15:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sparkzilla - as far I know as I know you can delete or add whatever you want on your talk page - its yours - barring prohibited materials. Thats good work you are doing on the body of the article. My knowledge level means I sit on the fence and watch in regards to usability of Metropolis articles in Nick Baker article. At present "Criticism by Metropolis magazine" is clearly titled and perhaps the only negative claim directly about NB is Devlin's belief that he had been in Japan 2 months prior to arrest. The stronger the negative material the more cautious I'd become. The rest of this section is mainly about Devlin and Iris. Wonderfully complex - glad I'm just watching. SmithBlue 06:32, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Fulfilled request
I removed the content you requested, but it will still be available in the history of my page for some time. Perhaps you should talk to an administrator if you want more decisive action taken. -- Chris53516 14:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Edits to Steven Milloy
Hey... I like your edits to Steven Milloy; I think they balance the article more. However, when you make large-scale edits or move a lot of text, PLEASE double-check whether the refs still work. By moving the text around, you ended up breaking a bunch of references which someone then needs to go back and fix. As an article on a living person, it needs to adhere to WP:LIVING, so functional and accurate sourcing is really important. But to go back to the positive, I think your edits improved the article. Thanks. MastCell 17:33, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

MedCab
You may wish to read Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-11-28 Metropolis Magazine. Computerjoe 's talk 18:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the notice. Is there anything I need to do? Sparkzilla 18:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Metropolis (Japanese magazine) Revert
Hello, I have reverted your edits to Metropolis (Japanese magazine) as they were unsourced and did not pass WP:V. --Simonkoldyk 05:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Please tell me why Japan's Audit Bureau of Circulations is not verifiable enough for you?Sparkzilla 05:22, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan).
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not add unreferenced negative biographical information concerning living persons to Wikipedia articles. Thank you. David Lyons 05:51, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Kindly Refrain...
From following me around and asserting that I am acting in bad faith every time I ask a question about the Nick Baker case - even before the person I have asked a specific question of has had the chance to reply. It does you no credit. For your information, I have been working on the Nick Baker page from very nearly after it's inception and can tell you that I have added to and/or edited almost every single section. Certainly, I am still learning (aren't we all) good wikipedia style - sources, citations, verifiability and the like. If you continue in your course of action, I shall alert the relevant administration section. Thank you. David Lyons 02:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I was saving the editors time, by informing them that the question you asked had already been answered, and enlightening them on your M.O.


 * While this has been all very educational, your motivations have not been to improve Wikipedia, but to supress information negative to your campaign to free Baker by using narrow interpretations of Wikipedia guidelines. So far you have tried to deny the relevant section by saying the sources were self-published (dealt with on WP:RS). Next you tried to misrepresent the notability of the source saying the magazine is minor (it isn't (and you know it isn't)), then the publisher's expertise (it's relevant )and you know it is)). Then you tried exceptional claims (they aren't). Then you tried undue weight (if anything the article is too positive to Baker).


 * Anyhow, the section has now been deemed acceptable on all of those points, and has had the benefit of an Admin editing it.


 * BTW, by removing (or getting the site owner to remove) defense documents and statements from Baker's support site that show Baker was involved with the Israeli mafia and had traveled to Japan just a few months before his arrest, you have confirmed Devlin's assertion, and have provided further evidence that Baker's supporters are engaged in wilful deception regarding this case. Ironic, don't you think?


 * While I am impressed by your devotion to this subject, may I humbly suggest that we move on to something else now. Sparkzilla 06:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Andrew O'Hagan
Hi. I double checked the link but couldn't find anything about him being a practising Roman Catholic nowadays. Feel free to restore the category if you can find verifiable evidence of this. --Guinnog 11:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Link it! (Baker CoI discussion)
Sparkzilla, In future, if you wish to ref whole discussions - link to them, that way it is clear to all where and in which context it was held. For example, in this case the original discussion started under the title "You requested mediation" on my user talk page and ended up as "Conflict of Interest"on Nick Baker's page. Please also bear in mind that material that might appear on a user talk page may contain material incompatible with an article talk page. As a reminder:


 * The purpose of a Wikipedia talk page is to provide space for editors to discuss changes to its associated article or project page. Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views.


 * Keep discussions on the topic of how to improve the associated article.


 * No personal attacks. A personal attack is saying something negative about another person.

Bearing that in mind, please feel free to join in for some constructive discussion. Thank you. David Lyons 06:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The information is relevant to your accusation of my CoI. There is nothing constructive about what you are doing. Sparkzilla 06:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

From Simon Peter Hughes about NOVA
Thank you for your message, your point is well taken. I am cofident that evrything I have written has been true but unfortunately I can not prove it. Yes, I was a NOVA teacher for two years, between 1999 and 2001 but I wouldn't describe myself as a disgruntled former teacher. I hope that you do not think that I have any particular axe to grind against NOVA because that's not the case, I'm merely tring to be honest, after all, have you seen the GEOS page with "This reads like an advertisement" written all over it? I wouldn't want the same to happen to the NOVA page. Incidentally, it was actually other teachers who wrongly believed Ed Norton used to work at NOVA. They thought that was the case because they also wrongly believed that he was in "the NOVA video" that was shown to all new students. During follow up training the Asssistant Trainer told me that he was just in a video that used to be on sale at NOVA. I am unaware of "Only in America ever being used as a course material at NOVA. One more thing, is it true that QUEST contained references to ABC, Ultravox and New Kids on the Block? I don't remember that lesson. Anyway, I concede that I have nothing further to say about NOVA because I don't have the facts and figures available to back it up.

RFC/discussion of article Nova (English school in Japan)
Hello, Sparkzilla. As a prominent contributor to Nova (English school in Japan), you may want to be aware that a request for comments has been filed about it. The RFC can be found by the article's name in this list, and the actual discussion can be found on Talk:Nova (English school in Japan), in case you wish to participate. Thank you for your contributions. -- ZayZayEM 02:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC) --ZayZayEM 02:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Talk page
They are right. Users can delete at will from their talk page, including warnings. This has been discussed frequently on forums such as WP:AN. Some users disapprove of this. Removal of warnings can add circumstantial evidence about a user's motivations. It is certainly inappropriate to delete a conversation before it's finished. However, none of this should incur sanctions (though occasionally it does anyway). This has all evolved over the last few months, and in the past it would have been seen as wrong to carry out such deletions. You can try WP:TPG and WP:USER, but regardless of what it says there, I have given you the current practice, which is what counts on wiki. If you leave a warning, you might want to make this very clear in the edit summary, as this could be where someone else looks. Tyrenius 02:07, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Gere
I wanted to thank you for actually putting up an effort to get the Gere legend represented. Previous attempts by me were literally deleted right off the talk page by Bladestorm. I also dislike how Risker seems to act as if he has the authority to decide when the discussion is over. Algabal 07:58, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * For reference, the "attempts" of Algabal which I removed were grossly unacceptable personal attacks. Refer here.
 * He then replied with accusations of bad faith (at least of bad faith; I choose not to think too long about what else he was implying) here.
 * He then upheld his bizarre accusations after my reply, seen here.
 * I include these links only as a reply to algabal's misrepresentation of fact.
 * (Also, since I don't know if you're "watch"ing the BLP page or not, just a note: J Edgar Hoover died in 1972. As such, he no longer qualifies as "living".) Bladestorm 17:28, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I was unaware of BLP policy at the time, and was utterly perplexed as to why anyone would have been so militant about removing such rumors. This is why I made the conclusion that some sort of rabid fans were censoring the article. Sorry if I offended you. Algabal 18:14, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess it's easy for people to jump to conclusions (me included). Up to you if you want to simply remove my comments here, spark. Bladestorm 18:30, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Algabal, you're welcome. It is understandable that some people would like objectionable content to be be removed from biography pages, but in this case the urban legend is so well estaqblished and sourced, that it should certainly be included. Sparkzilla 02:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

No problems about assuming good faith, Sparkzilla. I suspect I've just had a bit more experience in the "controversial subject" editing. Your summary was entirely appropriate, and was certainly worthy of inclusion. Risker 19:02, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I have commented at the BLP Noticeboard. Please note I have no interest in the Richard Gere article per se, but am holding to the principal that should a rumour or allegation prove to be notable then it is fit to be included in the appropriate place providing that WP's requirements are satisfied. Cheers. LessHeard vanU 20:20, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, I'll have a look. Is this the third or fourth forum this debate has extended too? ;~] LessHeard vanU 12:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, it's gradually moving up the ranks. Maybe it will become an all-time favorite. Actually, I have no particular interest in Gere either, but was concerned to see well-sourced material being rejected on apparently arbitrary grounds. Sparkzilla 15:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Re: talk
Thanks for the note. You are serious about including the newspaper story, then? I think the gerbil legend has vastly stronger grounds for inclusion :) Alas, my commenting on that was from an RfC, too... frustrating to have it go full circle to another RfC.  Interestingly, FNMF has a history of quoting policy without describing how that policy affects the topic (that is, proclaiming something is libelous and leaving it at that, in the face of good argument that the "something" is not libelous), and of being blocked.  Also, it may be useful for you to review exactly what consensus means, since the word is being repeatedly thrown at you.

For my part, I intend to stay out of it, unless the discussion becomes less circular / ridiculous. Good luck! — Demong talk 22:53, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Nick Baker (prisoner in Japan)
The user User:Heatedissuepuppet‎ has been editing your summary of the article (which I felt was a fair representation of the article contents) to remove mention of Metropolis (he is an anti-Metropolis troll, see his history). I felt that rather than have an unbalanced intro that the entire summary you added would be better removed for now. If, however, you would like to put it back in I would not object. Sparkzilla 00:13, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I rarely engage in edit wars with someone. I usually just wait a month or two then go back and correct whatever that particular POV-pusher was trying to do.  Sometimes that works, sometimes it doesn't.  I think that I'll leave a comment on the article's talk page, though, to build a foundation on the issue for the future in case the disagreement escalates.  I personally think that the Metropolis/Japan Today reporting on the issue is notable because it was that publication that "broke" the story on the numerous inconsistencies in Baker's advocate's claims about his case.  I believe I'm a neutral third party, because I don't have any connection to Metropolis even though I live in Japan.  As a "foreigner" living in Japan, of course I've followed his case with interest as well as the perception of how the Japanese justice system treats "foreign" accused.  In fact, I recently started an article about Michael Brown (United States Marine Corps officer).


 * By the way, please don't call other editor "trolls" or refer to their editing as "trolling." It can be considered as a personal attack and rarely helps resolve the disagreement. Cla68 02:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I saw your edit summary stating that you would "contact an admin" about the content dispute in this article. Be advised that admins generally don't get involved with content disputes.  Their job is to enforce policy and maintain Wikipedia's structure.  The content dispute resolution process is outlined at WP:DR.  I have some experience with this process and help get it started if you'd like.  Be advised that the process is very slow and may not result in a definitive resolution. Cla68 22:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you for you comment. The user's history is only related to denying Metropolis notability, and I think that it would be fair enough to ask an Admin to point out to the user that the magazine alreay survived AFD, and that if the user wants to continue placing the notability tag that he should nominate Metropolis for deletion again on grounds of notability, or stop placing such tags. What do you think?Sparkzilla
 * You can ask if you'd like, but, based on my experiences admins don't like to get involved in those types of discussions in their roles as admins. Cla68 01:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)