User talk:Steven Walling/Archive 7

Thanks for reminding me to sign my edits
I'm still a little new to this and i forgot.--Taijidizi 21:04, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Ridiculous
The only person making an attack on the Heamo rfc is you. And you look ridiculous for it, SqueakBox 02:03, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey Squeak, you know I support the fight against any blatant pro-pedophile POV-pusher. But discussing every user and issue through the lens of their edits (however miniscule) to pedophilia-related topics is both unfair and illogical. And to say that you spend a significant amount of time here on the issue of pedophilia and pedophiles is not a personal attack, it's the plain and simple truth. VanTucky  (talk) 02:13, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have removed this RfA from my watchlist till the 20th, then I'll be back (I'm kind of on holiday) and we can discuss then. I think RfA demands a higher standard than other spaces here. And hey I am not disillusioned with your good self in any way, disagreements are just the wikipedia way. Regards, SqueakBox 05:15, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Barnstar
I was very moved. I'll put it on my user page. Keep up the good work. Steve Dufour 06:50, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Your comment on Alison's page
This was quite unnecessary, was it not? I very much doubt Alison's call was based on 'guts' - she is one of the most active admins at WP:RFPP and makes many difficult decisions every day. The fact that her opinion differed from yours doesn't make her wrong. I urge you to retract your last statement. ~ Riana ⁂ 16:18, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

The way I look at the protection, it's not a decision for an administrator to make, we've no real mandate to prevent any editor who wishes to do so from commenting. The protection was then carried out by a bureaucrat, someone with a very real mandate to assist in the running of RfA, determine consensus and promote accordingly. They therefore can legitimately protect any RfA if they believe that new or unregistered accounts are impacting the RfA in anyway. Guts have nothing to do with it, and I'm frankly very disappointed you have resorted to such behaviour. I'm sure, if you haven't done so already, an apology to Alison is in order. Nick 16:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps I was unnecessarily heated, but guts is exactly what was needed to make that decision. I have heard there is some precedent for semi protecting RFA's, but this was still an instance of the application of IAR. To do so takes the courage and maturity to recognize when a continuation of business as usual defies common sense and the evidence at hand. If Alison is as experienced as you say, then she should be able to do so rather than make a knee-jerk denial. VanTucky  (talk) 16:25, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It was far from being a "knee-jerk denial" & I really don't appreciate comments like that - A l is o n  ☺ 16:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed
Yes, they are spam-like, riddled with weasel words, unsourced claims and contradictory stories of their school's origin. I was bold and took out most of the unsourced stuff from the Yangjia Michuan article, and added that the person they claim was responsible for teaching fluff to the royal family. Yang Ch'eng-fu, actually wasn't teaching before the emperor abdicated! On a personal note, a school that has to impugn another school to promote their own gets up my nose a bit. Cheers, --Fire Star 火星 00:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Deaths from Shihonage
Well the references are given but basically it was university training in Japan which can be brutal. Hitting the back of the head on the mat too many times and the resultant brain injury.Peter Rehse 01:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Being a beginner in aikido, shihonage scares me. With other techniques, when you are out of balance, you roll away. When you have pain, you move to relieve the pain. In shihonage, you move with your head in the direction of the floor. jmcw 10:10, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

tai chi classics
It is nice to see how well the article has grown. I seem to have provoked something good. I spend time in both Prag and Switzerland - the Prag Post is a fantastic paper. jmcw 11:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Requesting your help for article improvement
Hello...

I found your name on the member's list on the WikiProject R&B and Soul Music portal. Because of your interest in R&B and soul music, I'm writing to ask for your help with the James Brown article, which was nominated as a candidate for the Article Collaboration and Improvement Drive. The goal for this drive is to improve the article to featured status in time for the first anniversary of James Brown's death.

If you're interested and want to have your vote count in this effort, please visit Article Creation and Improvement Drive page for the James Brown article by August 28. A link to this page has also been provided on the James Brown talk page. At this time, although four votes have been recorded for improving the article, at least four votes are needed to promote the project. (The original request was for four votes, which has since been increased to a minimum of 8 votes.) You can get an idea of the improvements needed for the article by visiting the James Brown talk page to view the To-do list for the article that's —Preceding unsigned comment added by lwalt (talk • contribs)

Tai Chi User Box
Hi - thanks for your comment on my talk page. I have seen your work trying to straighten out some of the pages associated with Master Moy and the society - a bit of an uphill battle at times! There is some real hostility on some of the talk pages from some other users!

I started TTC in Edmonton in 1985 and became an instructor at Moy's request in 1987 in Winnipeg, taught for seven years in various places in Canada. After running into some serious ego-politics in one city after Moy's death, I just went on practicing alone instead of getting mixed up in it. I've been at it for 22 years now. Here in Canada the society has lost many long-time practioners and instructors due the internal politics and egos of some who "don't get it" and who have hurt Moy's original vision.

I have been working on Wikipedia for a few years and thought I owed Moy a few clean-ups to his bio, which I should get to soon! The least I could do for the old monk after all he did for all of us.

Please do keep up the work you have done. I think you are doing a good job there! - Ahunt 14:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Schools
Let's make a proposal, then. Given the two of us have such different approaches.... DGG (talk) 03:42, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * sorry--lets try Schools notability as a first step. last time I tried there, it was impossible to get agreement on even the fact that there was no agreement on anything. so if that fails, VP. Personally, my view is to get agreement on this, not agreement on what I would ideally like. It will probably be interpreted as a victory by some people who have been disagreeing with me, but that doesnt bother me. Suggestion:


 * Established secondary schools, i.e. US High Schools and equivs in other countries with a physical location are assumed to be notable if reliable information is available to establish existence & location. this includes multi-level schools with a secondary component. This does not include tutoring centers or correspondence schools.
 * Schools below this level, including intermediate schools and primary schools are ordinarily to be combined into articles for the school district, diocese, city, county, corporation, or other unit, unless actual notability as established by RSs is present. Factors include:
 * other educational institutions below the college level, including tutoring centers or correspondence schools: case by case. (colleges are already considered N a/c the HS proposal--& they are my model for this.) DGG (talk) 04:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * comments. RSs and Notability -- the principles are maintained by the assumption that sources will exist. V requires verifiability, not verified. At least, this is the reason given at AfD repeatedly as justification for the other automatic categories, such as state legislators. (I too wasn't really happy about that one, but I now see the great convenience.)   I took care of non-public schools--Catholic schools fit nicely into the diocese. Private schools usually will have to be the city, etc  except where there's a recognized grouping of system or ownership.  Should we try for factors for the primary/intermediate/miscellaneous?  there's a difficult group--vocational schools that are technically secondary or post-secondary. Not all are N by any rational standard. DGG (talk) 18:36, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I think considering that vocational schools are often much more profit-oriented than other educational institutions, they need to be left on a case by case basis. Besides, there isn't to my knowledge near as much a system-wide dispute over this type of school, so a clarifying guideline beyond what exists now is not necessary. VanTucky  (talk) 18:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Tai chi classics
Yes, at the rate it is expanding, the current listing scheme is becoming, erm, inelegant to say the least. Having a subsection now for each text or group of texts makes sense. --Fire Star 火星 04:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

My RFA
Hi Vantucky, before judging me based upon six edits where I was lazy and didn't think it would matter, please take a look at my complete history of AFD edits. I have compiled all of my "vote" since July 1 here. I think you will see that not expounding upon a vote is the rare exception, not the rule. ThanksBalloonman 05:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I see your point, and the evidence supports what you're saying. But I recommend you refrain from contacting oppose or neutral !voters on their talk pages trying to convince them to change. Your attitude here felt aggressive at worst, and desperate at best. Maintaining a civil, calm attitude is more important than trying to correct what you see as incorrect or unfair oppose !votes, as failing to do so can kill support in a major way. VanTucky  (talk) 18:20, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Romanization
Thanks for your comment. The reason that I no longer like the use of "Tai Chi" is that although it is a common name, it is not the correct name, and also I feel that we should be moving away from archaic romanization; Hanyu Pinyin now being the accepted international standard, even here in Taiwan. I also don't understand why we de-capitalize the first letter as in taijiquan or tai chi chuan, that is the martial art's name after all. For example when writing Zhongguo (China) you wouldn't use a small "z" or another example would be if you check Judo in a Chinese dictionary it will be called roudao, which is the Chinese pronunciation and not its actual name, so I can understand why it is de-capitalized. Please advise :-).Realtaichi 03:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

George Bernard Shaw
Van Tucky, I am delighted at receiving your award! I enjoy working on the project and am amply compensated by a growing understanding of the man.Wugo 05:22, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

more disruptive editing
I'm not sure if you remember this case, but the user, who you applied the most recent of his three successive blocks to, is back and at it again. He has reverted, without any new discussion, twice just today. do you suggest I bring a new ANI case now or wait for his inevitable new violation of the 3RR? Thank you so much for any advice on the matter. VanTucky (talk) 03:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Warned and it is made sure now that any further revert from his part w/o discussing he'd be off. Please let me know if it happens again. -- FayssalF  - Wiki me up®  19:49, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Oregon Shakespeare Festival
Hey VT, can you let me know when you're done editing OSF? I was going to stick a wip tag on it and tackle the intro (for context) and handle some of the wikification (to show by example), but I was afraid I'd run into an edit conflict with you. Thanks! Katr67 21:06, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Cool. No hurry. Especially let me know if you're done deleting--I don't want to wikify anything you think should come out. Katr67 21:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks like our posts crossed. It's not politeness, it's pure selfishness. I hate making a bunch of edits, discovering an edit conflict, and having to go back and painstakingly incorporate my edits into the new version. :P Katr67 21:12, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Nice Collar
Thanks for catching dixR4chix. Ya got there b4 me! Cheers, ask123 22:23, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thank you! It's been a long time since I received a Barnstar and I especially appreciate the Kindness Barnstar. --  Jreferee  (Talk) 05:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 20th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:06, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Locking a Page
Is there any way to lock a page to due excessive vandalism? Narmowen 09:00, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Rufus & Dawn French
Dawn French as well as Jennifer Saunders were both guest of Rufus in London in early 2007. You can find evidence of this on Youtube. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Romeo76 (talk • contribs).

"I reverted because the addition was too verbose, not just because of inaccuracy. However, YouTube does not meet the qualifications for a reliable source per Wikipedia standards."

Woah, I guess I didn't realize that stating a fact that Rufus Wainwright fans might find interesting would find it's way to a Wikinazi. If you know so much and are a Rufus "expert" you'll find that it is not an inaccurate fact as you say. You might also reference: http://www.musicomh.com/gigs/rufus-wainwright-4_0507.htm or even: http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/music/live_reviews/article1855489.ece I'm so very sorry, this is the first time I have ever tried to edit here, perhaps I should run everything by you first for fear that you may revert it at your whim. --Romeo76 00:40, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Chen Fake images
Hi, I did a quick search but wasn't able (yet) to find info on any original sources for Chen Fake photos. I am going out of town for a while, but will do more research as time permits.

I did find these, which may be interesting even if we don't use them:

http://baji.info/styles/taiji/taiji.htm

http://www.shujian.at/galerie.html

http://www.chenretiro.com/chenretiro/galerias/historicas/h_artoftCC2.htm

Cheers, --Fire Star 火星 02:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, Kinda sorry
Just an FYI that I didn't mean to sound as snippy as I came across on the horse article. I actually appreciate a lot of the work you did, it's just that particular article is sort of an ongoing thorn in the side of the horse editors, it's far better than it once was, but it has soooo far to go. And, well, you know how it is; much time we could spend fixing it we spent reverting "me and my pony" edits until we finally got it on permanent semi-protection. (Ditto for Pony why people want to constantly vandalize those two articles is beyond me...) The good news is that you motivated me to take another whack at it and clean up some more stuff.

The image thing also has a history; the article used to have this huge gallery of crummy pictures of everyone and their critter and it took awhile to get rid of it. (Sounds like the same thing happened in the dog articles)  I was also particularly touchy about images today after spending too much time yesterday arguing with someone who insisted that her picture of her shetland pony really needed to be placed in about a gazillion articles. Nice pony and all that, but... Montanabw (talk) 07:25, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi
Sorry, ok! 201.8.142.133 16:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

DYK August 23
The hook that you nominated, and which I later placed on the main page (that Esther Short Park in Vancouver, Washington is the oldest urban public park west of the Mississippi River?) ended up being inaccurate. The source did not support his bold claim, and other public parks were established before this one. I have since changed the hook. Please be more careful about sourcing your contributions in the future, especially ones that you want to appear on the main page.-Andrew c [talk] 20:30, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Shakespeare project - New collaboration debate
The Shakespeare project's first collaboration has ended in success, with William Shakespeare reaching FA status! Congrats to all who chipped in! We also had success in our second collaboration Romeo and Juliet, which is now a GA. Our next step is deciding which article to collaborate on next. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Shakespeare to help us choose. Thanks. Wrad 03:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Want a job?
Don't know if you are aware of WikiProject horse training or WikiProject Horse breeds, however, both are a disorganized disaster. The breeding project was taken wholesale from something that was going on with dogs, but needs a lot of clarificaition and cleanup. The training project is worse, mostly filled with "natural horsemanship" folks who themselves don't really know much about training but have a POV. Anyway, somehow people seem to think I should be in charge of the training project, but it's more than I can handle, it's a mess and while I am great at editing individual articles, organizing tasks is a bit more than my wikiskills can handle...any help just cleaning up the page, making different suggestions, whatever. all is good, would you take a peek? Thanks! Montanabw (talk) 03:26, 27 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Great. The project page itself is sort of a disaster.  The list of horse breeds is the place where I chose to put my time and effort, and I think it is pretty well organized and more useful than the project page.  As far as the articles go, the major horse breed articles are, by and large, reasonably acceptable (quality varies) but some of the real unusual or rare breed articles are stubs, or poorly written, or without refs.  Just check the horse stubs list, you will see what I mean.  Montanabw (talk) 03:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Alpaca info box
I see you changed the info box on the Alpaca article. I'm just wondering why you didn't discuss or at least make a mention of it like you did on the Llama article. I was just about ready to revert it before I saw your comment on the Llama article. Although your picture of a llama is better, I don't necessirly agree with your choice of alpaca pictures. Would it be possible for your to revert the alpaca picture and allow people to comment on it before you post it? -- Blind Eagle  talk ~ contribs  12:29, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

GAC Octopussy
What's taking you so long to review this? Vikrant Phadkay 13:19, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy rewrite
Hey VanTucky, I plan to implement the homeopathy rough draft( link) by September 1st, 5 days from now. Unless of course more proposals are made to change it, in which case I will postpone the implementation until it is ready and agreed upon. Some things concerning the rough draft are still in discussions, which can easily continue once it goes live. An example is the inclusion of mentions of Jacques Benveniste. Other things can easily be fixed after a week or so of copy editors from the general public going over it and removing redundancy and rewording sentences to be more brief and precise, which will cut down size of the article including the lead without removing relevant info. So If by September 1st I receive no more suggestions on improving the rough draft then I will replace the Homeopathy article with it. If you see problems with the draft, please make suggestions on improving it. Even if the suggestions might have already been made, just make a new post with the suggestions so that we can discuss them. Here is the link to the rough draft again: Link to rough draft. Thanks.  Wikidudeman  (talk) 13:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for August 27th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:07, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hamlet
The Shakespeare Project's new collaboration is now to bring Hamlet to GA status. Wrad 00:32, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yoga poll
Hi! There's some discussion on whether using "asana", "yogasana" or "yoga asana" as the article title. If you are acquainted with the subject, you are invited to drop your opinion at Talk:Yogasana. Davin7 09:32, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Spartacus Enterprises
Hi VanTucky. I just closed the AFD on this article as "no consensus". It would be great if you could add the references you found in the deletion discussion to the article. Thanks! Neil  ム  11:08, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

AFD experience
Your opinion was very vague. Are there AfD edits you have problems with?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 01:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not your policy judgement, i.e. in relation to which side you !voted for, but the general attitude. Recognizing that I am sometimes the same way, I think you just didn't display a calm and impartial attitude that I think an admin is supposed to have. I think you're an awesome contributor, it's just that I don't your material for someone who is supposed to mediate and adjudicate things in the community. VanTucky (talk) 01:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

HEEELLLLPPPP!
OK, things are just getting too weird for me. See the last discussion on the bottom of the page at Talk:Arabian horse and the recent edit history of the article. Seems the bestiality people have found the article and a bunch of idiots are threatening to edit it to say that Arabian stallions are vicious animals that engage in anal intercourse with humans. IIIICCCCCKKKKK! I need reinforcements! HELP! Montanabw (talk) 01:24, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I am usually only online once a day or so, thus the more eyes that can be on that article until this person chills out, the better. All help and your input on the discussion are much appreciated.  Montanabw (talk) 02:22, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Anytime. That IP is a real nutjob. One more beautiful reason for my friends and family to laugh at Wikipedia edit wars. VanTucky  (talk) 02:27, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I suppose we are just gluttons for punishment. But, I guess Thomas Jefferson was right. The cure for abuse of free speech is more free speech. I suspect the commenter "Donny" and the anon IP who started this could be the same guy. Montanabw (talk) 02:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

FYI, Donny has now turned his attentions to the horse article. See talk:horse Further help may be needed. Montanabw (talk) 20:45, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The Rocky Horror Picture Show article
Some of your MOS changes go against the Project Film Style guidelines. Cast lists are not recommended but are acceptable. It was the consensus of the editors to include them (not my idea) however it is recommended to include cast in the plot section.--Amadscientist 03:50, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I know. But since this film is so unique, as is the cast, I felt it appropriate to defer in preference to a separate cast list. And since it was already present in the article, a duplicate listing in the plot section was improper. VanTucky  (talk) 03:52, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Does it hold the article back from recieving a GA rating. It was a consensus thing again to include them in the plot section. I had originaly removed them as it made reading the plot section difficult. But returned it when others objected to it's removal.--Amadscientist 04:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I'm passing it now. It was just that since you didn't make a talk comment that you had done what I suggested, I didn't take action. But I just went back through the diffs, and it seems to be good. I'll pass it now. VanTucky (talk) 05:11, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi there
Sure, I'll have a look. I must admit can't remember any unpleasantness between us in the past - my terrible memory makes me a very forgiving person! All the best Tim Vickers 03:51, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No problems, that was just a discussion, certainly not an argument. Here's one of my rare smileys for you :) Tim Vickers 03:55, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Added a few more studies to consider. If you need the Pdfs of the full text of any of the articles discussed, please e-mail me through my user page with the titles and authors and I'll send the files back to you. All the best Tim Vickers 04:17, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Boerboel
Hi VanTucky, one thing I'd think about would be an early WP:RCU request on the new contributor to the talk page. I'll speak to Frikkers about personal attacks and protect the page for another week. After that consider an RfC if many are interested, or back to ANI with diffs. Sound like a plan? -- Samir 04:56, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
 * You're right, definitely not enough for RCU now, but consider it if it starts looking like the same user with 2 accounts on the talk page. I'm not sure that it is, but Casper just seemed to fly into the talk page out of nowhere -- Samir 05:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello
I've seen your comments in and around the same pages I visit, and I like your reasoning, comments, and positions. Just though I'd say hello. — Becksguy 00:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Re:PROD
When someone removes a prod, it doesn't go back. If you still want it deleted, go to AfD. -- John Reaves 04:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Here's an idea: don't be a giant dick. Big deal if it expired, it's obvious someone didn't want it deleted so go with the spirit of the system.  If you wanted deleted so bad, go to AfD. -- John Reaves 04:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Rhee Taekwon-Do
(Copied from the Rhee Taekwon-Do discussion page) Thank you for reviewing the article, VanTucky. I have been the main person working on this article for the last few months (although it was nominated for GA status by someone else—to my pleasant surprise, I must say). The changes I have commented on above are all minor stylistic issues rather than content-related issues. Probably the most contentious issue would be changing "taekwon-do" to "taekwondo" … and since I would be one of those most likely to object (on academic grounds), yet have agreed to the change (after reviewing Wikipedia guidelines), I believe the article should be stable enough for review. Trust this helps in your decision-making, and thank you again for your time; much appreciated. Janggeom 04:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Go player?
I saw you contributed to the go page, how about we settle the disputes on homosexuality on a goban? The loser withdraws from editing the article. Happy Camper II 09:21, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Wine Project Newsletter
Apologies to everyone for this notification being sent out so late, events in real life prevented me from distributing it at the time, and the Wine Project's had a bit of a lull during the Northern Hemsiphere summer. But as the nights draw in, activity should pick up again, and hopefully the next Newsletter will arrive a little more quickly....

The next few weeks are the perfect time to take photos of grapes in the Northern Hemisphere - get your cameras out! FlagSteward 16:08, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

DRV
I have initiated a deletion review of an AFD which you were involved in. You may wish to contribute to the discussion. Balancer 04:52, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

American Staffordshire Terrier
According to what I read in the help pages here, citing information immediately after the information appears in the article is acceptable. The help pages should be changed if that is no longer acceptable practice. Also, am I reading right in that you are saying I not only violated copyright but then somehow admitted to things I didn't do? I am sure I must be mistaken. I corrected erroneous information and 'unviolated' the first paragraph of this article. I have nothing whatsoever to do with the copyright violations that appear throughout the remainder of the article. I have no idea who posted the original verbatim passages and erroneous information. If you prefer erroneous information and copyright violations though, so be it. This will be the last time I offer anything to the Wikipedia project and the last time I use it for information purposes. Have a nice day. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.101.0.67 (talk) 01:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Template:FGAN
I think I fixed it. Let me know if it still isn't working.--Esprit15d 21:07, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * My first barnstar! That made my day...no week. Thank you!--Esprit15d 02:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Glock
thank you for your impartial review of the Glock article! Most of your remarks are very useful, one or two are very difficult to fulfill (free pictures of the production process etc). anyway, I wanted to thank you, and hopefully you'll see this page pass in a matter of weeks! :) Greetings, --Boris Barowski 21:08, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks
P.S. - Don't worry about the she/he thing, by the way. Like I said, it's a common mistake with this name and there's no way to tell on the internet anyway. :-)

Izze Flavors
Didn't mean it offend you or anything. If anything, Pomogrante should be likely to be wikilinked then Clementine. But all of them works for me. :) --Pilotboi / talk / contribs 02:59, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiWednesday
Hi Vantucky -- I noticed that you lived in Portland, & was wondering if you'd be interested (on admittedly short notice) in our WikiWednesday get-together tomorrow, 5 September, & I was wondering if you were available. The general idea is to invite a bunch of people from the local wiki and open source community to the new AboutUs space around 6:30ish and then have a social event that's also a work party. For a work party we thought, let's all come with an idea or two on something we can build/write/contribute to WikiHow and spend an hour or two barnraising there.

Time: 6:30p

Location: The Aboutus.com offices, 107 SE Washington, Ste 520 Portland OR 97214

In case you arrive and the door is locked, you can call Tak Kendrick (xxx-xxx-xxxx) a call, and either he'll come down to open the door -- or send someone down to do it.

Hope to see you there -- llywrch 03:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No problem. Show up when you can -- hopefully not too late. -- llywrch 04:16, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

River City Theatre Company restored
This article has been restored after its deletion was contested at. As you nominated the article to be deleted via WP:PROD, you may wish to nominate the article for a full deletion discussion at Articles for deletion. (personally I don't think it meets WP:CORP) -- lucasbfr talk 07:56, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Soay sheep external link
I double checked the link that was added by another editor and noted it was to an extensive information page on Soay sheep. What specific policy did it violate that constitued you reverting the edit? Thank you. -- Blind Eagle  talk ~ contribs  15:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Per WP:EL, I believe these links should stay. Please review and comment.  -- Blind  Eagle  talk ~ contribs  16:42, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I see you reverted it again. I will review the site as I didn't see that their info page had sale info.  The info provided is quite extensive on the Soay sheep site.  -- Blind  Eagle  talk ~ contribs  16:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I was talking about the guard llama link. The soay link only has commercial information on the parent homepages. But that doesn't negate that it is inappropriate. That is too fine a line, and allowing any commericial link that has a smattering of info is not acceptable. VanTucky  (talk) 16:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I think that type of opinion is also walking a fine line. Your opinion would infer that only a small amount of information is being provided.  In fact, I think it is just the opposite.  The Soay link had nine PDF files that you certainly wouldn't want added to the Soay article.  -- Blind  Eagle  talk ~ contribs  16:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

TSWLM (film)
Where is any statement of the making DVD in this article? Vikrant Phadkay 15:52, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Arabian horse
It might be helpful to know that the user who is requesting a review of this article's GA status is the same user who spent most of last week inserting the story of the man who died having sex with an Arabian into various horse-related articles, despite appeals and threats to stop. He was even using IPs to avoid 3RR. It is difficult to assume good faith of him, as he has already been very disruptive. I've advised him to let some other user, one who can be assumed to be acting in good faith, take the appeal from here if there really is a call for it from more users than him and his IPs. -FisherQueen (Talk) 11:01, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Normally, I would agree that a discussion based on editorial commentary is good, and I also agree that the Arabian Horse article is a bit laudatory in tone. However, we're feeding a troll. See the discussion at WP:ANI, where Donny was determined to have evaded 3RR with IP edits. Donny is getting to be a poster child for WP:DISRUPT, and it is hard to AGF, although I've certainly tried. I'm not going to debate him or encourage any further interaction.  Acroterion  (talk)  14:42, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * I remembered the absurdity that Donny tried to perpetrate quite well. But by lashing out, rather than being more civil (as we are admonished to do when faced with incivility), you were all feeding him. So I told him to take it elsewhere. He'll get his disruptive nonsense quashed by all the sensible people at GA review and we can get on with our encyclopedia. You don't stop a troll by screaming "beware the troll!" in every new disruptive situation. VanTucky  (talk) 19:00, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * GA review people are sensible? And I hate it when people scream "beware the troll".  Besides, who said I was trolling?  That blurp about the Kenneth guy was completely factual.  Just because it was offensive, gross, and unnaturally funny doesn't mean it shouldn't be included into the article!  I would go so far as to call Arabian's a perverted breed!  there is no way a normal size human could make that animal do that unless it wanted to...that's just common sense. Acroterion, are you [refactored]  Donny  417  20:15, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Suggesting people are zoophiles is a gross violation of WP:NPA. Cease now, or there will be repercussions. VanTucky  (talk) 22:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Personal attacks? I never personally attacked anyone, nor did I call someone a zoophile.  I was simply inquiring if a person was of any kin.  If they were related it would explain a lot, like why he has tried to suppress the information related to the person in question.  Donny  417  22:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

(undent) Don't worry, I don't stay angry long. But do you see now...? A GA review is inappropriate at this particular time. [Besides, I don't think the article is all that laudatory.. but.. another day then...]. -- Ling.Nut 03:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 3rd, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 05:48, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Peter Tatchell
Hi. I've done some work on this article in an attempt to address the issues you quite rightly brought up on the GA review. Could you take a look and let me know whether you think it's ready for resubmitting yet, or whether it needs more work. Thanks SP-KP 17:57, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Regarding the two issues - I'll look at the citations; could you flag up the statements which you feel are controversial? I'd be happy to do some more work on these. Thanks SP-KP 21:40, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, can I just check about the citations? You said that there are some sections without references. I've just looked through and I can't see these - I can see at least one reference in every section. Can you clarify what you meant? Thanks SP-KP 21:46, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello again


Becksguy has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing! ——Hello back, and hope you had a great camping trip, and thanks. And now I have another template to play with.... Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.


 * Thought you might be interested in reading the comment I made in opposition to an argument about sodomy and anti-homosexuality: Talk:Leonardo da Vinci.  I haven't seen Compton used as a source much but since it was published by Harvard U. Press, it should be considered a reliable source here and elsewhere in WP. Comments?
 * Also, Talk:Homosexuality is getting warm again.
 * — Becksguy 10:26, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Peter Tatchell
Thanks for your further reply. I do understand the general principle - indeed, I spend a lot of my editing effort in attempts to make other articles well-referenced (usually in readiness for FA status). However, I'm not sure of the specific concerns you want me to address in order to bring this article to the less stringent GA status. I do not know which statements you regard as controversial - I'd be happy to look for citations for these if I knew which these were. And I'm now not clear about your second point - as each section now has at least one reference, is there anything additional over & above the need to find citations for the controversial statements, which is what I had understood earlier, or do we just have one problem to address? SP-KP 22:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Example of an area badly needing citations: the Political awakening section. When you make assertions about the opinions and activities (especially political activities) of a living person, you need to have a reliable, direct citation. VanTucky  (talk) 22:10, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Could you put some cn tags in that section to show which statements you think need to be cited, in order for that section's level of referencing not to disqualify the article from GA status. SP-KP 13:45, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

James Dobson and sheep
Please do not use a sheep article to criticize James Dobson, some of your facts were not even accurate. James Dobson doesn't believe that homosexuality is a choice. Please research it before you say that James Dobson stands for something that he doesn't stand for. Let's talk about this article.

-Researcher2714 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Researcher2714 (talk • contribs) 07:33, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

okay, maybe I misunderstood. That's okay. It just seemed to me like someone, (whether it was you or not)

1. put a liberal slant towards gay issues in wikipedia (any slant is a little controversial, but then again it is wikipedia).

2. criticized James Dobson (again, it is wikipedia, so I'm not as upset about that)

3. put it in a page that had NOTHING to really do with James Dobson

4. AND put false information in there.

Now #1 and #2 are only a little upsetting but not that much because those things happen on wikipedia, but... (if I understand correctly that you are a liberal, but I don't know)... but if someone were to do ALL FOUR OF THESE THINGS: 1. give a slanted negative view of Bill Clinton. 2. Give a slanted negative view of a liberal position on an issue. 3. put this statement in an article about forests, 4. AND ON TOP OF THAT get their information wrong, ALL IN THE SAME ARTICLE, well I imagine that a liberal editor would be pretty dang upset with that. Would you agree? I don't know if that was you or not. If it was it's okay, I wouldn't hold it against you. By the way, I'm new to wikipedia and don't know all the rules so feel free to tell me if I am doing anything unintentionally disrespectful. ttyl!

Sheriff GA
Hi there. Thanks for the many, useful suggestions! Bearian 20:16, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Rhee Taekwon-Do
Hi, VanTucky. You tagged this article as under review 12 days ago, but there's been no review. Have you forgotten about this one? Lara Love   ♥   13:40, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Just want to say thanks
Thank you fro you welcome message - it's always nice to feel welcome in a community :-), although I made this page only as a reference; I contribute mainly on Spanish Wikipedia (by translatin articles from english) and use this Wiki as a source only. anyway, thanks! And also, could I youse your userpage design on my userpages - I liked it very much. --Vorkalloner 20:16, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for September 10th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. R Delivery Bot 21:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

RfA
Hi VanTucky. I have a minor quibble about your RfA vote, and a sincere question regarding your comment. Firstly, the link you provided shows that I did actually make more edits to an AfD than to my RfA (though if I had made this comment on the RfA, it would have drawn them level!). Secondly, why is it important for someone nominated to be an admin to have made more than one or two comments per individual AfD? On those where I have voted or nominated, I have only made one comment unless someone has specifically replied to my vote, and this is not often the case. What would you expect to see from a potential admin? Regards, Number   5  7  22:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * PS, Apologies if it is inappropriate to comment on your vote whilst my RfA is still going, but I am not hoping to change your vote, but am genuinely interested in your opinion on contributions to AfDs. Thanks, Number   5  7  22:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It is not at all inappropriate to ask polite questions of !voters during an AFD. In fact, you should be encouraged to do so. To answer: I could only see what the edit counter gives me, so when I see your RFA ahead of AFD contributions in the count, that is one factor that says you are not ready. This was just a rhetorical example of how I generally feel about your candidacy i.e. that you are not experienced enough. Van Tucky  Talk 23:01, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for your input. Dare I ask what you did on Conservopedia? :)  Number   5  7  23:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I edited the homosexuality article, and it was a blockable offense to change the basic definition of homosexuality to not be, "Homosexuality is an immoral sexual lifestyle." Big surprise. BTW: Sometimes I know that candidates are not aware of how literally answers to questions may be taken. If you can give me some evidence that you are experienced enough in other project space areas, you might just change my mind. Van Tucky  Talk 23:19, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, definitely a cardinal sin then. Anyway, having come on your talk page in the first place was daring enough - I definitely don't feel that trying to change your mind is appropriate, even if it is with your permission! Thanks for the offer to do so though, Number   5  7  23:27, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Requests for adminship/Number 57
I don't understand your oppose. First, are you saying you expect him to have above six edits to an articles for deletion discussion? Second, regardless of that's what you're saying, how does this affect his ability to not misuse admin tools? Picaroon (t) 00:56, 12 September 2007 (UTC)


 * See the above discussion. I will add some of my comments above to the !vote. Van Tucky  Talk 00:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Al Huang
I am gratified to see the AfD was a success. My opinion of him and what he tries pass off as taijiquan is much the same as yours. I'm also glad to see that that wasn't the reason the AfD did succeed. It succeeded on the issue of notability, IMO. --Fire Star 火星 02:39, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Quite. There are plenty of notable tai chi teachers whose methods or style I disapprove of, but a charlatan and no reliable sources? That simply won't do. Van Tucky  Talk 03:40, 12 September 2007 (UTC)