User talk:Tautologist/Archive 1

Speedy deletion of Ed Kalnins
A tag has been placed on Ed Kalnins requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Woland (talk) 21:20, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

==Notability of Sarah Palin's pastor== A tag has been placed on Sarah Palin's pastor requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Accounting4Taste: talk 21:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I have noted the "hangon" tag you placed on the recent article Sarah Palin's pastor. Since the content is exactly the same as that at Ed Kalnins, and since the name of the article doesn't meet our naming conventions, I would suggest that you work on improving Ed Kalnins instead of the other article, which I intend to put beyond your reach for the moment. If you have any questions about Wikipedia policy, feel free to leave me a note. Accounting4Taste: talk 22:07, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Talk:Sarah Palin's pastor
A tag has been placed on Talk:Sarah Palin's pastor requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. CardinalDan (talk) 22:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Sarah palin's pastor
A tag has been placed on Sarah palin's pastor requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Booglamay ( talk ) - 22:16, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Ed Kalnins
One article is enough, you don't need to create Sarah Palin's pastor, as it's already covered in the main article, and appears to be making an inappropriate point in the process.  Acroterion  (talk)  22:18, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * There is no conspiracy: we don't have an article on Barack Obama's pastor, nor George Bush's podiatrist. Please do not create multiple articles on the same person.    Acroterion  (talk)  23:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Sarah Palin's Pastor
Please do not make personal attacks. Wikipedia has a strict policy against personal attacks. Attack pages and images are not tolerated by Wikipedia and are speedily deleted. Users who continue to create or repost such pages and images in violation of our biographies of living persons policy will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Thank you.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Non-dropframe (talk) 22:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

September 2008
Please stop. If you continue to introduce inappropriate pages to Wikipedia, you will be blocked from editing. Non-dropframe (talk) 22:55, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Ed Kalnins
I have nominated Ed Kalnins, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Ed Kalnins. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. L'Aquatique [approves |this |message  ]  23:22, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I'm not prepared to discuss the merits of Ed Kalnins with you; that's in the process of being considered for deletion and all discussion on that topic should be done elsewhere. However, I wanted to see if I could answer one of your questions. It's a basic principle of Wikipedia that we don't have two articles for the same topic, especially if the contents of both articles are exactly the same. In our naming conventions here, we always try to name articles in the most useful and direct way, generally by name. So, an article about Ed Kalnins would be found under that name, and not in descriptive terms about one of his parishioners -- similarly, we would not list an article under his address, his license plate number or his Social Security number, even though all those things describe him accurately. Occasionally you will find that one term "redirects" to another, such that if you try to go to a page with one name, you will be taken to another page. This frequently happens with authors who write under more than one well-known name, such as (from my experience) John Dickson Carr and Carter Dickson -- if you type either of those terms in a search field, you'll go to the same Wikipedia page, because they're the same person. However, redirect pages have to be reasonable. We allow a certain amount of liberty with things like common misspellings, but I very much doubt that any attempt to describe an individual as a famous person's pastor would be allowed to remain. One basic principle of notability is that people don't gain notability by being related to a famous person in any respect; they would most usefully be discussed in the article about the famous person. Thus, it may -- I say may, because I tend to think that the general will of the community would be against it, but it may -- be that the only legitimate place to speak about Mr. Kalnins would be as a line in his parishioner's article. I suggest this is unlikely to remain unedited, but you're welcome to try. If you have any further questions about Wikipedia policy that don't relate to the current process involving the Ed Kalnins article, you're welcome to ask them. Accounting4Taste: talk 23:44, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 00:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Re: post on my talk page
I thought I had already removed that last warning. Apparently not. Sorry. J.delanoy gabs adds 00:11, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

RE: deletion again
Actually I suggested deletion on the grounds of it being an attack page. (WP:CSD). Again, I have no control over which pages are and aren't deleted. I nominated both of the mentioned pages due to the fact that they conflict with Wikipedia's guidelines. An administrator agreed and that page was deleted. Furthermore, Eric, you re-created a deleted page multiple times which is further grounds for deletion. By the way, you may sign your posts with four ~. Thanks, Non-dropframe (talk) 00:53, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply 2
Look, Eric. It is clear that you wrote your article in a biased way. That bias is a personal attack. I can't answer the rest of your questions. Perhaps you should write an email to the administrator who deleted the page. --Non-dropframe (talk) 01:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

See three line on Calr page == Ed Kalnins ==

1. Why will Wikipedia not allow reference to Sarah Palin's former pastor on the Wikipedia page for Sarah Palin? Such information is included on the Obama page.

2. Why does Wikipedia not allpow a link for Wasilla Assembly of God when that church is referenced in the Sarah Palin article?

3. I watched the videotapes on Palin's Pastor's own web site of him making these statements, and provided links to these videotapes. I am but a simple mathematician whformerly at Stanford for eleven years, and I do not understand what better references Wikipedia requires.

All of the messages sent to me were vague, and when I asked for clarification, such as why you deleted all of the information that makes Kalnins notable, which is to say, his controvertial remarks, I get no response other than vague ones.

I had similar problems with the article on Sarah Pailin's Pastor, including when I simply wrote that this refers not to Sarah Palin's Pastor, but her former pastor. In logic, or lingustics, this expression would be a NAME, not a description, since interpreting it as a description leads to an incorrect referant.

I will attempt to rewrite the articles, including information and placing it under a heading for controversial remarks. If a person of note becomes notable because of a few controversial remarks, then those remarks should surely be included in an encyclopedia article about that person.

How do I complain about the deletions to a person higher up in Wikipedia, especially since someone is blocking any reference to Kalnins and misdirecting the link for Wasilla Assembly of God, or at least doing so until the REpublican converntion is over.

EricDiesel (talk) 01:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * There are several Wikipedia policies that are relevant: neutral point of view, verifiability, notability, and Biographies of living people. I realize that's too much reading to do before you start editing, so here's the basic idea: Wikipedia relies on mainstream media sources like the NYTimes, Fox News, CNN, and so on. If there are no such sources that have discussed the church or Ed Palin, then it's too soon for us to have an articles on those topics. If there are such sources, then we can use them to write articles, but we must do so with a neutral point of view, not unduly focusing on criticism.


 * I trimmed the article on Ed Kalnins because it had the appearance of presenting criticism without evidence that that criticism had been reported in mainstream sources. I am not familiar with the other articles and can't comment on them. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 01:38, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

By coincidence, I'm also a mathematician, in mathematical logic (computability and related proof theory). The standards here are, for better or worse, not at all the same as standards in academia (which, of course, also vary from one discipline to another).

The policy we have on biographies of living people has a section on people notable only for one event. That covers people like Ed Kalnins, who on his own isn't a very notable pastor.

I have to say that, for better or worse, the article currently at Wasilla Assembly of God seems to be aimed at associating Kalnins with views that the Huffington Post would find embarrassing. If no major news organizations have found these claims interesting enough to report on, then it's too soon for Wikipedia to have an article on the topic. We rely on major organizations (or, in mathematics and sciences, peer reviewed texts and papers) as a buffer to ensure that we are not presenting uncommon views as if they were widely accepted. That is, we don't have the sort of authorial authority that is found in academic publications. I'm sure you can imagine the sort of abuses that have led to this policy. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 02:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I've replied to your questions on my talk page.  Acroterion  (talk) 


 * The One Event criteria referred to by CBM, above, is valid here. Look at it this way: if the Palin family had not been associated with this church, would it be notable? Are there independent, reliable sources that would say so? In the context of Gov. Palin, there's probably a case that some material merits inclusion in her article, or in the article on her policies - but if the only material we have on the church and its pastor is related to Sarah Palin, then that does not meet our criteria for inclusion. I trimmed the church article to prevent it from being deleted as an attack page (borderline though it may have been), and I have also left a message for User:Wassilaag expressing concern over their username. If there's evidence that, for example, this church were the oldest or largest in Alaska, or had some other unique characteristic that was both notable and covered in reliable sources, then I could see an article working, but the concerns above are valid. UltraExactZZ Claims~ Evidence 17:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Wasilla Assembly of God
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Wasilla Assembly of God, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Larry Kroon
Indeed, the higlly political attack is vicious. An article I posted on Larry Kroon was deleted. We need to keep all four articles up, both pastors and both churches. I, alss, am no expert on manipulatin Wikipedia.Elan26 (talk) 17:59, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26

Wikipedia is a vicious, highly politicized environment. People do not want her criticized, they have also barred any discussion of Bristol Palin. Wikipedia is not about objectivity, it is about winning. It is disgusting. But, the thing is, when rational people withdraw form posting on conroversial topics, the extremists take over. Imagine what Shaarak Palin's pagw would look like if rational people like you were to quit. The best way to defend a page is usually to expand it with reliable soruces. I am working to so that on both of the pages you started. the other church is Wasilla Bible Church, it is also under attack. I will certainly post on your pages, but I am no expert. One key would be to list the deletion discussions under politcal discussions. there is a way to do this, I just don't know what it is. I will post, but one person posting is not enough. You migh also drop noted to people posting rational, objective things on the discussion section of the Sarah Palin article.Elan26 (talk) 18:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26


 * I would not go so far as to call posting futile. You do need to learn and respect the rules.  No name calling.  post with proper references.  Attempt to keep the tone neutral, even when posting controversial material.  If you give up, it will only mean worse bias in political pages.  And Wikipedia is the go-to source for a great many people.  It is worth doing.  But you do need to lear and to abide by the rules.Elan26 (talk) 18:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)Elan26


 * Look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2008_September_3#Larry_Kroon

You need to stop
accusing good faith editors of acting with "political motivations". It is bad faith, rather rude, and completely out of line. If someone disagrees with you, perhaps (gasp!), they simply have Wikipedia's best interests in mind? Cease and desist accusing others, myself included, of some fringe conspiracy crap. I posted this on Elan26's page as well. Keeper  <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76  19:31, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Final warning
The next time you create an article, a talk page, or insert a section on the topic of Sarah Palin's pastor, I will block you from editing Wikipedia for 96 hours. You may not continue to recreate a biography of a living person with unreliable sources, as you have previously been doing. Additionally, insertions such as this one are not permitted under our deletion policy. Please stop.  MBisanz  talk 20:27, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of "Barak Obama's Pastor"
A page you created, Barak Obama's Pastor, has been tagged for deletion, as it meets one or more of the criteria for speedy deletion; specifically, it is about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how they are important or significant, and thus why they should be included in an encyclopedia. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, and the guidelines for biographies in particular.

You are welcome to contribute content which complies with our content policies and any applicable inclusion guidelines. However, please do not simply re-create the page with the same content. You may also wish to read our introduction to editing and guide to writing your first article.

Thank you. Miquonranger03 (talk) 21:13, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

RfD nomination of Barak Obama's Pastor
I have nominated for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you.  MBisanz  talk 21:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

ANI Notice
WP:ANI. <font color="#CC0000">seicer &#x007C; <font color="#669900">talk  &#x007C; <font color="#669900">contribs  01:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Wasilla Assembly of God
A tag has been placed on Wasilla Assembly of God, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G4 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a repost of material that was previously deleted following a deletion debate, such as at articles for deletion. Under the specified criteria, where an article has substantially identical content to that of an article deleted after debate, and any changes in the content do not address the reasons for which the material was previously deleted, it may be deleted at any time.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. justinfr (talk/contribs) 01:39, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Wasilla Assembly of God
I have nominated Wasilla Assembly of God, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Wasilla Assembly of God. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.  Syn  ergy 02:04, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Response from Seicer
1. I don't understand why this is called Spamming. The term spamming is being used in two fashions in this case. One is that you have been copying and pasting the same discussions, or similar discussions, to various user talk pages without considering that perhaps one or more have already answered your questions. Posting around to many users may seem like you are forum shopping until you can find one user who may agree with your viewpoints or ideas.

It may also be applied to the articles in question, given that they are recreations of deleted materials under different titles. Recreating articles after they were deleted is generally frowned upon.

2. What is the five day deletion policy? Typically, articles for deletion are given five days for consensus to develop, whether the outcome is to keep, delete or merge the article. There are exceptions, especially if the tally is so strong that there is a very slim to none chance of any consensus forming in opposition to the given rationale. In this case, outside of your opposing comments, there was little to no support towards keeping any of the three articles.

3. How did all of the diverse information on the four articles, which was growing with a very large number of independent edits all get deleted? Per the AfD process as noted above. Any user can nominate an article for deletion, or speedy deletion if it warrants it, and I am noting that at least one article was speedy deleted before it was sent to AfD. Independent edits is not indicative of an article's quality.

''4. Were the sources, sourced as requested by the Chicago Tribune, Atlantic Monthly, New Jersey Times of Trenton, etc., inadequate? What is a major news source'' It still did not assert notability. If I wrote an article on my Grandmother's house for Wikipedia, which was referenced in a newspaper as being the prettiest house on the street, it would not make the house notable. Likewise, an otherwise unknown pastor for a very small church in a very small community in a very isolated part of the state is not notable. Please read over the notability guidelines for a clearer picture on that. Sources are not akways indicative of a notability.

Hope this helps, <font color="#CC0000">seicer &#x007C; <font color="#669900">talk  &#x007C; <font color="#669900">contribs  02:31, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for a detailed response. Sorry I got carried away with accusations, both in exhaustion, in anger, and in ignorance. EricDiesel (talk)

slow down
I have not been following things very closely (busy at work) but I noticed you have a lot of comments on your page here. My advice is to slow down, and find out how Wikipedia works before you create more pages. There are some established norms about content that are not at all obvious to many new editors. And contentious issues, like political candidates, tend to be the most difficult to work with. I'd be glad to discuss things with you. In general, a cool head and good reasoning will prevail here. The most common difficulty with new users is incorrect assumptions about the content policies. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 02:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for the slow down advice. Better advice might be give up, although I agreed not to give up when a number of people trying to keep information in articles asked for my help. I created three pages yesterday, one of which merely disambiguated the two pastors. I also helped remove bias and provide sources for two others today. For some reason, there are tens or hundreds of people involved in trying to keep or delete these four articles. I responded to a number of people’s deletion recommendation, suggestions, or messages to me, with individual responses. One person came in and deleted all four articles, citing my individually written responses as Spam. I don’t understand Wikipedia’s definition of Spam. Claiming to be following me for some time, he used to delete all four articles. One article on one church was about anti-Semitic remarks blaming Palestinian terror attacks on Jews on the Jews for failing to convert to Christianity (a speech attended by Palin, who did not protest, the speech). The other involved theological arguments for the war in Iraq which are identical to the position later made by Palin as a public policy statement, and was based on a Chicago Tribune and New Jersey Times of Trenton article. The person who was following me deleted all the information said he read the articles, found them to have the same content, and an administrator agreed, so deleted BOTH. It is impossible for anyone to read the two articles in any kind of good faith and find the same content. Claiming the teachers of a historical figure, who teach controversial views that are later adopted by the historical figure, makes them notable. Next it will be claimed that if Palin had a meteorology professor who taught that global warming is not caused by humans (her position as an “energy expert”) the meteorology teacher would be no more notable than her art teacher. Teachers of historic figures who are historic by virtue of application of the teaching are certainly more notable than irrelevant teachers, just as the philosophy teacher of Socrates would automatically be notable, while his athletic teacher would not. It is unfortunate that the four articles were deleted as they were growing and developing in independent directions with contributions by many people.

By the way, did you have that mathematical logic stuff on your page yesterday? I might have gone straight to your discussion page and missed it.

If you have time to respond, you can do it on my discussion page so as not to clutter yours. Is there an etiquette for all of these back and forth messages?EricDiesel (talk) 03:13, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Notability is not contagious; the pastor of a notable figure does not thereby become notable, nor does the history teacher of an historic figure thereby become historic/notable. I suspect that I am probably to your political left, and I can assure you, you are merely creating a mess and an embarasment here with your article creations and your grossly inaccurate accusations of ideological conspiracy. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  03:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I am new but it seems that notability IS transferred by relation if the relation is relevant to the notability. For example, the unknown philosophy teacher of Socrates would become notable if he or she were to be discovered, but the wrestling teacher of Socrates would not be. Most of Palin's former pastors are not notable.  Those that are the source of her controversial ideas for which she became notable are. From your history teacher example, Palin's history teacher is clearly not notable.  However, if Palin were a politician known for her denial of the Holocaust, her history teacher WOULD be notable.EricDiesel (talk) 21:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Nope. The teacher has no notability of his/her own, but is of interest solely as a trivial adjunct to Palin's actual notability. At most, the teacher might be named in an article about Palin; but she/he would not be notable in their own right. I sold books to Russell Kirk and William Rehnquist; that did not make me notable as a bookseller, regardless of any use to which they put said books. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  22:52, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for trying to meaningfully respond. Most just say “NO” without any attempt at clarifying.  I am totally new at Wikipedia, unfamiliar with its policies, and my backgrpound it in mathematics, with entirely different publication standards.
 * Responding to “If I sold books to Russell Kirk and William Rehnquist; that did not make me notable as a bookseller” -
 * If you sold a book to Rehnquist you would not be notable. If you were an unknown law professor of Rehnquist you would not be notable.  But if your were an unknown law professor of Rehnquist AND made videotapes of controversial lecures you gave him, and he adopted controversial positions that mirorred Rehnquists Lower Federal Court legal decisions, then you would not only BE notable, but a team of legal scholars would have poured over your work and published on it, and the results would be the subject of his nomination hearings.  This actually happened with Clarence Thoams.  It aslo happened with the philosophy teacher of a less well known philosopher, Bertrand Russell’s philosphy teacher.  I only used Socrates as he is more well known with an unknown philosophy teacher.
 * If you mean Alfred North Whitehead, he was notable in his own right; he's not in here because he influenced Russell. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  06:46, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedian experience
Hello. I just saw your reply to user:Seicer, and I would like to commend you for taking the time to understand how Wikipedia works. Many newcomers tend to take things personally, without grasping why thing might not have gone as they had expected them to, even when given precise resources explaining everything. Your willingness to read up and acknowledge your own mistakes reflects one of the most valuable qualities of a successful Wikipedian. I really hope you'll stay here and continue to make valuable contributions to this project. Cheers and happy editing! - <font face="Verdana">CobaltBlueTony™ talk 16:22, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Seconded. From my experience in watching and helping new users, it takes a couple of months to get to the point where one can edit in difficult areas with some confidence that one has at least a basic understanding of Wikipedia policy and procedures.  I strongly recommend that you spend some time working with some of the many existing articles where you can make a difference: politics are but a tiny corner of Wikipedia, and, while we have 500,000 articles on Pokemon and an article on My Mother the Car, there are areas of basic academic reference that are woefully short, inadequately referenced, or just plain bad. It's a good way to learn your way around, and it's an aspect of Wikipedia that is often justifiably criticized.    Acroterion  (talk)  17:34, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Wasilla Assembly of God, Ed Kalnins, Wasilla Bible Church and Larry Kroon
((This is also posted on Articles for deletion/Wasilla Assembly of God, where it may be more appropriate to respond, as the questions are culled from numerous other editors and others.)


 *  Five Requests for Clarification on Wikipedia Policies and Standards summarized from numerous Palin related Wikipedia deletion discussion pages - I wrote the original version of this Wasilla Assembly of God article and some edits that responded to suggestions, the article on Ed Kalnins, and I helped with news sources and edits for Wasilla Bible Church and Larry Kroon.
 * These were my first Wikipedia articles, so I am learning how the article writing and editing process through watching this debate and the debate on the other three deleted articles. As a mathematician, I was unfamiliar with Wikipedia publication standards, and English language styles for articles not involving mathematics.  I have been multiply falsely publicly accused of vandalizing and spamming, although most of these allegations disappeared as I responded to the accusers.  (I am so green that I had to look up Wikipedia usage of “vandalism” and “spamming’, and I still do not understand the “spamming” usage, which differs from common usage).

The various discussions indicate I am not the only one confused by these five questions, so it would be helpful if someone could address them here, to clarify things for us new people, and get rid of feelings of political motivation for the focus on deleting these four articles, but not the many other Wikipedia church and pastor articles.
 * 1. I am still unclear why
 * a) the five day debate period does not apply to the four sites and why there is a five day policy that does not always mean five days, and
 * See WP:SNOW there were so many delete votes the article would not have survived. The closing admin thought there was no reason to keep them open.
 * b) why {Wasilla Assembly of God}] is allowed to be debated, while Wasilla Bible Church, which involves different issues and different notable persons is not.
 * Probably because this is such a passionate issue to some. The admins will let it go the 5 days.


 * 2. Keep Reverend Wright articles - I note that there is discussion comparing the four deletions with deletion of Reverend Wright and Trinity United Church of Christ, with that of Wasilla Assembly of God, Ed Kalnins, Wasilla Bible Church and Larry Kroon. The Reverend Wright and Trinity United Church of Christ articles are unquestionably of interest to historians, orders of magnitude more so than Wasilla Assembly of God, Ed Kalnins, Wasilla Bible Church or Larry Kroon.  Is anyone seriously considering deleting articles Reverend Wright and Trinity United Church of Christ?
 * No, he is well sourced and coverage went on for months. But you can always submit them to WP:AFD


 * 3. Semi-Objective number standards - Can anyone point out some rough number of news articles (there are over 500 News articles on Wasilla Assembly of God) that would clearly indicate notability, assuming Reverend Wright is agreed to be notable?
 * No I can not find any. That is the problem.


 * 4. Notability, Etiology, Political Theater and clearly not-notable Palin churches - There are crazy videotapes of speaking in tongues in other churches attended by Sarah Palin, which make the crazy Reverend Wright videotapes look tame, and would make entertaining political theater or satire. But no one has (yet) suggested including these churches or pastors of Palin in an article, since they are not related to the etiology of some of her controversial public policy positions.  In academia, Palin’s pastors with quotable sermons providing evidence of etiology of unusual public policy positions would be “more notable” than theatrical pastors speaking in tongues, although the latter provide for better entertainment.
 * Is there a Wikipedia standard regarding notability by being etiologically related to public policy positions, or possibly etiologically related to the creation of notability in others, thus generating news stories, whereby pastors relevant to etiology of controversial public policy positions would be notable, while other pastors would not be notable even if they are more theatrical or bizarre?
 * There really is no more notable or less notable. If someone meets the notability standards there is an article. We have some very bizarre people, places, and things on WP.


 * 5. Neutrality and Editing guidelines - The principal content of the over 500 news articles on Wasilla Assembly of God regards the quotes of Ed Kalnins about voters of John Kerry not getting into heaven, going to hell for criticism of Bush regarding Hurricane Katrina, and on Jesus backing one side in the Iraq war and the parallel comment by Sarah Palin.  Can any one explain why these quotes, which would be the very basis for notability of Wasilla Assembly of God (should it be found), are repeatedly edited out of the article, and facts irrelevant to the assertion of notability are included?
 * Not sure why but you should read WP:NPV very carefully.


 * An unrelated political comment - Anyone wishing to have these articles kept for political reasons should note that Palin is detraction from Obama’s staying on message regarding not having four more years of bad economic and foreign policies. She was clearly picked to create a distraction from the winning message, so keeping these Palin related articles would be counterproductive.
 * Finally, I have been studying how Wikipedia editors work for only two days now, and I wish to apologize for allegations of politically motivation on the part of Seicer, who deleted the four articles (although I still understand why some of the four articles were deleted and some were not).
 * I still think WasillaAG is politically motivated in the edits removing all of the content creating notability. If statements in Wasilla Assembly of God were erroneously made in the heat of a sermon, and are regretted, a statement of regret should be made, but deleting content from articles is not the way to do it. EricDiesel (talk) 16:33, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

response
I think the deciding factor on all of these are the notability criteria, which must be supported by nontrivial, independent and reliable sources. I cannot find such in any of these articles so far. It may yet be that notability may yet be acheived by any one of thse subjects, but for right now, suggesting that such notability exists without a shred of evidence is tantamount to a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. - <font face="Verdana">CobaltBlueTony™ talk 17:02, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

I responded to some of your questions above. <font STYLE="verdana" COLOR ="#990000">Gtstricky Talk or C 17:17, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia. Your edits appear to constitute vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. ''Please be more careful when editting talk pages. Removing discussion is improper.'' Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 05:31, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry for vandalism. I am only on third day on Wikipedia and don't understand what I did wrong, or what vandalism means at Wikipedia (although I read the definition today and it does not seem to apply).  I put in a reference to book banning allegations that is different from what is in the article (a different person is making the allegation).  Then someone pointed out to me that there was already a Book Banning section above.  So I removed what I wrote, and my sandbox post.  I then put what I had written in the wrong section in the pre-existing section, and placed the information under a location where someone was expressly asking for specifics from the source I was quoting.  I also added why this information was not in the article, and the web address of the source.
 * Please let me know what I did wrong that was vandalism so I don't repeat my error. Thanks.EricDiesel (talk) 06:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You have repeatedly removed large chunks of text from the book banning subsection on the talk page including responses by others. This cannot be done. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 06:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your comments. Please note that on Wikipedia, consensus is determined by discussion, not voting, and it is the quality of arguments that counts, not the number of people supporting a position. Consider reading about the deletion policy for a brief overview for the deletion process, and how we decide what to keep and what to delete. We hope you decide to stay and contribute even more. Thank you! ''Please stop beginning your comments as "Keep"; you have already registered that opinon and may do so only once. By all means make additional comments, but indicate them as such.'' Ros0709 (talk) 06:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I put in a request for a deletion review, not because I have any view on the merits of the articles, but because the closure was clearly premature and controversial. I have as yet not looked at the articles (now restored).  It is a WP principle that articles have to be on notable subjects.  Notability is not inherited, so that association with a notable person does not make something notable.  An article entitled Sara Palin's pastor should probably not exist at all, but if it does, it should be a redirect to the person's name.  Altering other people's comments on discussion and AFD pages is illegitimate.  I would strongly suggest that you familiarise yourself with WP policies before making controversial changes.  Things such as WP:NPOV and WP:notability.  Peterkingiron (talk) 10:01, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It is only my third day here so I apologize for my mistakes.  After reading policies here, I agree that Sarah Palin's Pastor should not be an article.  Consensus is changing towards KEEP on Wasilla Assembly of God, incuding by the original DELETE people.
 * Wasilla Bible Church, Ed Kalnins, and Larry Kroon now send you to Sarah Palin, which is totally wrong. Wasilla Bible Church is notable for David Brickner.  Furthermore, as Ed Kalnins has made highly controversial remarks now reported in hundreds of media reports, it would be unfair to Wikipedia users not to have access to the remarks, and unfair to Sarah Palin for this guy to be linked to her to see the remarks in the media, when she did not make them, and we do not even know if she was in the church when they were made.  I am no Sarah Palin fan (I believe in evolution and global warming... and that the earth orbits the sun) but until the remarks can be tied to Palin, Kalnins should have his own article with the remarks.  I guess I have absorbed enough WIki neutraility in just three days that I am actually spending time defending fairness for Palin!
 * Does your the deletion review request ask that articles for Wasilla Bible Church, Ed Kalnins, and Larry Kroon be restored? Especially Wasilla Bible Church, which should be linked to <refactored BLP violation> David Brickner and Jews for Jesus, not only Sarah Palin.  I don't really yet understand the effect of your deletion review request, and why the links still go to Palin. EricDiesel (talk) 10:25, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. I have added a summary of the two church articles to the article on Wasilla, Alaska (effectively merging them) and have placed requests on the talk pages for the two pastors (who are clearly non-notable) for the redirects to be changed to Wasilla, Alaska or for the AoG church to its article if it survives AFD, which I think it will not.  NOTE, I have altered the syntax of your contributions to the usual format.  I cannot alter the redirects myself, becasue I am only an established user not an ADMIN, but my suggestion should be reviewewed by one.  Peterkingiron (talk) 11:50, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The trouble is without pages for the two churches or their pastors, there will be no place to put the quotes that are driving the media coverage.  The city of Wasilla would reasonably object to the quotes being on their article, since the city is not responsible for the quotes, any more than any other city would be for quotes of one of its citizens.EricDiesel (talk) 12:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Your edit to talk:Sarah Palin
Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not add unreferenced or inadequately referenced controversial biographical information concerning living persons to Wikipedia articles. Thank you. Remember that all pages are subject to BLP and making defamatory comments about living persons is a blockable offense. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 10:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia BLP
Hi Eric, I know its only your third day but you're breaking the rules when you make a talk page entry and label a living person as an anti-semite. This is defamation of character and even if it was included in an article it would require the strongest of sourcing or it would be immediately removed. You've been warned that if you keep bringing up the topic you have twice on Sarah Palin's talkpage tonight, you'll be blocked. Let it go, it is not worth being blocked over. More information on our policy related to living people is at WP:BLP. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 11:03, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Oh, sorry. I undertand. Can I refer to his remarks as anti Semitic, instead of referring to him, or do I have to quote the actual remarks each time I need to express the idea of anti Semitism, without actuall using this expression? Thanks for forebearance while I do learning curve. EricDiesel (talk) 11:09, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree that JfJ is antisemitic, just kinda... whacko.... they're not calling for the deaths of Jews, they just think that Judaism missed the ball with Jesus. Controversial? Hell yes, but not really antisemitic. And trust me, my first few days at Wikipedia were just as rocky. I was blocked multiple times before I figured out I was being a dork. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 11:23, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree that this one remark may just clearly estabilish whackiness, not antisemitism. There are lots more over the years I remember hearing on TV, as the group has a historic fight from some Jewish groups.  Did I improve things in my edit on his article page? EricDiesel (talk) 11:37, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, arguments over religion are always heated. It doesn't mean that one group hates the other, in the "hate" law sort of way. Jews for Jesus isn't the KKK. Kyaa the Catlord (talk) 11:41, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

First contribution?
Just out of curiosity why does it appear that although you are a "new user" you first created your account back in July 2007 according to the logs? Jasynnash2 (talk) 13:32, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is the tail end from the last entries on my contributions page -
 * 21:22, 2 September 2008 (hist) (diff) N Wasilla Assembly of God ‎ (← Created page with '(1)
 * http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/02/palins-church-may-have-sh_n_123205.html (2)
 * http://www.wasillaag.net/all.html Wasilla Assembly of God church, l...')
 * 21:17, 2 September 2008 (hist) (diff) N Ed Kalnins ‎ (← Created page with '(1)
 * http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/02/palins-church-may-have-sh_n_123205.html (2)
 * http://www.wasillaag.net/all.html Ed Kalnins is the controversial p...')
 * 21:15, 2 September 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Tutorial (Formatting)/sandbox ‎
 * 21:09, 2 September 2008 (hist) (diff) Wikipedia:Tutorial (Formatting)/sandbox ‎
 * 21:36, 13 August 2008 (hist) (diff) m St Matthew Passion (Bach) ‎ (→The Matthäuspassion in movies: Added: The first few notes of Erbarme dich are also whistled at the point of leaving the railcart in the Zone in Tarkovky's Stalker.)
 * (Latest | Earliest) View (newer 500) (older 500) (20 | 50 | 100 | 250 | 500)


 * My first Wikipedia act was a one sentence adittion on August 13, I added the sentence “Added: The first few notes of Erbarme dich are also whistled at the point of leaving the railcart in the Zone in Tarkovky's Stalker.” To the article secion on Bach’s St. Matthew Passion. Then on September 2, I created the articles for Ed Kalnins and Wasilla Assembly of God, which rapidly evolved with facts wrtten by numerous others.
 * My next was oOn September 2 I also created a page for “Sarah Palin’s Pastor”, which linked to the Ed Kalnins and Larry Kroon page, because there were news reports referring to “Sarah Palin’s pastor” without specificity, and the initial reports and Wikipedia articles seemed to confuse Kroon with Kalnins. If the article had not been deleted, I would have added Paul Riley to this if the article had not been deleted without discussion.  Riley is in more news articles, but all he does is talk about Palin, so he did not seem notable to me, while Kalnins and Kroon seemed to be notable because of things they said or did that were being reported all over the place, as indicated in the sources.  E.g., Associated Press reports “Her pastor for most of her time at Wasilla Assembly of God, Paul Riley”.
 * I also added Larry Kroon and Ed Kalnins to the Sarah Palin page, and linked them. However, editing was blocked, or I would also have added Paul Riley.  I did not put their controversial remarks or actions in the Sarah Palin page, since it was not clear to me that she had anything to do with the controversies, so I thought the quotes and actions were best put on their pages.
 * My only current concern is that by deleting the four pages of churches and pastors, information will never get on Wikipedia. The controversial remarks and associations with notables other than Palin reported in the numerous news stories should NOT be on Palin’s page, as she is not responsible.  They should NOT be on the Wasilla page, since the city is not responsible.  By DELETING the obviously relevant articles, there is no place left to put the information in the hundreds of news reports. EricDiesel (talk) 15:04, 5 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay I'm not making much sense of all that. I've seen your contribs page and whatnot. That was why I asked the question which I can't seem to find a straight forward answer to in the above. I'm wondering what you've been doing for the previous year (reading articles? making contribs that have been deleted? reading the various help and how to pages? Jasynnash2 (talk) 15:02, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is the "straight forward answer". Sorry, but I thought your said July 2008, not July 2007. I do not know how to look up when accounts are created. In answer to your questions regarding "wondering what [I've] been doing for the previous year (reading articles? making contribs that have been deleted? reading the various help and how to pages?", my activities went like this - My girlfriend died. - Then in July-August 2007 my mother was taken to the emergency hospital and diagnosed with horrifically painful and debilitating blood/bone cancer in summer of 2007, so I moved 400 miles from my home to be her caregiver.  – In July 2007, knowing no one in my mothers city, to have a social life I started volunteering to read books to blind senior citizens in their 90's with macular generation/  I met my best friend, 95 year old Laura Huxley, through Dr. Paul Fleiss, who was advising Laura on her blindness via macular degeneration.  I became best friends with Laura  - In August of 2007, I was scammed out of hundreds of thousands of dollars in a malicious prosecution back home 400 miles from my mother, as I was not able to make the constant court appearance and care for my mother. - My mother was back and forth from the emergency department in excruciating pain many times. With bone/blood cancer, she was in excruciating pain all over her body. The lack of white cells caused her to catch any infection. The lack of red blood cells caused anemia similar to hemorrhaging, so I had to do everything for her. The lack of blood platelets caused her to bleed from her lips, gums and nose. She was hospitalized half the time, costing hundreds of thousands of dollars, and she had no health insurance. My bank was broken. - So I naturally became interested in the health insurance debate. - My best friend Laura Huxley died in December 2007. - I met someone when going to Laura's wake, who became my new girlfriend. - In January 2008, I had an arbitrary default judgment take away my 260 acre Santa Cruz redwood forest, based on a phony impossible “personal” legal service, as I was not at my home but 400 miles away in another city, taking care of my mother. This made my real estate assets almost nothing, in addition to the medical bills with no health insurance. – So my home was foreclosed on in March 2008, causing the cancellation of my fire insurance policy. - Then my mother died in May 2008…  - I could not afford a funeral  - Two weeks later, the Summit Rd. California Santa Cruz fires you heard about in the national news reports, blazed through my former redwood forest. - Everything I owned burned down, including my extensive library of antique science books and all my physical assets, my orchard, my backhoe and equipment, and my vehicles. – My possessions were stored in cargo boxes on my former redwood forest. My extended homeowner fire insurance claim was denied since my home had just been foreclosed on. - Then my new girlfriend got a Neuroscience research job offer all the way in England, and had to move there in the middle of the summer, I could not read all year due to the stresses, so I bought a television after my girlfriend left. I began to watch the health care debate and related foreclosure debate on cable news on TV all day to keep from boredom, not being able to read as I was used to. I saw on TV that Palin’s pastor had views affecting her public policy decisions (including positions on going to war and on Jews) and I went on Wikipedia to look up the pastors. I could not find anything about them in Wikipedia, even their names. MSNBC started reporting that Palin was refusing any interviews or press conferences with anyone in the mainstream media. Pat Buchanan passionately argued with Chris Matthews on MSNBC that Palin is not "required" to do ANY interviews or news conferences before the election, if she does not want to. This was a total information blackout. So I decided to research and post information. Writing articles for the past three days has been distraction from my thoughts of the events in my life in 2007-8. But the fighting and name calling (the admin who deleted the articles called me “lazy”, so fat chance of getting the articles back up., and I generally refuse to even look at blogs because of the fighting. The number of very quickly arriving, almost identical in content delete arguments was far in excess of what was on other articles.  The volume of similar delete messages also far exceeded the rate of spam arrival on my email accounts for the past three days.  Not knowing details on how Wiki works, I thought these delete arguments were computer generated Spam, they were arriving so fast and were so similar, and ignored the changes made on the article in response to the reasons.  The meaningless five-day Wiki policy was ignored for my article, leaving no time to correct the articles and address the volume of deletion arguments. I then thought Wiki was working essentially like a blog.  Strangely, I am now arguing FOR fairness for Palin and her churches, since she should not be tarred by guilt by association. I argued to keep the actual quotes off her article. They should be on the pages of the persons making the quotes, unless there is an association with her other than that she was sitting there when they were made (which is not even shown yet for Kalnins). If you want more details of “what [I've] been doing for the previous year (reading articles?... “, I suggest you try going to a cancer ward and make friends with a friendless elderly cancer patient and take care of them when they are forced to leave the hospital for financial reasons. For more go to User:EricDiesel EricDiesel (talk) 20:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Pastor Paul Riley, Pastor Ed Kalnins, Pastor Larry Kroon, and Pastor David Brickner
Paul Riley should be added to the Religion section of the Sarah Palin article. Associated Press reports “Her pastor for most of her time at Wasilla Assembly of God, Paul Riley”. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5jCeGgS4vbVt6qpxTpahCgGn_R-dQD92VOKVG0
 * 1. Paul Riley is NOT notable, as he only appears in the media talking about Palin as far as I know, and notability cannot be inherited. If he becomes controversial, or is the subject of media stories for some other notable thing, only then he should only then get an article.
 * 2. The “controversial figure” Ed Kalnins IS notable, since the content of the many media articles in which he is featured regards his controversial remarks. These remarks should NOT be on the Palin page, as there is no information I am aware of that directly links Palin to the controversial remarks.  E.G., USA Today reports “The Rev. Ed Kalnins had no way of knowing he'd be a controversial figure in the 2008 presidential race.”  http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-03-palin-pastor_N.htm . So Kalnins should have his own article in which his controversial remarks can be documented, as well as his bio, and any information about him that can be sourced.
 * 3. Larry Kroon IS notable.  He is in many major media stories linking him as far back as 2004 to the highly controversial Jews for Jesus and David Brickner.  The Atlantic Monthly magazine reports  this Jews For Jesus pamphlet (PDF) from 2004 that reveals more details about Palin's pastor.”  This is a year 2004 association, long predating Palin’s rise from mayor. http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/09/palins-pastor-a.html  Numerous other news articles report on Kroon, e.g. The Chicago Tribune http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-alaska-palin_monsep01,0,3504940.story .  The 2004 stuff is unrelated to Palin, so Kroon should have his own article.  It is unclear Palin knew Kroon would be speaking when she recently sat through his sermon.

EricDiesel (talk) 16:00, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Therefore, articles should NOT be created for pastor Paul Riley, but articles SHOULD be created for Ed Kalnins and Larry Kroon. Links from the Sarah Palin article should be established to the Ed Kalnins and Larry Kroon articles, and the controversies should NOT be in the Palin article unless someone meaningfully associates her to the controversies.  A link to from Palin’s article to David Brickner or Jews for Jesus should exist, but the ONLY  information that should be in Sarah Palin article, unless more information emerges, should be that she attended a Jews for Jesus Fundraiser with the sermon given by David Brickner.
 * Wasilla Assembly of God and Wasilla Bible Church should have their own pages, where information reported on them in the media (controversial or not) that is unrelated to Palin can be reported, without tarring other pastors, like Paul Riley, with information on Ed Kalnins or Larry Kroon.
 * Eric, much as I (as a practising evangelical Christian) might like to have an article on every local church and its pastor, I am afraid that most significant only locally. Some will become notorious for expressing controversial views, and may therefore be temporarily notable, before sinking back into becoming once more non-entities.  My position is that the articles on the two Wasilla churches should exist (if at all) as redirects to the article on Wasilla.
 * Jews for Jesus is certainly a controversial and notable organisation. As I understand it a significant part of its membership consists of Messianic Jews.  It is therefore seeking to spread the fulfilment of Judaism in Jesus Christ among Jews.  This is not unnaturally opposed by practising Jews.
 * Unfortunately, certain exponents of prophetic interpretation are using Jews for Jesus as a bandwagon for promoting their controiversial interpretations of scriptuaral prophecy. I am not clear whether this comes from the core or the fringes of Jews for Jesus.  However, it is the worst kind of deceitful journalism to seek to tar some one for having been present at a meeting where unacceptable views were expressed (without knowing whether the hearer endorses them), and certainly to tar them for association with such a person.  I note that Sarah Palin moved churches: I do not know why, but it could be becasue she disapproved of the doctrines being preached.  Having looked at some of the articles in question they are examples of WP:COATRACK, as well as being defamatory.  WP is a worldwide encyclopaedia and has to comply with the law on this in all major countries.  Here in the UK, defamation gives rise to a civil legal claim for damages: we do not have the same cosntitutional right of free speeech, only the defence to that claim that the statemetn is true or fair comment.
 * If you disagree with the deletions, you should seek a WP:Deletion Review. Peterkingiron (talk) 08:50, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Duplicate comments...
Hi. I'll say this again (Although I'm sure you've been told before by others). There is no need to add the exact same text to a number of different talk pages. You should keep the discussion to one place (preferably the one that is actually most relevant to the content of the discussion). Your actions could very easily be taken as deliberately disruptive which I'm reasonably sure isn't your actual intent. Jasynnash2 (talk) 16:11, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree, response it on your talk page under "duplicate information on multiple pages".

Redirect Pages
Hi, I noticed you created a couple of pages with just a "See ". The way you want to do that is via a redirect. When editing a new page, click the #R button in the buttonbar above the text box, and enter the new destination page in the  brackets. That way if someone searches for the page text, they will get automatically redirected to the target page. I went ahead and did that for the 2 you just did. Arakunem Talk 17:12, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks. It's my fourth day, and I am still learning.

Creation of a sandbox
Please read this article in order to see how to create a sandbox. WAoGsandbox has been speedily deleted. -- Orange Mike  &#x007C;   Talk  03:23, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Talk:Sarah Palin/sandbox
Talk:Sarah Palin/sandbox, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:Sarah Palin/sandbox and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Talk:Sarah Palin/sandbox during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Kelly hi! 22:28, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

September 2008
Hi there, I'd like to inform you that your recent edit, blanking the Sandbox was not a very good edit. It is never helpful to have the Sandbox blank, in case, someone who is new to the Sandbox can view the guidelines. In the future, please either edit below the header or replace the header after you have finished editing. ---Thank you SwisterTwister (talk) 09:05, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

As a matter of fact, yes, it means to remove the header off page, and yes, the page is protected. Well, if it was a mistake, ignore this warning then.:) Happy editing and cheers!:) - SwisterTwister (talk) 05:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Welcome
Hi. Welcome to Wikipedia. I see the large amount of work you've contributed to the project so far. Well done! The reality is that you've probably chosen in Sarah Palin one of the toughest subjects to edit that wikipedia has to offer. Although we have a "good faith" regarding other people's edits, that doesn't mean that you have to put on blinders to other people's obviously partisan edits. The hope is that people who are actually concerned with the truth and fact will overcome forces of small-mindedness. My best advise at this point is "patience, patience, patience." We'll sort it out together and remember, we all make mistakes. The discussion page is a great place for debate. Since you are a mathematician I also urge you to add to wikipedia's collection of articles on Mathematics (most of which to me might as well be Arabic).--Cdogsimmons (talk) 14:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Coatracking
Eric, I am getting very tired of seeing your repeated coatracking in attempting to make lots of article nominally about different subjects instead be coatracks used to attack Palin. You've ben shown links to that page many times, but don't appear to be learning. You need to read it, and stop this behavior. If you have doubts, ask questions of Carl before you insert material again.

Here is the most important thing for you to understand - an article is about it's subject, not something else. It needs to cover its subject, not other things. I've seen you get all of these wrong, and it needs to stop.
 * 1) The article Sarah Palin is about Sarah Palin - that is the right place to cover her religious beliefs, subject to not putting undue weight upon them versus the many other aspects of her life and career.
 * 2) The article Wasilla, Alaska is about the city.  Content should only be added there if it helps people understand the city and its history.  A brief mention of the churches is reasonable, probably only a sentence or two.  (Compare the coverage of the new hospital or the Museum of Alaska Transportation and Industry, both of which are covered reasonably in the article.)  A note about Palin's mayoral career could reasonably be included here - but unless she did something particularly noteworthy, which I haven't seen evidence of, it should be no more extensively than other mayors of the city of equal tenure.  None of the mayors are covered at all, so to avoid putting undue weight upon Palin you would need to research all of them...
 * 3) The article Wasilla Assembly of God is about the church.  It is not about Palin or any of the pastors.  Coverage here should be about the history of the church and the programs of the church.
 * 4) If the article on the church she currently attends is brought back, it will be about the church, not Palin or the pastors, and doubly not about someone who visited.  Coverage here should be about the history and programs of the church.
 * 5) If the articles on either of the pastors is ever brought back, they will be about the pastor, not a member of their congregation.

It doubly needs to stop when you combine it with the use of unreliable sources. Blogs are not reliable. There are special circumstances where exceptions to that rule exist - but you don't appear ready to understand and work within them, so for now you should not use blogs.

If I see you coatracking attacks on a living person again, you will be blocked. Probably the only reason that you haven't previously been blocked, based on the WP:AN/I conversation about you is that I thought you were editing in good faith but ignorant of what you need to do and Carl asked for a chance to talk things through with you before we imposed a topic ban or block. Take this chance to talk with him and learn. GRBerry 02:38, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Eric, I've read the above comments by GRBerry and have to concur wholeheartedly. Wikipedia doesn't discourage people with strong opinions -- in fact it welcomes them! -- but it will not and cannot tolerate tainting encyclopedic material with opinions.  You wouldn't find such slants, attacks, sleights, or other denegrations in Britannica, or any other printed encyclopedia, because it is unacademic, unethical, and unacceptable.  Wikipedia is not a soapbox for any one viewpoint or school of thought.  It is an egregious offense to those of us who understand and highly respect the mission of Wikipedia for political, religious, medical, scientific, cultural, racial, et. al., opinions to dominate or permeate the strict sets of facts that exist here.  If you cannot separate yourself from your opinions enough to make impartial presentations of facts and -- dare I say -- write for the enemy, then I will support and enforce blocks against you.  It is disruptive to the neutral ground upon which we cultivate this project, and I value it as much as the next editor.  Please, consider taking time to cool down and reflect, perhaps even waiting until after the elections have long since passed to return and make constructive contributions.  Do what you have to to discipline yourself so as to participate in this project, if you really do wish to support and contribute to our mission. Otherwise, you will very quickly make yourself unwelcome, and that would be a sad waste of a decent human mind. - <font face="Verdana">CobaltBlueTony™ talk 03:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I disagree with part of the above The article Wasilla Assembly of God is about the church. It is not about Palin or any of the pastors. The pastors at the church CAN be talked about when discussing the church, insofar as the subject isn't the pastors.--- Balloonman  PoppaBalloon 16:07, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Balloonman - better, only if the pastor is speaking FOR the church, like when they are giving a sermon as the pastor of the church, or as representative of the church. It especially should be about the pastor in situations like Wasilla AoG, since it should be made clear that former pastor Paul Riley has said nothing controversial, but pastor Ed Kalnins has, and Palin left after they changed pators from Riley to Kalnins.  By including the pastor who said the stuff as church spokesman, the old Pastor and notable Congregants dont get hit from stuff from the new pastors.

Coatracking is the presenting of one article, ostensibly with no bias, that effectively generates a biased view of another subject. It seems that your presentation of material at Wasilla Assembly of God appears to some to be an attempt to taint Palin's image. I agree that this is the perception, but your comments on my talk page previously, if sincere, contradict that notion. This is a very VERY tender subject matter, and any possible inferences can and will be highlighted and attacked, even if they're just windmills. In my perception, Palin's former church (not even the one she attends now), only has notability in relation to Palin, and not so much in the way of its theology -- in fact, any foreign agency could look up the teachings of any church in the U.S. and have something to say about it. This does not, in my estimation, automatically assign notability. It might support it if it already existed, but I cannot see basing notability on this sort of attention. I'm continuing to read all the arguments, but for now, we're going to have to rely on astute admins with time on their hands to weed through all of the comments to find valid arguments. More later (perhaps). - <font face="Verdana">CobaltBlueTony™ talk 15:37, 8 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The statement, "In 2008, the church promoted a conference to pray to convert gays into heterosexuals" isn't particularly useful -- one can determine a church's general views by the affiliation they claim, but specific details like this one aren't really notable at all. Tons of similarly aligned churches engage in or preach this kind of message, and this church, even if it is notable, isn't notable because of that.


 * As to coatracking, let's say I added tons of material from intelligent design (ID) proponents, even scientists with this particular affiliation, to various articles about living things wherein an ID viewpoint was mildly relevant. An overabundance of this information would add undue weight to this viewpoint, making it seem more relevant to the topics than is necessary or evident.  In cases where almost nothing is known about a topic, any casual fact so conspicuously highlighted would appear to be undue weight, and likely coatracking to bait readers into interpreting the information with the view held by the coatracker on another topic.  Casual facts are rarely included in articles unless it's widely known and holds some relevance to some fact about the subject that is distinguishing.  This church's beliefs are not notably distinguishing at all, and anything more than a mention of their general school of thought or affiliation along with its connection to a notable figure even if such a connection is not overtly or deliberately made would seem to indicate that such information was relevant to the perceived target subject matter as well.  I don't know where the terminology comes from, but that's its general inference. - <font face="Verdana">CobaltBlueTony™ talk 20:13, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 14:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Reply to your comments on my talk page

 * 1) As long as you and I can keep track of what we are saying ot each other, any observer can follow the threds based on the date/time stamp of each message.
 * 2) The ID viewpoint was in reference to my thread above, namely intelligent design = ID (I even put ID in parentheses next to the full word).
 * 3) You don't build consensus. No one editor builds consensus.  Consensus is achieved by the majority opinion if it is within the guidelines of Wikipedia.  If the majority opinion is "delete becuz this articel sux", then the closing admin will ignore and go to the next valid group of opinions.  If no consensus can be determined to delete, the default is to keep.
 * 4) I'm not sure where the "criticise Bush - go to hell" statement appeared, if anywhere, on Wikipedia, but if it were not properly sourced, it would have been removed.
 * 5) The gay issue within Christendom is an issue, but it's not something to go into within an individual church's article. We would simply indicate their affiliation, and clarify if this fact had any notable implications.
 * 6) I don't know what "OP" is either; where did it occur? I never said it...

Regarding intelligent design: Wikipedia isn't a discussion forum, so I won't get into details with you here. However, I am reading a book called First You Build a Cloud, and while the writer, K. C. Cole, obviously believes in macroevolution, she makes no mention of whether she believes it to be spontaneous, or if there was some designer behind the design; I am, however, finding edification in my own perception that such a designer knows a heck of a lot more about designing things than do we tiny specks, who can't even think our way out of a paper bag. I sincerely believe that what we view as chaos and poor design has far more intricate and eloquent purposes than we have yet to (or may ever, really) understand. Indeed, scholars of all sorts, when peering into creation, find out alot more in they imagine a purpose, a why, behind the what's where's and how's. - <font face="Verdana">CobaltBlueTony™ talk 13:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Coatrack Argument for Deletions
I have nominated Coatrack Argument for Deletions, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Coatrack Argument for Deletions. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Rob Banzai (talk) 15:34, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Coatrack Argument for Deletions
I just wanted to give you a heads-up that I've tagged this article for deletion as a test page. It appears you're trying to add a user essay, but accidentally put it out in the mainspace. If I've missed anything let me know. Cheers!  TN ‑ X - Man  15:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Just noticed while clearing CSDs. I've moved your essay to your usersubspace Eric, its not deleted.  It can be found at User:EricDiesel/Coatrack Argument for Deletions.  Cheers, <font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper   <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76  15:43, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Repost of Wikipedia:Minutia That Got Deleted
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Wikipedia:Minutia That Got Deleted, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Wikipedia:Minutia That Got Deleted was previously deleted as a result of an articles for deletion (or another XfD) To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Wikipedia:Minutia That Got Deleted, please affix the template  to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that '''this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here''' CSDWarnBot (talk) 00:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Coatrack Deletions
Essay regarding use of WP:COATRACK is here - Coatrack Deletions. EricDiesel (talk) 15:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a Democracy
FYI, before you try to enlist others in opposing me, you would be better off to just focus directly on the concerns raised and the relevant Wikipedia policies. That is the way to win an argument here--to be in line with Wikipedia's pillars. Focusing on the content dispute vs. personalities is an excellent way to avoid "wikidrama" and get on with the business of crafting an Encyclopedia.

To answer your question, the extent of any of the discussions on my talk page is exactly what you see there, with the exception that I reminded him to assume good faith on his talk page. Jclemens (talk) 17:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Coatrack Deletions: courtesy note
Eric, Just a courtesy note, that I have closed Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Coatrack Deletions, with the result being to userfy your essay; in other words, the consensus was to have the page moved to a subpage of your userspace, and hence delete the original <tt>Wikipedia:</tt> page.

Your essay can now be found at User:EricDiesel/Coatrack Deletions. If you have any queries, please get in touch.

<font color="#2A8B31">Anthøny <font color="#2A8B31">✉  18:45, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

All seriousness aside
I think you need to step away from Palin/election related things. For your own sanity, and for your longevity here. I've looked through your contributions rather extensively. You are obviously intelligent, you have a subtle but keen sense of humor (as evidenced on my talkpage, where I've chuckled quite a few times at your self-deprecating humor, whether you intentioned to do that or not is irrelevant, it was very funny). I think you might have a place on wikipedia. You should self-ban from anything Palin/Obama/politics until post November. Wikipedia will get it right, eventually. We always do. I want you to stick around and add your intelligence to this place, but right now, you are so very behind the learning curve of "wiki-politics" and "wiki-appropriateness" that it is hurting you more than you could realize. Choose battles, and when you do, battle within the system that is established. You are making rookie mistakes, so to speak, but I don't believe you are a "bad guy". I surmise that you actually like this place, and that you want it to be a better Wikipedia. Excellent. You need to ban yourself from the Palin stuff. Really you do. <font color="#21421E" face="comic sans ms">Keeper  <font color="#CC7722" face="Papyrus">76  20:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Keeper's advice to "battle within the system that is established" is excellent if you plan to be around wikipedia for any length of time. If you don't, then go out with all guns blazing, nothing to lose. As half-baked, poorly conceived, and arbitrarily enforced as the established system may be, it's all that there is. It took me too long to recognise that; don't be as dumb as I was. --Malleus Fatuorum (talk) 21:08, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
 * The content of any message to me that starts with "All seriousness aside" is automatically good advice. EricDiesel (talk) 17:38, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I was looking for an article on the pastor from the Wasilla Assembly of God church and that is how I arrived at your talk page. I was re-directed to the article on the church itself and then looked at the talk page - and I ended up here. I just wanted to say that this man is clearly noteworthy and notable as he and his quotes have been in the media. Palin has a clear connection with him and she is herself clearly notable - therefore he is notable by association and this is evidenced in the media. Anyone who believes otherwise is no doubt politically motivated - they are no doubt the same folks outraged by Rev. Wright - the only difference being Wright was Obama's current pastor and this other guy is Palin's former pastor - so what? Still obviously a valid connection. But Wikipedia is about might making right. Regardless, just wanted to let you know that I believe this man should have his own article and that he does not is the reason people often dismiss "Wikeality" as just that. Don't give up. (This is center-to-right leaning country, as evidenced by the last 2 elections - very sad. No IQ test required to vote - or even awareness of the issues.)  Good luck. 72.92.117.232 (talk) 15:08, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the support. You forgot to sign in, so only your IP address shows.  Strangely, I was accused of being a "pro- Obama partisan", which I responded to on the talk page at Wasilla Assembly of God.  My attack there, only on Obama and Biden, is a little misleading, as I am a former political cartoonist, eager again to enter the cartoon fray.  (Mine was the first published Oliver North Cartoon.) I am not even registered to vote, although that is nothing to brag about, as I let my registration lapse after moving, due to too many jury duty calls in utterly frivolous litigation.)  As a cartoonist, I support McCain and Palin, who have more material to lampoon.  The only Obama cartoons I can come up with relate to lawyer and infant (neophyte) jokes, and for Biden the best I can to is have him at Burning Man, working on his ban on desert festivals RAVE Act.  One Biden cartoon might relate to his 1980's version of a hair transplant, whereby it is impossible to hear whatever he incessantly is talking about at the moment, as it is impossible to keep eye contact with him when face to face trying to keep eye contact and not stare at his 1980's hair plugs.  But this is too ad homonym, as my cartoons are all policy related, and one would have to try talking to Biden for an extended period of time face to face to understand the cartoon, even if I did it.  EricDiesel (talk) 16:19, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S.  I like your user page.  I was at most of those locations/activities - so we may have run into one another - though I was only arrested once.  72.92.117.232 (talk) 16:16, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Re your getting arrested once and presidential qualifications –Regarding your single arrest, here is a true story relating to “getting arrested and “presidential qualifications”, which is today’s hot topic. Last fall, Heidi Fleiss’s dad, Paul, and I took 95 year old Laura Huxley (Aldous Huxley’s wife) to privately screen an old film she had from the 1950’s.  The footage was of the (never before shown or broadcasted) “first international webcam debate”.  The debate was between persons in four cities on three continents, Thomas Dewey (the presidential candidate who “won” against Harry Truman in 1948), Aldous Huxley (Brave New World, soon to be a major motion picture starring Leonardo DiCaprio, directed by Ridley Scott), and Nehru (the co-founder of India, and its first Prime Minister), moderated by Edwin Murrow (the journalist who shut down the McCarthyism, “good night and good luck!”).  On the drive back, we were contrasting Dewey’s conservatism with Nehru’s anti-consumerism.  Paul pointed out that Nehru once said that being arrested should be a qualification to be president.  Laura responded that Aldous also said something about presidential qualifications, that they should be required to first take LSD.  Poor Dewey!  EricDiesel (talk) 17:00, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Ahhh yes - reminds me of a great little story "Doors of Perception." I had a friend named Jim - no longer with us - who got the name for his band form this story. The End. 72.92.117.232 (talk) 17:29, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hmm, maybe we have crossed paths; My mom hung out with all those guys, but after they were has-beens and had expired as celebs, in the 70's, not in the 60's . Also, I think you meant to write, not The End, but "This is the end", my friend.  EricDiesel (talk) 17:45, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * That song was in my head as I just rented Apocalypse Now this past weekend having not seen it in a while. Great song, great film.  I heard the remaing Doors were fighting over the use of the band's name on a tour recently - I think it might me settled. 72.92.117.232 (talk) 17:54, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Of course, the same reasoning which leads one person to conclude that wanting to exclude certain content must be politically motivated can lead another to conclude that wanting to include certain content must be also. Ros0709 (talk) 16:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * To Ros: Of course you are correct.  No one is without bias.  But this pastor is clearly an issue in this campaign and as such, has been in the media.  I think if you google is name.....he is notable.  There is no doubt about it.  But I agree - we all are biased one way or the other.  72.92.117.232 (talk) 16:35, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, User:Ros0709 is correct. See "Invisible Coats" section in User:EricDiesel/Coatrack Deletions.
 * To Eric: I may get a log-in ID if I decided to stick around - but haven't yet.  I fully understand that the GOP ticket is more fun for satire - as evidenced by SNL/Tina Fey last Saturday.  Obama is tough - but they are all fair game.  Biden is a character - and he sure has white teeth.  He does love to talk.  I heard they also get jurrors from the driver's license roles.  I would make sure I were registered to vote if I lived in a swing state. I did a news search and found articles in the WSJ, Newsweek, Fox News, LA Times, Seattle Times etc.  Notable.  72.92.117.232 (talk) 16:52, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Take a look at any pre-election senate video clip of Biden talking with Obama, and you will see Biden talking into Obama's ear for as long as you care to watch the clip. Gotta be an ear joke in there somewhere. EricDiesel (talk) 17:06, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I like the one debate where he just answered with one word - "yes" - for fear of "running on." Joe just can't help it.   72.92.117.232 (talk) 17:33, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes. EricDiesel (talk) 17:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Monkey Darwinism
A tag has been placed on Monkey Darwinism, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page appears to have no meaningful content or history, and the text is unsalvageably incoherent. If the page you created was a test, please use the sandbox for any other experiments you would like to do. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you have any questions about this.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:07, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This type of content is welcome at Uncyclopedia or even Conservapedia, but is not appropriate for a serious encyclopedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I had difficulty with the "serious" part after the deletion of my edit to "Darwinism". EricDiesel (talk) 22:14, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You actually make an interesting point there, and I think you are probably right, but any controversial statement needs to be properly referenced, that is (hopefully) why that statement was removed. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * And upon further examination of your contributions, it's clear this is far from the first inappropriate page you have created. Please do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Acutally, all of the pages I created, or the content I put in them, was debated, and KEPT. ALL of the content I contributed is still in one of the three articles (by consensus, too!) I created relating to Palin's churches, and the other contribs on other pages were not controversial.  (Though it might not seem so just from reading the talk pages.)  But your point is certainly legitimate in the present situation. EricDiesel (talk) 23:53, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Steven Dillon
A tag has been placed on Steven Dillon requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Merenta (talk) 14:54, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I think the deletion was a tad premature. Do you want to take a shot at adding a more explicit assertion of notability?  Guettarda (talk) 16:08, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I added some info on him. I don't know him (I plan to fix that in the future, however), but his book is a basic text for any film class wroth its salt.  Unfortunately, part of the influence of Tarkovsky is his the utter hate many express toward his films, except for the creme de la creme.  For example, I was talking to the guy writing the script for an upcoming major Ridley Scott film, and he rolled his eyes and said something nasty at the mention.  So getting notability for a book on the effect of Tarkovsky films outside academia is more difficult than screening a Tarkovsky film and expecting an audience with more than the handful of people who came to it at the previous screening in a differnt city a few years earlier.  I am plugging through a Flora of Plants of Santa Monica Mountains (only for plants for which I have my own photos).  Am I doing it right?  I was supposed to be at a volunteer ecology thing all day, but missed it trying to keep this stuff up. I am moving this thread over to the talk page of the article it is about.  EricDiesel (talk) 16:20, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Solaris Effect
Someone has nominated this for deletion already, as a "non-notable neologism". While I'm not sure what drives people to AfD articles that have only been around a few minutes (probably a reflection of the amount of true made up crap that end up in new articles), it would help if you could reference the article more directly to Dillon's work - try and make sure that every statement is supported by a reference, try and make sure that what's being said is expressed as a statement by Dillon, not as The Truth.

Oh, and by the way - it would probably be a good idea to slow down on the rate of article creation. It would probably lower your stress level :) Make sure one article's substantial (at least a couple good paragraphs) before going on to the next.  It was a problem I ran into early on - trying to create too many articles, and then not really having much to add, beyond the first paragraph.  Guettarda (talk) 16:43, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Eeks, I was supposed to be giving an ecology talk to about a thousand people at the PAVA - Heal The Bay annual Beach cleanup at 8am, and it is 10am. I thought I would just put these in and take off at 7am.  I have not even left yet.  Eeks.  EricDiesel (talk) 16:49, 20 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't worry about it - AFDs run for 5 days. You have a while to make a case.  Guettarda (talk) 17:07, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Mathematical proof
Please can I ask you yo stop writing your mini-essays in the mathematical proof article. That article is meant to be an overview article that provides a summary of the topic and links to more detailed articles. Your essays are by far the longest sections in the article, and they are making it unbalanced and unreadable. If you think we should have an article about all the different uses of the term statistical proof, for example, then by all means start a statistical proof article. But please, please stop overloading the mathematical proof article. Gandalf61 (talk) 16:13, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * responded at and moved to talk page EricDiesel (talk) 17:03, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you for shortening those sections - the article is now more balanced and much more readable. You enthusiasm for contributing to Wikipedia is great, but you maybe need to slow down a bit and take some time to better understand how things work around here. There are no deadlines on Wikipedia ! Here are a few suggestions:
 * If you haven't done so already, make sure you are familiar with the five pillars of Wikipedia. If you read this summary article and all the policy and guidelines articles that it links to, then you will understand what terms like "original research", "NPOV" etc. mean in Wikipedia. This is important, because editors use these terms all the time in Wikipedia discussions. If someone uses a piece of Wikipedia terminology that still baffles you, try looking it up in Glossary.
 * Read Your first article and Writing better articles.
 * Skim through Manual of Style. There are lots of conventions in Wikipedia covering article titles, standard section names, use of capital letters, units and abbreviations etc. etc. If you learn and follow these conventions, then other editors won't have to tidy up your contributions.
 * When editing, try using the "Show preview" button to view and proof read your edits before you hit "Save page". That way you won't have to make so many consecutive edits to tidy up your first draft.
 * Consider finding a Wikipedia mentor - a more experienced editor who can help you learn the ropes. Take a look at Adopt-a-User to see how mentoring works for new editors.
 * Good luck. Gandalf61 (talk) 09:03, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Also under the heading of "how things work around here", if you are trying to change your username, you should read Changing username. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:47, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Will do, thnx. EricDiesel (talk) 16:25, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Darwinism and Creationism
Eric, you confuse me. On my talk page you encouraged me read a book the purports to prove Darwinism, but on the Darwinism talk page you present yourself as a creationist. What's up with that?!?!? - DannyMuse (talk) 17:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Just kidding around to lighten the mood, since everyone seems to take this stuff too personally. EricDiesel (talk) 17:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Rename
Just a note: I've moved your user and talk pages back to where they belong. If you want to change your username, request it at WP:CHU. We have lots of bureaucrats to assist. Moves of the sort you did mess with the chain of accountability required by the GFDL license, and make it hard to contact you. Edits are always tied to the account under which they were made. You will be free to redirect your old username to the new once the rename is in place.  Acroterion  (talk)  15:44, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Also, it's generally best to archive by cut-and-paste rather than move, since it preserves the edit history of your talk page, which move destroys. If you have any questions, I'll be glad to help. Thebureaucrat will be able to usurp the username you've indicated you want to use, since it was used only by you.  If you want to be more anonymous, renaming is somewhat more effective than redirecting, and won't be so confusing.    Acroterion  (talk)  15:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * For example, here's a talkback message. The %#@*&! servers seem to be borked right now, so good luck.   Acroterion  (talk)  17:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, that was fast! One bit of advice: re-register your old username so nobody can impersonate you. Unless the issue's been fixed (which I doubt), the name becomes free.  You'll notice that anything you've previously signed retains the old username.    Acroterion  (talk)  18:45, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Rename EricDiesel to Tautologist
''Rename EricDiesel to Tautologist, Re, Rename, Thanks. I have three additinal questions
 * Thread moved here from other talk page -
 * 1 How do I notify someone that I left a message in a new section of their talk page, or is a notification automatically generated to them?
 * I've used the }} template with success - I think it's been used on you talkpage by a few users.
 * 2 Where is the grammar and syntax info located regarding Wiki word processors, and mathematical or other symbols?
 * If you use WP:wikED, you can pick formatting off the menus. I find it annoying, but you can enable it under user preferences, gadgets. Help:Wikitext examples has a lot of information concerning wikitext with links to other places. There's also Help:Editing. You should have a bar of menu items at the top of the edit window that will help with formatting in any case: it starts with bold.
 * 3 How do I know a question is answered for a single talk page section, without putting a general watch on the whole talk page, like this one? EricDiesel (talk) 16:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know of a way to add only a page section to a watchlist - it's a pretty crude tool that asks the user to do most of the filtering.
 * Hope this helps.   Acroterion  (talk)  17:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thnx Tautologist (talk) 17:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I coulndt read "The %#@*&! servers seem to be borked", since my reading ability is borken, my having dylesxia (my wonderful ex-girlfriend had real dylesxia so bad she really accidentally coined that word). How do I "register" User:EricDiesel, as it redirects to User:Tautologist?  Tautologist (talk) 18:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Go to Special:UserLogin/signup and sign up like you originally did. Just keep in mind that the old account should be claimed and then left alone.
 * Bork, bork, bork. Makes me think of The Swedish Chef, who was apparently really said Bort! I've been ignorant for 40 years, and now I'm corrected by Wikipedia. You say borten, I say borken.    Acroterion  (talk)  19:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)''

Re- Rename- Thanks.
 * I have three additinal questions
 * 1- How do I notify someone that I left a message in a new section of their talk page, or is a notification automatically generated to them?
 * I've used the }} template with success - I think it's been used on you talkpage by a few users.
 * Yes, now that I've re-read the question, GRBerry says it better below. I had sender and sendee backwards.   Acroterion  (talk)  19:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 2- Where is the grammar and syntax info located regarding Wiki word processors, and mathematical or other symbols?
 * If you use WP:wikED, you can pick formatting off the menus. I find it annoying, but you can enable it under user preferences, gadgets. Help:Wikitext examples has a lot of information concerning wikitext with links to other places. There's also Help:Editing. You should have a bar of menu items at the top of the edit window that will help with formatting in any case: it starts with bold.
 * 3- How do I know a question is answered for a single talk page section, without putting a general watch on the whole talk page, like this one? EricDiesel (talk) 16:23, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know of a way to add only a page section to a watchlist - it's a pretty crude tool that asks the user to do most of the filtering.
 * Hope this helps.   Acroterion  (talk)  17:16, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thnx Tautologist (talk) 17:52, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I coulndt read "The %#@*&! servers seem to be borked", since my reading ability is borken, my having dylesxia (my wonderful ex-girlfriend had real dylesxia so bad she really accidentally coined that word). How do I "register" User:EricDiesel, as it redirects to User:Tautologist?  Tautologist (talk) 18:53, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Go create that account again. You don't need to do anything with the account.  The things that are redirecting are pages in the User and User Talk namespaces, which are not the account.  Basically, log out, go to the login screen, and go through the "create an account link.
 * Also, on question 1 above, anytime someone's talk page is edited by a non-bot, everytime they are logged in and read any page they get a yellow-orange bar saying "You have new messages" until they go look at their talk page. If they can't find the new message quickly at the bottom, an experienced editor will look at the history.  GRBerry 19:10, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

One last thing: I've deleted the user and talk pages associated with TautologistPneumaticPontificator, as they're not needed and didn't represent an account in any case.  Acroterion  (talk)  19:33, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

How to edit a page
 * {talkback|Tautologist}

Welcome and Spines
I have seen your name popping up around the place, but this is the first time I ventured over to see your user page. Since you described yourself as an amateur botanist, I thought you might be interested in WikiProject Plants - there's a good group of people over there, including at least one other desert enthusiast that I can think of offhand. (I'm a plant ecologist myself, and am especially fascinated by any ecosystem that has plants with spines.) Hope to see you around. Guettarda (talk) 22:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Spines, or setae
 * Thanks for the greet. I have a year 1632 edition of the Anatomy of Melancholy which has the best “spine” of any book I have ever seen (looks like that Gaudi staircase, and 400 year old leather treated with hundreds of years of oil from human hands is always nice, but this is special).  More seriously, I assume you are using spine, thorn, prickle, etc. colloquially and thus interchangeably.  1. I am currently in Los Angeles, and the spines (sharp processes) on the fruit of Marah macrocarpus (nice roots, too), when the fruit is dried before dehiscing, cause an eerie  musical sound reminiscent of Xenakis’ Electroacoustic music from the early 1960’s.  It grows in the interesting chaparral ecosystem, which required fire every few decades or so to survive.  2. Last year I hired a young biology student at Caltech to go over to the desert garden at Huntington and pluck the spines of each cactus (or thorny plant) to determine which had the best musical sound for making a sound sculpture there, and he came up with the same cacti I already chose, Ferrocactus sp. with  hooked spines, and Echinocactus grusonni.  3. I paid in advance to participate in a botanical expedition of Socotra last fall, but my mother had cancer, was hospitalized a couple of days before I was to leave, and died last May. 4. I was dating a woman last year who had recently returned from the spiny forest in Madagascar! That is where I recommend you check for spines.  EricDiesel (talk) 22:52, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * A bit more on local spines... Of course Opuntia is local here (never touch the fruit!, and the spine of the various Opuntia chollas has a sheath that comes off in your skin), but Leptidactylon californicum and Argemone munita have got to be the worst, for spines, and for illustrating an interesting feature of the local ecosystem.  In mature chaparral, there are spiny woody plants like Ceonothus spinosus, but if there is a fire, most of the fire followers, which are herbaceous and only grow for a year  or two after a fire before being drowned in woody competitors, are spiny.  If not for fires, they would go extinct, and the one year of life, out of every thirty to hundred years, cycle means that if they get eaten before seeding, they are extinct, explaining the spines.  Oh, yeah, the jumping cholla propogates when the spine gets caught in large mammals, whence the jointed branch breaks off and transports the plant segment to a new location to start a new colony. EricDiesel (talk) 23:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Looks like some work needed at Wikipedia from the .red links. EricDiesel (talk) 23:04, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep - I actually started to write "thorn" and ended up choosing "spine"...but what I really meant was "sharp pokey things" or, to use the common term where I come from, "picka". In southern Puerto Rico, where I did my doctoral fieldwork, they have a nice little Opuntia (Opuntia repens, yet another red link that needs to turn blue) that appears to share its dispersal trait with the jumping chollas...not fun, especially at the end of a long day of field work.
 * I'm sorry to hear about your mother. Socotra would be a fascinating place to visit, as would any part of Madagascar.  Guettarda (talk) 12:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Puerto Rico, Spiny and not
 * Opuntia - I didn’t even know Puerto Rico had cacti. I have to go check at Huntington desert Gardens this week (I will always make any excuse to go there).  The link was blue, and I put the available Wikipedia Opuntia picture in, but it is not very good, as I can not tell it is similar to the Mojave, Colorado, and Sonora desert “jumping chollas”.
 * Ceiba - Ceiba pentandra is a common cultivar in Los Angeles, and has spines that make it look like “prehistoric monster” spines. But your Peurto Rico has that nice 400 year old, but  spineless,  Ceiba pendtadra, in Viequas.
 * link to photo of Specimen Ceiba pentandra in Vieques, Peurto Rico
 * This Ceibas has buttress roots that look like a tree at CSAA near USC, or in Santa Barbara,
 * link to photo of Specimen Ficus macrophylla in Santa Barbara, Ca, USA
 * Photos- I stuck both references to specimen photos and made a specimen photo section in the buttress root article, but I do not know how to put the nice photos in the links there. What is the procedure to take photos off the internet to use at Wikipedia?  At your suggestion, I am writing a “Flora of the Santa Monica Mountains” article, but I don’t know which photos I can use.  I also wanted to use two photos for edits I did on Butoh and Rite of Spring yesterday, but I don’t know how. EricDiesel (talk) 16:10, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


 * It's rare to find random photos from the net that are licensed correctly, that's one of the motivations to be taking our own. But do check out the commons if you haven't already, there is quite a bit of material available already, for instance commons:Category:Ceanothus has nearly half of all the Ceanothus species represented. Stan (talk) 16:20, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice find on that picture from Britton and Rose. I actually took my own advice and created the O. repens article after I replied to you this morning.

The south coast of Puerto Rico is quite dry - it's behind the rain shadow of the central mountains. There are several native cacti - a few Opuntias, Pilosocereus royenii, Leptocereus quadricostatus, and a Harrisia or two, and a Hylocereus, which is an epiphyte that ranges into quite wet areas. The reason I compared O. repens to the jumping cholla was due to its ability to hitch a ride on your clothes or your skin. And since the spines are barbed, they are really hard to get off you or out of your skin, once you've broken off the pads.
 * I speculated about the jumps from your message, so it may be common enoght knowledge to remove my {citation needed} tag I put in your article. EricDiesel (talk) 20:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

As for Ceiba pentandra - at least in Trinidad (which is where I'm actually from) the young trees have spines on their trunks, but the older trees have spineless trunks. Which makes sense to me.
 * Makes sense to me, too, but evolutionary arguments for "why", compared to "that" (e.g., that the young are not eaten, but the old are chewed but not eaten) need to be confirmed with other evidence. I lived on top of the mountain above Stanford U for eleven years, and one of my room mates was a postdoc from Trinidad, doing NASA related stuff at SRL, as I vaguely recall. EricDiesel (talk) 20:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Some my favourite spines (or thorns? or prickles? I don't know right now) are on Zanthoxylum martinicense. They can be pretty impressive, though not at all sharp. this species is somewhat similar to Z. martinicense. But in my experience, Desmoncus wins the prize. Not only does it have 2-inch spines, it's also a scrambler, so it can form these tangled thickets. And the worst part are the hooks on the end of the branches that it uses to scramble - they're just massive hooks. Guettarda (talk) 19:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Re these links, you were right above that "there's a good group of people over there" - this is fun. Here is a question - The spines on Ceiba can get pretty interesting looking, like a strange dinosaur, and there is tesselation of bark, fractal splitting in two dimensions, either with age, like in an old oak or old yucca, e.g., Beucarnia recurvata, or for some evolutionary reason, like Dioscorea elephantipes or Dioscorea mexicana, which look like turtle shells.  The question is, is there a combination of Ceiba spikes on Dioscorea tesselation bumps on anything See ? (I just love bark) EricDiesel (talk) 20:04, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Compare these two spiny images - http://crazysalad.typepad.com/crazysalad/images/2008/04/09/marah_macrocarpus.jpg http://www.liewcf.com/blog/wp-images/porcupine-baby.jpg EricDiesel (talk) 22:28, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Marah macrocarpus -
 * Not a Marah macrocarpus, but a Erethizon sp.  -

Location
Heh, you didn't have to go to that much work - the title Image:Stan Shebs above Berkeley.jpg includes a big hint :-), plus the exif data shows date and time. I was on one of the roads in back of UCB - if you magnify the image all the way and squint, you can make out the north tower of the Golden Gate Bridge in the distance on the left. I actually live in Las Vegas, but visit Bay Area regularly. Stan (talk) 00:40, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Desert
Heh, I've certainly been photographing a bunch of the desert plants, though usually leaving it to others to do the writing part these days - mostly because I have a 30,000+ picture backlog still waiting to be uploaded! It was a simple goal; find and photograph the 1,400 taxa of the Mojave, since most of them don't have pics in WP, and some don't have pics anywhere(!). In practice, though, it's pretty hard, once you get down to looking for the rares - I've been concentrating on the thousand or so taxa of the Spring Mountains this year, and got a bunch of them, but still several hundred to go. I haven't done anything with the Cactus and Succulent Society, though would like to hit Huntington Gardens one of these days - a little less grueling to photograph them in captivity! Perhaps we could rendezvous for an expedition or two; there are a bunch of DV endemics still to find... Stan (talk) 16:13, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * 1. I have the reverse of your laziness-disorder; I like to write, but leave photographing to others - its too much work.
 * 2. There will be an insider (this is an invitation) Butoh performance by Tamano in a few weeks, in the city of Joshua Tree, at the home of Eva Soltes (formerly home of composer Lou Harrison, and one of the first European-American straw bale homes).
 * 3. The 84 year old guy, J.D., whose home abuts the park is where the Joshua Tree Butoh was last year, is a former State Park Ranger who led tours of Baja in the 1960's. J.D. has a strange inverted property with "a valley at the top", not bottom, indicating faulting.  He noticed a spot of white powder in the "valley at the top".  He then noticed more in another location, then more.  He then noticed that the spots were in a line, so inferred they were the remnants of ancient springs, whence he looked carefully at the flora in the cracks.  A new 'fern was found, in the bone dry desert, having evolved at the ancient, now dried up springs.  So it is a nice place to poke around in...
 * 4. I instantly jump into my 4x4 at any invite to the desert, or into my car at any request for Huntington, so careful with any invites.
 * 5. I paid in advance for a trip with a bunch or pros to Socotra last fall, but my mother had cancer, was hospitalized two days before I was to depart for London, then Yeman, and she died in May.
 * PS- I like your "... " ! EricDiesel (talk) 16:35, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the invite! - dunno if I can make it, looming software delivery right now and so haven't been able to get away from the computer for more than a couple hours. It is cool that one can still find new things; I've found several Spring Mountains species in locations not recorded in the checklist published last year, been taking care to get shots with landmarks visible in the background so that they can be found again! Stan (talk) 12:52, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You sound useful. Maybe you can get some shots of landmarks in the background when I park my car in a lot.  I always seem to get lost and can't ever find it (or remember which car I drove, for that matter).  EricDiesel (talk) 02:09, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Fauna pics
You're quite right that seasonality is important, and it may take a year or two to complete the list. This is a longterm project and a year passes quickly. The tricky pictures, if they don't exist already, would be some of the rare lilies, like my favorite the Humboldt lily, and some plants that only appear following wildfires. Still, it's a worthwhile effort. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I admire your fortitude and commitment. I've met LaBonge but not Sol. I've climbed Saddle Peak a few times, but have spent more time hiking on the other side of the canyon, including several walks up theBullgog Motorway and countless hikes though Malibu Creek and Tapia. In more recent times I used to climb Mt Hollywood weekly (in boots), and still get to the park occasionally. When I was there last month I saw that the giant wild rye grass, Elymus condensatus, was springing back from its roots. Plus many common species, like the deer weed, Lotus scoparius, and even a big Jimson weed. There use to be a nice stand of some kind of wild penstemon on the Razorback ridge, but it disappeared a few years ago when a bulldozer came through. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Oh, you must meet Sol. He is 93 years old and walks to the top of Mt. Hollywood daily at sunrise.  He moved to the base of Griffith Park (GP) near Los Feliz and Vermont in 1937 and has walked to the top every day for 70 years!  Tom LaBonge just dedicated a bench to him in GP a few weeks ago. I just started to learn about plants last year, when my mother got cancer and I came to LA to care for her, and I had to make up something to kill time.  I don't know grasses yet, as you may see from the the list; thin on monocots. EricDiesel (talk) 13:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

fact tags
Fact tags are not a shortcut for looking up sources when you write. So don't use lots of fact tags in original writing - either write things that don't need them (uncontroversial statements, for example), or look up the sources so you can cite them yourself. Very rarely, you may run into a statement that you know can be cited but can't locate a citation for. But your recent edits to the mathematical proof article are misusing the tags. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 03:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Is a fact tag this {.{citation needed}}? I have been using them liberally in places that are not controversial, but where I know where to find a source, but don't have access to the source right now, as a sort of personal note, unless someone elsse fills it in.  I won't use them except rarely, especially if I don't think it could be controversial. If a fact tag is something else, let me know.  Thnx for heads up.  Tautologist (talk) 04:09, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * If something isn't likely to be disputed, you don't need to use a fact tag / citation needed tag at all. The reason they are called fact tags is that many people type them as . The code  has the same effect. &mdash; Carl (CBM · talk) 04:29, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

September 2008
Please stop adding unreferenced controversial biographical content to articles or any other Wikipedia page. Content of this nature could be regarded as defamatory and is in violation of Wikipedia policy. If you continue, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Jclemens (talk) 04:31, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Which content is in voilation and why? What was unreferenced? Tautologist (talk) 04:39, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits. The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced defamatory content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Jclemens (talk) 04:48, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * You did not respond to my questions. All info was from reliable sources.  Please answer previous questions. Tautologist (talk) 04:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Reread WP:BLP. If you really don't get it, I suggest you bring it up on the article talk page.  Please also note that per WP:3RR, BLP reversions are unlimited, just in case you might be counting. Jclemens (talk) 04:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Which content is in voilation and why? What was not referenced from reliable sources.?Tautologist (talk) 05:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Redirect
At the risk of making an unintentional pun on your username, you might want to note that the redirect you recently created at Analytic apriori redirects to itself. Please fix this if you can, before the redirect is deleted. --Russ (talk) 13:47, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ha.  My redirect has got even less content than a tautology, if that's possible.  Given what analytic apriori means,  yours is almost a triple pun (double pun?).  I sent it to A priori and a posteriori (philosophy) or Analytic-synthetic distinction.  I think I might have created the redirect as from "analytic aprioiri" to "Analytic apriori", but don't recall.   Surprisingly, I found no article on "Analytic apriori"?  Or did I miss it somehow? Thnx. Tautologist (talk) 16:37, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Ovchinnikov
I'm afraid not. I don't own any, personally, and I do not currently have any access to any university libraries. My local public library doesn't seem to have anything, either. I'm checking to see if I can access WorldCat somehow, but it's not looking rosy. Chubbles (talk) 20:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm new here. What's the policy on You Tube clips?  Also, rights for post Soviet Union films?


 * A very in teresting story on this topic is that I met Lucas Ligeti when we were both at Stanford U. He said his father, Georgi Ligeti (Atmospheres), went to see 2001 Space Odessey in a little theater in Hungary.  He was surprised to hear his own music driving the film.  The Soviet Union then sued Kubric.  Kubric's lawyers argued that a composer did not own his music, or else a News Broadcaster could not show the news, since everyone's music is playing in the background.  It was Breschnev vs. Nixon, communism vs capitalism.  Ligetti ended up getting nothing.  At least that's how Lucas Ligetti told it.  Tautologist (talk) 20:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

The whole situation behind the 2001 music is fascinating. Kubrick had someone (Alex North) compose an entire score for it and then told the guy to stuff it, basically. Also, if you go dig up musicological essays from the late 1960s, they talk about the film and its music constantly. They were obsessed with it, made references to it all the time and endlessly discussed its musico-theatrical-philosophical implications. It's pretty amusing.

There is a wild and fierce brigade of editors who aggressively remove YouTube links from articles. This is mostly to do with the fact that most of what is on YouTube is of uncertain copyright status, although they rarely check. You're probably best leaving them out, unless you can defend it and are willing to do so strenuously. I don't know anything about copyrights on Russian film; you could ask at WP:COPY, I guess. I'm not a lawyer, sorry. Chubbles (talk) 20:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I have the soundtrack to Solaris, but it is copyrighted.


 * Another interesting story is that I am a Butoh dancer. The first time I went to a workshop at the Tamano's, they started playing excerpts of it for the rehearsal  But the excerpts were not quite as I remembered them (how very Solaris, a defective reproduction.)  I asked where they got their version.  It was on an old cassette.  Hiroko Tamano said a Japanese composer friend composed it and gave it to her in the 1960's, years before Solaris!  Maybe Artemeyev did the musique concrete thing and borrowed from it.  (The same musique thing happened in the score for Satyricon, but I don't have a source, just the prior and current recordings on old LP's.)Tautologist (talk) 20:35, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

For Solaris, you might be able to include a very short clip. The use of non-free stuff has gotten much stricter over the past year or two, so I would definitely suggest checking with someone who does this a lot before you upload anything or spend time cutting audio files. Creation and usage of media files looks like the place to go for info, ask on the talk page there if you need more help. Chubbles (talk) 20:43, 25 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you know anyone who could resolve the Japan vs Artemeyev quetion? I wanted to include it in the Solaris article. Tautologist (talk) 21:00, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think I do. Perhaps you could even publish it. Chubbles (talk) 14:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * In case you miss it on my talkpage I've never even seen the movies you asked about, but I might have seen part of Rublev. I've only seen two movies by this director in full.--T. Anthony (talk) 23:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Physical art
I filled out Physical art more since your tags. It is contrasted with conceptual art. It is also used in the context of reference to it is in the aesthetics of mathematics, as physical art is never a mathematical object. Please check and remove the tags if appropriate, or let me know if more is needed.
 * Please reply on my page. Thnx Tautologist (talk) 18:09, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Paul M. Fleiss
I was in an edit conflict with you and may have deleted something in error. I called Paul and Mike is his cousin. I thought brother since Jesse calls him "Uncle Mike". I will be seeing Paul at a meeting of Hollywood Hill and at CFI West tonight, if any sources seem quesitonable. Regarding age, you are correct about Mike, but interrestingly, Paul's father entered colledge at about age 15 ,and med school at about age 18, but I have to source this before adding it, as it is just from memory. Tautologist (talk) 18:52, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry about the edit conflict. It was my fault. I thought you were finished.
 * All I had done was added a "Refimprove" banner to the article and a "dubious" note to the statement that Mike Fleiss was Paul's brother. — Malik Shabazz (talk · contribs) 18:57, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Mental world
What are your sources for this article? - <font face="Verdana">CobaltBlueTony™ talk 19:06, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was just writing from my head, assuming it was all nonconroversial. I added sources and links.  Tautologist (talk) 19:26, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Bible Quiz
Did you mean to post that message to me on my talk page? Just curious. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 04:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I thought I posted something on your talk page under a new section title. "name", but I can't find it on your talk page, user page, history on either, or in my own contributions history. ??? Just idle chatter, it had no real content, just that I figured out what your name meant and am a bit of a hick myself. But now I am curious where I may have erroneously put it??? Tautologist (talk) 05:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Lord only knows. I've done it myself. :-) - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, i can't find it. I said something like that i'm a hick too, now a desert hick, but originally Ahm from Musurra, where I was born with a Twain show-me-state empirical bent, or more briefly, was I was born bent.
 * I have a wonderful friend who is a real KY hick. She went back to KY to care for her father with altzhiemers until he died, then after meeting my mom once she was almost the only one to visit my mom in the hospital before my mom recently died of cancer, then she cared for her 93 year old first violin teacher until it became impossible and the teacher checked into a retirement home, then just she became the volunteer financial director of the American Youth Symphony to try to save it from bankrupcy. That's where i got my stereotyped opinions of KY hicks. Tautologist (talk) 15:41, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sounds like a fine representative of the great Commonwealth of Kentucky. Better than myself, I would say. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Mathematical joke
Hi there. Thanks for editing the page, but I have two requests. Firstly, this is not a huge issue, but if you're going to make lots of edits in a row to one section could you try using the "show preview" button? It makes it easier to track what you've actually changed without cluttering up the history page too much. Secondly, if you look at the big tag up the top and on the talk page, what this article needs right now isn't more jokes, it's more references. Would you be able to help out in that area? Thanks, Confusing Manifestation (Say hi!) 05:22, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Got it, sorry, I'm new and learning by doing. I will try looking for some references.  I was actually hoping someone would be able to help with some of mine, as they are classics from folklore.  I put a note on the talk page regarding the "folklore encyclopedia paradox" regarding references.  Tautologist (talk) 11:11, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Muthee quotes, context, Boston Herald
Collect, as you can see on my talk page, after my youth I became a worker for a Republican supervisor. I am trying to keep the articles about people associated with Palin before the vp nomination free of any vp campaign comentary, and include all notable info from a neutral, fact based, no poinions or commentary by media or editors, viewpoint. This is so that any addition of info can be deleted as coatrack, without the addition editors crying censorship. Reading your talk page, I do not think our perspectives are very different. I am a collector, too,as I will describe in another section here. Tautologist (talk) 14:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I am glad you are a collector. My background in sciences, unfortunately, makes me exceedingly cautious about asserting things about others. I, by the way, consider the Boston Herald to be neutral and fact based. Collect (talk) 14:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)


 * My background is in science, too, and I am a very hard nose skeptic, especially of my own writings. I helped run the Statistical Consulting Service at Stanford University for a number of years, which included consulting for every science department on campus.  I brutally attacked the lax experimental designs ad publishing standards, where "publish or perish" was more important than objectivity.  I am my own most harsh critic.  If any factual info about Muthee is left out, others will start an edit war to put it back in, and put it in with a POV for or against Palin, when the article is about Muthee.  There is a huge amount of info online over the years regarding Muthee and Wasilla Assembly of God, most of it likely accurate, but I find the sources unreliable.  Unfortunately, the best way to find a reliable source info on Muthee and WAoG is to use the new reporting by NPR, Christian Science Monitor, Times of London, etc., which is filled with Palin stuff, then filter out any post nomination Palin info.  Some of the Palin info pertains to Muthee, not just Palin.  That is why I deleted the "Palin stood by quietly" coatrack, as her action is not relevant to Muthee, unless she specifically discusses or cmments on Muthee, e.g., her gubernatorial bid is relevant to Muthee as he took action on his own regarding it.  If he does something in the vp race, then it will become relevant to Muthee, but so far, fortunately, there is not.  Please take a look at the carefull wording in my last edit there, as I specifically worded it after reading your talk page.  The central idea of the edit is not to leave out any Muthee info, so there will be no reason to add any coatrack Palin stuff. I have read the literature on Muthee, and no one will find any Palin stuff to add to the current edit, so it should be easy to argue to revert the article back to its present state if anyone tries to do so.  Thnx. Tautologist (talk) 14:36, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with you, and with your addition of the Boston Herald info. I was goipng to include it myself, but I thuoght it inappropriate since my it might be my own bias, since I agree with the Boston Herald's POV!  My concern is that someone who does not agree with the opinion will either delete it, or try to add in a different media opinion, then a back and forth will develop and junk up the article with additional info.  If your contrib is deleted, I will restore your edit, but no guarantees if an edit war starts.  I am moving this thread over to the Muthee talk page, in hopes that others will leave the Muthee article with your last edit and not try to modify it.  Tautologist (talk) 14:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * One problem is the cultural nature of prayer. For example, how would you describe the following prayer? "I adjure thee, unclean spirit, in the name of the Father and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost to depart and remain far away from this servant of God Emily. He commands thee now who walked dry-shod upon the waters, and when Peter would have perished in the sea stretched out to him his saving hand. And so, accursed spirit, give heed to the sentence passed upon thee."? Would such a prayer be relevant to an article? Collect (talk) 14:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I think the prayer quote would go well in an article on the Inquisition, and on witch hunting, and even in the Muthee article if it can be sourced that he uses this to justify hiw witch hunting, which he likely does. I agree with your cultural attitudes comment, as US Salem history creates a culture that is very different, and recent Hutu-Tutsi savagery was in part "justified" with witchcraft allegations, not so often mentioned.
 * I agree with youyour addition of the Boston Herald info at the end. I was going to include it myself, but I thought it inappropriate since my it might be my own bias, since I agree with the Boston Herald's POV!  My concern is that someone who does not agree with the opinion will either delete it, or try to add in a different media opinion, then a back and forth will develop and junk up the article with additional info.  If your contrib is deleted, I will restore your edit, but no guarantees if an edit war starts.  I am moving this thread over to the Muthee talk page, in hopes that others will leave the Muthee article with your last edit and not try to modify it.

I am moving this thread to the Muthee talk page. Tautologist (talk) 15:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

For your information -- the prayer I cited is in the trsditional English Roman Catholic Rite of Baptism. I think my point is made? Collect (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 15:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC).


 * Yes, it is one of the prayer cited by those persecuting the Salem/Inquisition activities. Before she recently died at age 96, Laura Huxley made me director of the Thomas Henry Huxley and Aldous Huxley Foundation.  Aldous wrote a historic book called Devils of Loudun about this stuff, and Ken Russell made it into a superb and horrific film, The Devils.

One thing that did not burn down in my fire was my 1632 edition of "Anatomy of Melancholy", which I had given to someone in LA. It is an early attempt at a science of psychology, and partially attributes "bad moods" and "bad health" to "demons in the blood", which was the basis of bloodletting in historic western "medicine" (scare quotes emphasised here). Tautologist (talk) 15:26, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Brian1979 Help
Thanks for cleaning up spell errors on my talk page. Is there a spell checker for Wiki edits? Tautologist (talk) 22:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Not that I know of. Really, I was doing disambig for Victorian, and in reading your page I noticed the typos and didn;t think you'd mind me fixing them. :)  Happy editing! -FateSmiled&amp;DestinyLaughed (talk) 23:21, 2 October 2008 (UTC)